pv5n6 2 PDF

Volume 5, Number 6 November-December, 2003
Final Issue
Includes:
Raumwaffe, 1946 Boeing WS-110A
X-Wings Dash-On-Warning
ISSN 1534-2573
Aerospace Projects Review
Vol. 5 No. 6, November - December 2003
Editor-In-Chief: Scott Lowther Contributors: Scott Lowther, Dennis Jenkins
Aerospace Projects Review (ISSN 1534-2573) is published six times per year by Scott Lowther, 11305 W 10400 N, Thatcher, UT 84337. Send
all inquiries, letters changes of address and submissions to the address above. Contents © 2002 Scott Lowther, all rights reserved and don’t you
forget it. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

11305 W 10400 N or e-mail to: scottlowther@ix.netcom.com
Thatcher, UT 84337
Editorial Rant:
Well, that’s that. Took long enough to get this final issue out the door (a bit over a year and a half late...); hopefully,
it was worth the wait. At the very least, I finally finished two articles that I had intended to do almost from day one...
and I finally get to use profanity! Woo!
Table of Contents:
Page
Raumwaffe 1946 by Scott Lowther 3
Facts about wartime German space efforts... and about some post-war nonsense
2 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Raumwaffe 1946
By Scott Lowther
World War II saw many advances in aeronautical technology. The war began with fabric-covered wooden biplanes
and ended seven years later with jets, atomic weapons, computers and liquid fueled rockets that traveled through the
vacuum of space to hit their targets. The most startling advances in aeronautics emerged from the German war
effort. Due in part to German ingenuity, wartime desperation and historical dumb luck, Germany came startlingly
close to actually achieving spaceflight. Several German projects served as the basis for post-war efforts that paid
off. This article will describe the most advanced of these designs, and will try to separate some fact from the
phenomenal amount of fiction that has arisen over the years. Even so, many of the designs are more speculative than
what is usually presented in the pages of Aerospace Projects Review; some of the designs have been reconstructed
to the best of the data available. However, some designs have very little hard data to go on; consequently, some of
the reconstructions are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Part One: The Peenemünde Efforts
Man’s reach into space began in World War Werner von Braun and several others were arrested
II Germany. On the peninsula of Peenemünde, a team for “sabotaging” the A-4 program. The charges were
of rocket engineers and rocket scientists led by based on von Braun having been overheard in a
Werner von Braun turned the dream of rockets to social gathering stating that spaceflight was always
space into reality. The team was run and paid by the the goal of the team. This, to the SS, meant that he
German army, and the German army had no interest and others were not devoting their entire effort to the
in spaceflight. They were, however, interested in new project, and thus were sabotaging it. Only the direct
and powerful weaponry, and the rocket had the and determined intervention of General Dornberger
promise of military dominance. prevented disaster for these men; their release was
obtained a few days later, but suspicions remained.
In order to develop those military weapons,
though, the team had to be made up of forward A-1 and A-2
thinking, far-seeing visionaries. This team of people, The A (for “Aggregate”) series of rockets
regardless of their interest in politics or the military, designed and developed by EMW form the nucleus
was greatly interested in the promise of space. Their not only for many of the truly advanced concepts to
interest in spaceflight needed to be covered up, or come out of Germany before the end of the war, but
they’d face trouble from the military. It is clear that also of the American and Soviet post-war missile and
the space bug was indulged. According to von Braun: space launcher programs. Remarkable technical
“An unbiased visitor to the planning group at advancements were made with these rockets; this in
Peenemünde would have heard little, if anything, turn has led to the A-series being used as the basis for
discussed which related to other matters than quite a range of fictional designs.
reaching into space…”
The A-1 was the Peenemünde groups first
This team of scientists and forward thinking flight vehicle… although at this time (until 1936) the
engineers did not have a name that accurately group was working at Kummersdorf, near Berlin.
reflected their goals or purpose; they were given the About 4.6 feet in length and 1 foot in diameter, the
intentionally uninteresting code name of A-1 was a rather odd round-ended cylindrical shape,
“Electromechanische Werke” – EMW. devoid of fins or active controls. Instead, a rotating
85 pound weight in the nose was used to provide
Even though the group could not be as open gyroscopic stability. The A-1 used an alcohol/liquid
about their private goals as they would have liked, oxygen engine that had proven to be reliable. This
the fact remains that the German military paid vast engine generated 650 pounds of thrust, and was
sums of money to EMW to develop rockets to a submerged within the alcohol tank. With a gross
degree far beyond where they would have gone on weight of 330 pounds, the A-1 would have a decent
private funds. thrust to weight ratio.
So strained was the relationship between the Stories differ regarding the fate of the A-1…
EMW team and the SS that on March 15, 1944, it was alternately abandoned before flight, or it tore
Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 3

itself to bits on its first test. In any event, the A-1 did Unlike the A-1 and A-2, the A-3 had a body
not fly and the design was very quickly revised. The shaped for high speed flight, with a sharply pointed
A-2 was a greatly improved although similar design, ogival nose. The A-3 abandoned the gyroscope as a
with the gyroscopic stabilizing weight moved from direct means of maintaining stability and instead
the nose to the midsection and the engine improved added long, thin fins and a tail ring that dropped off
to 2200 pounds of thrust. Two A-2s were built, and in early during flight. Gyroscopes were retained,
December 1934 both flew to 6500 feet altitude. The though, as a control mechanism. The gyroscopic
A-2 was far from a militarily useful rocket…but it control mechanism was linked to four small graphite
did prove that the rocket team was able to design, vanes projecting into the exhaust stream, and was
build and fly complex liquid fueled rockets. meant to assure that the vehicle maintained a vertical
attitude during powered flight. The control system
was built by an outside contractor, and linked
gyroscopes with accelerometers.
The propulsion system was similar to that of

the A-2, with alcohol and liquid oxygen forced into a
rocket engine buried within the alcohol tank by
means of pressurized nitrogen. The nitrogen was kept
as a cryogenic liquid within a small tank inside the
liquid oxygen tank; nitrogen gas was provided by the
use of electrical resistance heaters. This was a very
forward-thinking notion. The rocket engine was very
lengthy, and took up the entire length of the alcohol
tank; the alcohol bath served to cool the engine.
The nose of the A-3 was packed with

batteries and instruments. Included were a barometer
and a thermograph to study the upper atmosphere To
record the data provided by these instruments, a small
film camera was also included. A recovery parachute
was stored between the propellant tanks.
The A-3 was a masterpiece of engineering.

Unfortunately, it was flawed. Four A-3s were
launched in December of 1937, and all four failed in
flight. The first two suffered control system failures;
the second two were launched without their
parachutes, and weathercocked badly upon liftoff and
crashed immediately thearafter. The aerodynamic
Figure 1: A-2 (A-1 was similar) fins proved to provide too much aerodynamic
stability, and before the craft were moving fast
enough for the aerodynamic forces to stabilize the
vehicles, the wind caught the fins and kicked the
A-3
vehicles over. All the expensive equipment on board
The A-3 rocket was the first really modern was lost. However, the A-3 did prove that von
rocket of the A-series. The A-3 was to be a far larger Brauns team was capable of building and launching
and more capable rocket, with greater height to be large rockets; they simply needed to greatly improve
attained; as a result, the Kummersdorf location was the control system.
deemed too restrictive. The Peenemünde location on
the Baltic was procured, and work on the A-3 began.

Figure 2: A-3 rocket, interior and exterior. The plastic ring around the ends of the fins fell off shortly after liftoff.

A-5
Although the A-4 rocket comes next

numerically, the A-5 was actually next in terms of
development. By the time the A-3 failed in flight, the
A-4 designation had already be given to the intended
operational military rocket. However, due to the
failure of the A-3 control system, it was clear that
another test and development vehicle was needed,
and that vehicle was the A-5.
The A-5 was quite similar to the A-3 in

many respects. The propulsion system was largely
similar, but the stability system was radically
changed. The fins were increased in span but reduced
in length. The graphite control vanes were notably
larger. And instead of picking a single gyroscopic
control system, three sub-contractors competed. The
control system turned out to be very time consuming,
so that the first A-5 launch did not occur until
October of 1939, and the other two the following
April. Unlike the A-3, the A-5 proved to have a
perfectly useful guidance and stabilization system.
The A-5, like the A-3, had a parachute

recovery system. Unlike the A-3, the A-5s chute was
successfully used numerous times; more than twenty
A-5s were launched between 1939 and the end of
1941, and a number of them were recovered and re-
used. After splashdown in the Baltic, divers would
recover the A-5 floating in the water.
Prior to the launch of the first A-5, there was

concern that the vehicle would prove unstable at
transonic speeds. Wind tunnel testing was expensive
and ongoing, so the Peenemünde machinists made
models of the A-5 out of solid iron. These models
were then dropped from aircraft. Observers in aircraft
watched the models, and noted that the models did
not go unstable as they passed the speed of sound. A
simple solution proved the A-5 aerodynamics.
The fins designed for the A-5 were scaled up Figure 3: A comparison of the A-5 (left) with the A-
and fitted to the A-4. Fins like those on the A-4 are 3 (right)
distinctive and somewhat unusual in shape when
compared to those of later missiles, although a
number of immediately post-war missiles and missile
projects used the same fin geometry. Those missiles
used the A-4 fins because the A-4s fins obviously
worked. However, the A-4 fins were shaped and
sized specifically to fit through railway tunnels. And
yet, when larger or smaller missiles were designed
after the war, the A-4s fin geometry, pioneered on the
A-5, was often used without really knowing why.

A-4
The design that first launched a man-made object
into space was the ground breaking A-4 (Aggregate-
4) rocket, better known as the V-2. The A-4 was
aerodynamically very similar to the A-5, but differed
greatly internally. The most obvious difference was
the change in the engine design; the A-4 engine was a
new generation of engine. The A-4 engine, capable of
generating 25 tons of thrust, was what might be
reasonably called the first modern large rocket
engine.
Figure 4: Cutaway view of the A-5 Figure 5: An early vision of the A-4, appearing to be
nearly a photographic scaleup of the A-5.

Virtually every aspect of modern rocket engine would of course be impossible, and there was
engines was represented in the A-4 engine. To cool always the risk of some part of the igniter causing
the engine, the fuel (75% alcohol, 25% water) was damage to the engine or the rear of the vehicle.
piped around the engine jacket. Regenerative cooling
like this is nearly universal in modern rocket engines. To direct the A-4 towards its target, the
As it turned out, this cooling was not sufficient… rocket was equipped with two separate control
there were occasional burn-throughs of the rocket systems. Immediately upon ignition of the engine, the
chamber near the throat. To solve this, small holes rocket could control its direction through the use of
were drilled through the wall near the throat and into graphite vanes that projected into the rocket exhaust.
the coolant channels… cold fuel would be injected The vanes would be destroyed by the exhaust, but
directly into the engine, and would film cool the would last long enough to remain effective until the
region of the throat. small aerodynamic control fins at the outer trailing
edge of the fins could take over. The control surfaces
To force the propellants into the engine, the would only remain effective until the A-4 left the
A-4 dispensed with the nitrogen pressurization atmosphere, at which point the vehicle would be
system used on all the previous A-series rockets. completely unguided and would follow a purely
Instead, the A-4 used turbopumps. Rather than design ballistic trajectory.
the A-4 turbopumps from scratch, an exercise that
EMW had neither the time nor expertise for, they did It was not enough to simply have vanes and
something quite simple: they contracted the pump fins and actuators; in order to put the A-4 on the right
design out to a manufacturer of centrifugal water course, it also needed a guidance system. The A-4
pumps for firefighters. But to actually drive the originally had a guidance system that combined
pumps, a power source was needed. For this high- gyroscopes and a radio receiver. The gyroscopes
purity hydrogen peroxide was employed. would rotate and maintain a constant rotational axis
Catalytically decomposed upon contact with a independently of the attitude of the vehicles, with the
potassium permanganate solution, hydrogen peroxide relative positions between the pitch and roll/yaw
energetically produces large volumes of steam and gyros and the vehicle would be picked up by fine
gaseous oxygen. These gases were used to power wire potentiometers. The signal would then be
turbines, and the turbines in turn drove the pumps. amplified and sent to the appropriate rudder. Two
The hot steam and oxygen was then flowed past a radio receivers were also fitted… one would transmit
heat exchanger, which transferred some of the heat a signal to the launch site, with the Doppler effect
from the hot gas to the liquid oxygen tank; this determining the speed of the rocket. At the
helped to raise the pressure in the tank to both help appropriate moment, when the missile had reached
pump the propellant and also help keep the tank from the proper velocity, a signal would be sent from the
collapsing as the liquid was rapidly sucked from it. launch site, received by the second radio, and then
The hydrogen peroxide decomposition gas products the propellant flow would be cut off, shutting down t
were then dumped overboard through vents near the the he engine.
rear of the rocket.
The radio means of velocity determination
One difference that the A-4 engine had from was abandoned as it was too dependant upon ground
modern engines was the means of ignition. Modern facilities that, in wartime, could well be under attack.
rocket engines generally have a built-ignition system. The Doppler system was replaced with integrating
The A-4, however, had an external igniter. Put accelerometers which were entirely internal and had
simply, a swastika-shaped pyrotechnic Catherine no need of ground facilities.
wheel was attached to the end of a stick, and then
inserted into the engine through the throat. The One final means of guiding the A-4 was
Zundkreuz (“ignition cross”) was like four small quite simple. The launch platform, upon which the A-
solid rocket motors on little arms, free to rotate. 4 stood vertically before launch, was built to rotate.
When the A-4 propellants began to flow the igniter The platform would be rotated to point towards the
would be electrically fired; blazing while spinning target, and the A-4 would be simply pointed in that
madly within the engine and then consumed by the direction at launch.
larger fire created by the main rocket engine. This
sort of igniter is simple and cheap, and reduces the
complexity of the rocket engine. Restarting the

Figure 6: Layout of the A-4. Courtesy NASM

Figure 7: Cutaway drawings of the A-4 rocket. Note that the drawing on the right shows a later engine

Figure 8: Engineering drawing of A-4 rocket engine

The first attempted launch was on June 13, A-4s, and learned a great deal from them. But it was
1942. Disappointingly, but not overly surprisingly, the Soviets who got the most out of the A-4 itself,
the flight failed. It climbed into the clouds, but then with a large number of A-4-derived missiles being
fell back out of them and crashed into sea. Another developed. But the United States, rather than re-
failure occurred on August 16, when the rocket broke creating the A-4, used the German expertise to create
up after 45 seconds. However, that was long enough substantially improved missiles such as the Corporal
for the A-4 to pass the sound barrier without and the Redstone.
incident… the first time in history that a guided
vehicle had gone faster than sound. On October 3, In a very real sense, the A-4 was mankinds
1942, a truly successful flight was carried out, first spaceship. While it had no ability to navigate in
reaching a maximum altitude of 85 kilometers and a space, it at least had the ability to get there, and that’s
range of 190 kilometers. The A-4 had gone well half the battle. But perhaps one of the A-4s most
above the sensible atmosphere; in effect, it had gone important cultural contribution was in defining just
to space. Later that night, there was a celebration at what a spaceship was supposed to look like. Before
Peenemünde, at which General Walter Dornberger World War II, spaceships were generally depicted as
announced “This third day of October, 1942, is the rather squat cylindrical affairs with rounded noses
first of a new era in transportation, that of space and long fins, or as fanciful Flash Gordonesque
travel…” contraptions that owed nothing of their design to
science or engineering. But for more than ten years
In the two and a half years that followed, after the end of the war, the A-4 defined what a
thousands of A-4s were built and launched in anger. spaceship would look like. To this day, many decades
After wars end, many A-4s were captured by after “spaceship” was redefined as a collection of
American, British and Soviet forces; the Soviets utilitarian cylinders and cones, the shape of the “V-2”
captured Peenemünde itself. However, it was the is immediately recognizable as a spaceship.
United states that took the greatest prize… the bulk
of the documentation and most of the team that
designed it. In the years after the war, the United
States and the Soviet Union launched many of their
A-6
The A-6 is poorly known, and described author knows), the idea of an operational version of
conflictingly. What is known is that the A-6 was not the A-5 is not a ridiculous one. The A-5 was a very
built. successful design, and with little work could have
been made into a serviceable battlefield missile. A-5s
There are two A-6’s commonly described. were dropped several times from He-111 medium
The first is that the A-6 was supposed to be an A-4 bombers; air dropped A-6s would have been equally
built to use storable propellants; this sounds a great feasible, as would truck-launched versions. The
deal like the A-8, which is described later. engine of the A-5 was excessively long; improving
the mixing efficiency of the injectors would have
The other way in which the A-6 is described greatly increased the mixing efficiency and allowed a
is as an operational weapon version of the A-5 with a shorter and lighter engine. This would free up volume
shortened engine. While no drawings or further within the body of the missile, allowing either greater
details on this idea have come to light (so far as this propellant storage, increased payload or both.
A-7
The A-7 was a modification of the A-5 for before the recovery parachute was deployed. No
test purposes. To support the A-9/A-4b program, powered flights are known to have occurred. There
wings were added to the A-5. The A-7 was dropped are no known plans for using the A-7 as an
from an He-111 and glided properly for ten seconds operational vehicle.

Figure 9: A-7 layout
A-8
The A-8 was a series of similar designs for Sketch 1 shows a vehicle externally identical
an A-4 with storable propellants (see A-6). Four to the A-4. Payload would have been the A-4s 1
slight variations on the theme are known to have been metric ton, while range would have been 390
studied, all featuring diesel oil for fuel, and salbei kilometers. Gross mass was to be 17,650 kilograms,
(nitric acid) as oxidizer. The most obvious change in requiring an engine of 30 tons thrust. Burnout
structural design from the A-4 was a change in the velocity was to be 1800 meters/second.
relative sizes of the propellant tanks… the diesel oil Sketch 2 was a stretched version for
tank was very small in comparison to the nitric acid increased range to 415 km. Payload remained 1 ton
tank. The fuel/oxidizer ratio for diesel oil/nitric acid and thrust remained 30 tons, but gross mass was
is substantially different than that of alcohol- boosted to 20,240 kg and burnout velocity was
water/liquid oxygen, and consequently the tanks were slightly raised to 1860 m/sec.
completely redesigned. The engine and turbopumps Sketch 3 was further stretched. Gross mass
would also have to be greatly redesigned. The work was increased further to 22,370 kg, and thrust raised
on the A-8 seems to not have progressed past the to 35 tons. Burnout velocity was to be 2060 m/sec,
sketch and basic calculation stage, and no detailed and range 500 km.
designs on an A-4-sized engine for these fuels are Sketch 4 was the same size, thrust and gross
known to this author. mass as Sketch 3, but increased payload to 2 tons.
Burnout velocity was lowered to 1580 m/sec, and
Four versions of the A-8 are known from a range reduced to 300 km. This sketch shows the 2-
single report (and shown in Figure 10), though other ton payload (“nutzlast” in the original German), but
variations are likely to have been committed to paper. mistakenly calls it 1-ton.

Figure 10: A-8 designs

A-9/A-10
The range of the A-4 rocket was rather
limited. However, it came in at extremely high
speeds (Mach 5 or so), and it was early on recognized
that that kinetic energy could be converted to
extended range by making use of aerodynamic
gliding. Range could be extended further by using
multistage rockets.
One of the earliest concepts for a boost-glide

A-4 came in June 1939 with the design of a flying
wing version of the A-4. Completely redesigned
(except, it seems, for the engine), this conceptual
design featured conformal fuel and oxidizer tanks
within a low aspect ratio swept flying wing or lifting
body configuration. Little work seems to have been
done on this design apart from a preliminary
investigation. With a burnout velocity of 1500 m/sec
at 30 kilometers altitude, the total range was expected
to be 550 kilometers. While that was a substantial
increase in range over that of the A-4, it was nowhere
near adequate for reaching the dream target of the
German military: America.
Figure 12: A-9/A-10 as of June 10, 1941
Figure 11: An early (1939) concept for a flying wing The A-9/A-10 was composed of two stages:
A-4 derivative. The rocket engine was the only the A-9, a winged A-4; and the A-10, an all-new,
component that seems to have carried over. much larger booster rocket, the A-10. Work on such
multistage long-range rockets began as early as 1939,
One of the more advanced projects was the with an engineering design produced by the middle
A-9/A-10 ICBM. Designed to carry a one-metric-ton of 1941.
payload from bases in France to New York City, the
A-9/A-10 was a foretaste of the ICBM’s produced in
the late 1950’s. The A-9 as originally designed had narrow
strakes on the sides for wings, considered adequate to
produce the lift needed. The A-10 booster rocket was

equipped with astonishingly large fins, far larger in increase range. The considerable kinetic energy of
comparison to the size of the vehicle than the fins of the A-4, leading to very high impact speeds, would
the A-4. The A-9 was partially recessed into the nose be converted into gliding range. Impact speeds
of the A-10. These facts set the A-9/A-10 apart from would be greatly reduced, with a consequent decrease
any ICBM actually built. But there was one design in damage produced as well as decreasing accuracy.
feature the A-10 was to have that would have really By gliding in, rather than dropping in ballistically,
differentiated the A-10 from any ICBM: it was to be errors in targeting would be magnified, and
reusable. Steel mesh parachutes were to be deployed disruptions in trajectory from aerodynamic forces
which would allow the A-10 booster stage to safely would be greatly improved. However, the additional
splash down in the Atlantic, where the rocket would range would allow the A-4b to strike targets that the
be recovered by U-Boats and returned to the launch A-4, or even Luftwaffe bombers, could not reach.
area for re-use. This became especially important after the Normandy
invasion of 1944, when the Germans began losing
In 1941, this idea may have seemed to make prime launch sites from striking into Britain.
sense… the U-Boat wolfpacks were running riot
throughout the Atlantic. But in the years to follow, Another notion for increasing the range of
had Germany actually begun launching rockets at the the A-4b was to launch it from a catapult, in much
eastern seaboard of the US, one must wonder at the the same as the V-1. The launch speed was to be at
naval battles that would have been fought between least 350 meters per second. It is not known if any
forces of the US Navy and the Kriegsmarine to serious engineering effort went into this concept.
recover A-10 stages.
The original slim strakes of the A-9 were
The A-10 was to be powered by a single wind tunnel tested and found to be aerodynamically
200-ton thrust engine. Earlier notions had included lacking, in that CP (center of pressure) shifted
using six 30-ton thrustA-4-type engines, including drastically with Mach number, and the lift/drag ratio
one concept that had the six engines clustered was not very good. A large number of alternate wing
together and exhausting into one common chamber. configurations were studied:
Test stands were available at Peenemünde which V12/a: straight wings
could handle thrust levels of that magnitude. V13/e: Similar to the original, with the same
aerodynamic stability issues
Development of the A-9/A-10 was put off V12/f: unusual “stepped” planform actually
due to pressures to perfect the A-4. Work on showed considerable promise
substantially longer-ranged versions did not truly V12/c: 45° swept wings, a straightforward
resume until 1943. However, work on the A-10 design with considerable promise
received low priority, and was soon officially
cancelled when it became clear that development Less conventional configurations were also
would require another two years. examined, including stepped wings, extremely low
aspect ratio wings, and even biplane configurations;
but in the end, the V12/c was selected.
Von Brauns team was extremely interested
in pursuing any development that would lead to Two A-4bs were built and launched. The
improved performance, including the A-9/A-10. The first, G1 (“Glieter 1”), was launched from
drive to build a moon rocket was overpowering; so, Peenemünde on December 27, 1944… but the control
even when word had come from Hitler himself to system failed, and the vehicle only attained an
cease development of new weapons systems and altitude of 100 or so feet before it crashed back to
focus on existing weapons, the team found a way to Earth. The second to be launch, G3, (G2 suffered
continue their development efforts. The A-9 was a from a leaky alcohol tanks and was not launched),
required component of the A-9/A-10, but was flew on January 25, 1945. It was intentionally
disallowed since it was a new weapons system. EMW launched straight upwards, reaching an altitude of 48
got around this through descriptive sleight of hand: miles and surpassing 2700 miles per hour on ascent.
they re-designated the A-9 as the A-4b. On descent, it began to establish a glide as planned,
but one of the wings snapped off.
The A-4b was officially a straightforward
modification of the A-4… just add wings and

Figure 13: Drawings of A-4b wing configurations
Figure 14: Wind tunnel models showing various wing configurations tested for the A-9 and the Wasserfall
surface-to-air missile

Figure 15: While of poor quality, these photos show some of the many wing layouts studied for the A-4b. The
middle configuration in the top two lineups is a low-aspect-ratio biplane configuration.

Figure 16: Drawings of a wind tunnel model. This configuration, A-4/V-12/F, was found to be one of the more
overall stable configurations. Had the A-9/A-10 gone forward, the upper stage would have likely had either this
wing configuration or that actually used by the A-4b, the V12/c.

Figure 17: Another wing layout, the straight-winged V12/a. Compare this wing planform to that of the X-15 and the
F-104 Starfighter.

Figure 18: Configurations studied for winged A-4s (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 19: A-9/A-10 stages (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Manned V-2s
In a voluminous report published by the quality: it explodes. Acetylene stored in tanks for
American military shortly after the end of the war as cutting torch use is stabilized with foam and acetone
reports began to be translated, there is a short and inside the tank; were that stabilizer not there, the
intriguing description of a project for a manned A-9. acetylene would tend to detonate. The EMW team
This aircraft would be equipped with tricycle landing planned to stabilize the acetylene with ethane or
gear, all-new swept wings, a pressurized cockpit with ammonia.
a small teardrop canopy, a ramjet replacing the
ventral fin and a fuselage extension to hold a tank of The wings of the manned A-9 were notably
acetylene ramjet fuel. Three view drawings were different from those of the A-4b. While the leading
given, along with some performance estimates of edge sweep was the same at 45°, the span and wing
such astounding range that one must assume a major area were substantially increased. This is logical…
math error was made somewhere. the A-4b wing was sized to permit maximum glide
range, while the manned A-9 design had to be able to
The purpose of this vehicle was not given. It glide at a low landing speed. To further aid in low-
clearly wasn’t meant as an offensive weapon; if it speed controllability, leading edge flaps were to be
was meant to kamikaze into the White House, it installed. Another important change to the wings was
wouldn’t have been given landing gear, and no the addition of considerable dihedral, a change which
provision for carrying weapons internally or would have greatly improved stability. The vertical
externally is in evidence. A reconnaissance role is and horizontal stabilizer flaps seem to be enlarged
possible, but what is more likely is that this vehicle from those of the A-4b, but that is uncertain.
was designed just to see if such a vehicle could be
designed. Such non-military efforts would have been While far from certain, there may also have
more than frowned upon by the SS. been a design to mate the manned A-9 with an A-10
booster stage. This would have allowed considerable
Performance data was provided for single- range; but again, the purpose of this is uncertain.
stage operation. After the rocket motor propelled the References were made by von Braun, Dornberger and
vehicle to 20 kilometers altitude and 1000 meters per others to the desire for a manned version of the A-
second (2250 miles per hour, or Mach 3.4 at that 9/A-10, but these were always just notions, mostly
altitude), the ramjet would take over and provide just to prove that fast intercontinental manned flight
cruise power. The 1600 kilograms of ramjet fuel was possible. Dornberger suggested after the war that
would be used to maintain 1000 meters/second such a manned craft was meant for peacetime, and
velocity at 20 kilometers altitude for 1720 seconds could cross the Atlantic in 40 minutes.
(almost 29 minutes); total range, after considering
launch trajectory, cruise and glide would be 1800 Evidence for this project comes in the form
kilometers. Landing speed would be 160 kph of a sketch that von Braun had drawn up in the post-
war period (by artist Gerd de Beek, formerly the
Studies were also done with different chief illustrator at Peenemünde) and sent to the late
propellants for the rocket engine. Instead of the usual British rocket authority Kenneth Gatland; a copy of
liquid oxygen and alcohol, tetranitromethane and which was sent to this author.
visol were examined, with acetylene for the ramjet. A
total propellant load of 4.7 tons was carried, of which
2850 kilograms would be for the ramjet, leading to a
3000 second (50 minute) cruise. Total range would This is certainly a more or less realistic
be 3100 kilometers. concept, but the A-10 design is quite different from
any seen elsewhere. Other renditions of the A-10 had
Mention was also made of some rather a bulbous, rounded fuselage, while this one had a
optimistic ramjet fuel efficiencies of about ten times strictly cylindrical fuselage with a wide base,
that of the baseline engine. Using these numbers, implying a number of powerful engines. Long-span
ranges for the two propellant types jumped from fins are attached to the A-10, fins that would be
1800 km to 13,500 km, and from 3100 km to 23,500 needed to offset the pitching moment produced by
km. However, these ranges were highly unlikely. the A-9’s large wings. It’s not clear if this A-10 was a
later A-10 design or was simply post-war imagining.
The choice of acetylene for a ramjet fuel is a The fact that it was painted by de Beek certainly does
bit disturbing. Acetylene is certainly a well- not hurt its credibility, though.
performing fuel on paper, but it has a disconcerting

Figure 20: Manned A-9 as described in a 1946 US Army report

Figure 21: Artwork provided to the author by the late Ken Gatland (sketched by Gerd de Beek at von Brauns
direction) showing a manned A-9/A-10.

Figure 22: Provisional reconstruction of the von Braun/de Beek Manned A-9/A/10 (copyright ©2005, Scott
Lowther)

A-11 and A-12
The A-11 and A-12 concepts were for true (not A-9 or A-4b) third stage. Von Braun pointed out
space launch vehicles. The A-11 would have been yet that the A-11 would put its third stage into orbit, and
another new stage underneath the A-9/A-10; the A-9 also mentioned that a manned A-9 could be put into
(sans wings) would have gone into low Earth orbit orbit this way. Using the sparse data available on the
with a one-ton payload. The A-12 was even more A-11 and this one painting, a provisional
ambitious… a stage under the A-11. In the A-12 reconstruction of the A-11 vehicle has been made.
concept, the A-9 would be done away with The A-11 painting shows that the A-11 had the same
completely; instead, the A-10 would be converted engines as the A-10 second stage, just more of them.
into a winged, recoverable, manned space shuttle, The engines look much more like A-4 engines than
with a payload of 30 metric tons. what is known of the A-10 engines; it’s not clear
what to make of that. Additionally, the A-10 second
The A-11 and A-12 designs are stage appears to be somewhat different from the A-10
controversial. The controversy revolves around when known from the 1941 drawing. Whether this is due to
exactly these designs were produced… there is no artistic license, direction by von Braun, or is actually
evidence that they were produced by the von Braun based on the later A-10 design is not known.
team during the war years, and several of the team
members deny that they were products of wartime In the painting, the A-10 stage seems to
thinking. The most likely explanations for the A-11 have fins. These fins are smaller than those on both
and A-12 designs are that they were thought up by the 1941 A-10 and the postwar manned A-9/A-10.
von Braun by himself, and quite possibly while under Fins like these would be useful to maintain stability if
detainment at White Sands or Fort Bliss. This is not the A-11 staged at a sufficiently low altitude. But the
unlikely… the A-11 and A-12 designs would have A-4 upper stage is also shown with fins. These would
been of extremely limited military value to the be entirely useless, as the A-10 would stage at an
German military, but would have been of altitude well above the atmosphere if the A-4 was to
considerable interest to the post-war American make it to orbit. However, fins like these would make
military. a measure of sense for stability if the A-4 was meant
to plunge back into the atmosphere like the warhead
Post-war references present a conflicting of an ICBM.
story on the A-11. In Werner von Braun, author Erik
Bergaust says: “Von Braun did not dare to go beyond Unfortunately, the A-12 is known only from
the A-10 except in imagination, although there was a few sentences. The A-12 was clearly alive within
always in his mind yet another, still larger booster, the mind of Werner von Braun when he was being
logically to be designated the A-11.” This implies interviewed by American military authorities in the
that the A-11 left von Brauns imagination only when months following his capture. Von Braun described
the war was over. However, von Braun himself in the the A-12 as yet another stage, this time beneath the
years immediately after the war mentions that the A- A-11; the A-4 or A-9 stage would be deleted. The A-
11, and the even larger A-12, were designs actually 10 would be greatly modified into a manned, winged
given some measure of effort at Peenemünde. It’s and recoverable “shuttle.” No illustrations are
simply not clear when the A-11 designation first known, so the reconstruction shown in this article is
came to light… before or after the end of the war. entirely hypothetical. It is based not only on the
previous A-11 design… but also on the “Ferry
Only a little data is available on the A-11 Rocket” von Braun designed for his book “Das
and A-12. The A-11 was to have a thrust of 1,600 Marsprojekt” of 1948 and for a series of articles in
tons – equivalent to eight of the A-10s 200-ton thrust Collier’s magazine in the early 1950’s. This rocket
engines. The A-12 was to have a thrust of 12,800 was to gain considerable fame by being featured in
tons, or sixty-four of the A-10 engines. painting by Rolf Klep, Fred Freeman and Chesley
Bonestell in the pages of “Colliers” magazine
A painting of the A-11 was made. Painted at throughout a number of issues in the early 1950’s. It
White Sands in 1946, this illustration shows a multi- should not be considered purely co-incidence that
engined cylindrical booster very much in the style of what data exists for the A-10/11/12 vehicles almost
the A-9/A-10, with an A-10 second stage and an A-4 exactly matches that of the Ferry Rocket.

Comparison data between the A-12 and the “Ferry
Rockets”
First Stage
12,800
12,800
14,000
Thrust
tons
tons
tons
1,600 tons
1,600 tons
1,750 tons
Second
Thrust
Stage
200 tons
200 tons
220 tons
Thrust
Stage
Third
Payload
30 tons
25 tons
30 tons
A-10/-11/-
(Das Mars
(Colliers)
Projekt)
Rocket
Rocket
Ferry
Ferry
12
The A-12 reconstruction shown is entirely

hypothetical. The A-10 shuttle stage and the A-11
second stage are based on the A-10 of the A-11
painting, with a cockpit, canards and wings added to
the A-10, and fins removed from the A-11. The A-12
stage is based on the requirement for 12,800 tons
liftoff thrust, or the equivalent of 64 A-10 engines (of
the same type shown in the A-11 painting). Since 64
engines don’t pack well, 60 engines were used plus
12 secondary engines of lower thrust. Sixty slightly
improved A-10 engines might be just as valid. In any
case, it is interesting to note that the diameter of the
A-12 generated by this clustering is only slightly
larger that of the Ferry Rocket.
Figure 24: 1946 painting (by de Beek) of the A-11

Figure 25: Provisional reconstructions of the A-11 (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 26: Hypothetical reconstruction of the A-12 (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-4b A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10
13.96 -
1.4 1.4 6.741 14.036 14.03 5.825 ? ? 14.2 20
Length (m) 16.46
0.304 0.304 0.673 1.651 1.651 0.6785 ? 0.6875 1.65 1.651 4.15
Diameter (m)
- - - - 6 - ? ? - 3.564 -
Span (m)

17,650 -
150 150 ? 750 12,700 13,500 750 ? ? 16,260 85,320
GTOW (kg) 22,370
30,000 -
295 1000 1500 25,200 25,200 1500 ? 1500 28,000 200,000
Thrust (kg) 35,000
1,000 -
- - - 1000 1000 - ? - 1000 A-9
Payload (kg) 2,000
- Dec, 1934 Dec, 1937 Oct, 1942 Dec, 1944 Fall, 1938 - Oct, 1942 - - -
First Flight
Maximum 1580 -
- ? - 5760 5500 1000 ? ? 11,000 -
Speed (km/hr) 2060
Maximum - 1.98 - 80 ~100 12.9 ? ? ? 550 -

Altitude (km)
Maximum - - - 330 750 ? ? ? 300 - 500 5000 -

Range (km)
LOX LOX LOX LOX LOX LOX ? LOX Nitric Acid LOX LOX
is based on the 1941 A-9/A-10 design, not on the later A-4b design.
Oxidizer
Alcohol/ Alcohol/ Alcohol/ Alcohol/

Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol ? Alcohol Diesel Oil
Fuel Water Water Water Water
Propellant ? ? ? 8692 8692 ? ? ? ? 11,910 50,560
September-October 2003
Weight (kg)
- - 0.9 3.564 ? 1.28 ? ? 3.55 3.564 9

Span over Fins
Table of available data on the A-series rockets. Data on the A-6 is entirely lacking at this point. Information on A-9
31
Space Station
Another piece of 1946-vintage White Sands meant that unmanned satellites have instead done the
artwork depicts a Werner von Braun designed space same job. Von Braun’s prophesying showed flaws
station. The design is straightforward and fairly when he claimed that workers wearing divers suits
realistic, with many elements in common with von would be able to assemble such a station with ease.
Braun’s later “Wheel” space station as depicted in the
Collier’s series. The Space Station design, even more The space station as described in 1946 was a
so than the A-12, is almost certainly something that wheel configuration composed of 20 individual
von Braun did most of his work on after the end of cylindrical sections surrounding a central hub. The
the war. There is virtually no chance that effort diameter was given as 200 feet (about 61 meters).
devoted to a space station would have been approved Two struts large enough (though just barely) to
of, or even permitted, in wartime Germany. However, accommodate pressurized passageways for personnel
space stations were popular unofficial discussion connected the hub to the wheel; a number of smaller
topics amongst the rocket team; such a station was pipes linking the hub and the wheel served as
seen, with reason, as the first step into the larger condensers for the solar powered boiler. Unlike the
universe. much better-known Collier’s space station, which
had a fixed toroidal parabolic solar reflector that was
In postwar interviews, such space stations as fixed to the wheel of the space station, this space
this were mentioned by von Braun, and claimed to station had a movable reflector that would
have a military application. A space station equipped concentrate sunlight onto a fixed spherical boiler.
with large telescopes would be able to serve as a spy This arrangement would mean that the reflector
in the sky, keeping tabs on enemy troop movements would have to rotate separately from the station and
and shipping. To this degree von Braun was actively track the sun.
prophetic, as spy satellites have become vital military
assets. In the 1960’s, the USAF actively worked to The station was to orbit at an altitude of
build the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, a simple 1,075 miles, a particular favorite for von Braun. This
space station meant as a much as anything else to orbit, with a two-hour period, would come again in
serve as an observation post. Advances in automation future plans of von Braun.
Figure 27: 1946 painting (again by de Beek) showing von Brauns space station. Note: this and the following
painting were done by the same artist (de Beek) that painted the manned A-9/A-10 shown earlier.

Figure 28: Modern isometric reconstruction of the 1946 space station design (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 29: Modern reconstruction of von Brauns 1946 space station (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 30: Modern isometric reconstruction of the 1946 space station design (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)
Figure 31: 1946 illustration by de Beek of a space station in orbit. Something unfortunate seems to have happened to
North America, though…

Dubious A-series Designs
A number of A-4 derived designs have come to light whose provenance is doubtful, and, in some cases,
known to be simply wrong. Some might be for real, while some are certainly post-war misinterpretation or fiction.
A-60
This design was revealed in Walter

Dornbergers “Peenemünde: Die Geschichte der V-
Waffen,” published in 1981. While not well
described, the A-60 had the same external
configuration as the A-4, but had an entirely new
tankage configuration. Like the Atlas ICBM and
space launch vehicle, the A-60 was to have balloon
tanks, where the walls of the propellant tanks serve as
the structural walls of the vehicle itself. This led to
considerably increased propellant loading, increased
gross mass (23 rather than 12.9 metric tons), a
requirement for a higher-thrust engine (60 tons thrust
rather than 25), increased burnout velocity (9000
km/h rather than 5760) and increased range (750 km
rather than 330). The volume ratios for the
propellants appear to be notably different than for the
A-4, so, even though the actual propellants were not
called out, it’s safe to assume that, like the A-8, theA-
60 was to use different propellants than the A-4.
Or… the drawing could well be phony. Given that
the instrument section is notably smaller than that of
the A-4, as is the section for the turbopump (despite
the fact that the A-60 would have had to pump about
twice the propellant flow rate), the likelihood of
phoniness is increased.
The fact that the A-60 was unveiled in a

book written by the man who oversaw the A-4 Figure 32: The A-4 (left) and the A-60 (right)
program gives the design some historical credence…
but only just some.
Miranda/Mercado Designs
Published by J. Miranda and P. Mercado in a planned operational manned ICBM. There is,
the “Reichdreams” dossiers, a design for a variant of however, absolutely no documentation that such a
the ramjet equipped manned A-9 described earlier thing was ever contemplated. While a manned A-
has recently become popular. The drawings of the 9/A-10 was imagined by von Braun, his interest in
“EMW A-6,” while certainly skillfully drafted, do not that was purely as a research vehicle. And as has
match any concept described or drawn in official been described, the A4-V13e planform was unstable
documentation, and appears to be pure invention. The in any event. What’s worse, this 1990’s concept for a
wings in particular are disturbing; they bear no manned ICBM has been taken to even further
resemblance to any planform studied, and are far too extremes, with documentaries claiming that this
small to support the A-9 at landing. design was not only official… it was meant to carry a
radiological or even atomic bomb along with the
Much more influential was the Manned A- pilot. Documentation for such claims is always
9/A-10 drawn up by the Miranda/Mercado team. lacking, and the idea of a manned, atomic-bomb
They produced drawings purporting to show the 1941 equipped 1941-vintage A-9/A-10 can be safely
design of the A-9/A-10 with the A4-V13e wing described as bullshit.
planform with a cockpit. This was purported to show

The Miranda/Mercado team also drew up an comic books, computer-rendered documentaries, and
A-4b with a cockpit, but also with an incorrect even as commercially available injection-molded
planform. model kits. But the fact that they are somewhat well-
known does not negate the fact that these designs are
The Miranda/Mercado designs have gained based on modern imagination rather than actual
a measure of acceptance through being depicted in designs.
Henshalls Radiological V-2
In 1995, Philip Henshall published geometry of the vehicle. Even so, range would be
“Vengeance: Hitler’s Nuclear Weapon Fact of increased. The radiological V-2 was a neat idea.
Fiction?” which describes efforts in wartime Unfortunately, it was all dead wrong.
Germany to produce radiological weapons. These
“dirty bombs” would not be atomic bombs in the There was in fact a design for a A-4 with the
usual sense, but would be conventional explosives support structure shown. What’s more, the modified
surrounded by powders (such as silica) covered in A-4 was not only built… it was tested. It simply
radioactive waste. The explosions would be small, wasn’t a radiological warhead carrier… it was, in
but the damage would be great as large regions would fact, the very first full A-4 tested. The external
be wiped out via radiation poisoning. In order to support structure was called, appropriately, the
deliver the radiological weapons, Henshall showed “Korsett,” and it was meant to hold the A-4 while it
wartime German drawings of an unusual “atomic” was test-fired. The Korsett, instead of being a nifty
variant of the V-2. quick-disconnect for a warhead, was simply a clamp
to hold the missile in a test stand. Unfortunately…
Since the warhead would be particularly the Korsett didn’t quite work right. As the cryogenic
dangerous to the launch crew and the surrounding liquid oxygen was pumped into the vehicle, the
areas in the event of a launch failure, the propellant metallic structure did was all metallic structures do
tanks were moved forward, leaving a volume when they are reduced in temperature from ambient
between the tanks and the engine compartment, and to hundreds of degrees below zero… it shrank. But
the radiological warhead inserted there. An external the Korsett did not shrink along with the A-4, so the
support structure was added; the purpose of this A-4 simply fell out of the clamp holding it and
structure was to allow the warhead to fall away intact exploded. It was a dumb mistake, but the sort of thing
in the event of a launch failure. The propellant tanks that happens with annoying regularity to engineers.
would be reduced in volume due to the basic
Figure 33: First A-4 with “Korsett.” The references to warheads, and even to the modified propellant tanks, are
extremely dubious. (Henshall, 1995)
Ironically, the year before Henshall’s book simultaneous but very different stories coming out to
introduced the radiological V-2 to the world, G. describe the same thing. One of the stories describes
Harry Stine’s book “ICBM” was published and gave a rather uninteresting bit of test hardware that failed
an account from Konrad Dannenberg (a member of in a perhaps amusing manner; the other describes
the A-4 development team) that describes the failure something that could have changed the course of
of the corset (as it was spelled in English in the history. Facts or no facts, the Really Big News will
account). So here was an example of two always get press, and corrections will go unnoticed.

Peenemünde Pfeil
In Stine’s book “ICBM,” he describes a Another problem with the “Peenemünder

meeting with German rocket engineer Rolf Engel in Pfielgeschoss” is the fact that there was a well-
1976. At that time, Engel made a quick pencil sketch documented program with just that exact name. This
of a conical vehicle he claimed the Peenemünde team particular Pfiel (German for “arrow”) was a generic
worked on in 1944 or 1945. Apart from pointing out name for a series of cannon shells. These shells were
that that design was the origin of the conical boosters long, slim, equipped with tailfins and extremely
used on the Soviet R-7 booster (of Sputnik, Vostok aerodynamic. The purpose was, int he case of
and Soyuz fame), no further information was artillery, increased range; and in the case of anti-
provided. Some time after publication of the book, aircraft cannon, increased maximum altitude and
Stine provided a photocopy of Engels sketch to this velocity. The Pfiel series was successfully
author, and it has been reproduced here. It was a cone demonstrated at several sizes for a number of
three meters across the base and 19 meters long, different weapons. They are, for all intents and
somewhat larger than the A-4. The sketch seems to purposes, the same as modern discarding sabot
show multiple engines. Apart from this… there is no flechette rounds commonly used by the M-1
further hard information. Abrahms main battle tank.
The fact that the drawing of a conical rocket

was given the name of another project entirely does
cast some doubt on the idea, but that alone does not
negate the possibility. Further information could set
this uncertainty to rest.
Speculation is certainly possible with this

design. While the US Army grabbed most of the
German rocket engineers, they did not get them all. A
number of German rocketeers were spirited off to
Russia after the war and put to work for Stalin. After
1950, they started to return to their native German
and spoke of what they worked on. One program was
the G-4 by a group of Germans led by Groetrup,
which was a conical rocket derived from A-4
technology. Data on this design is still somewhat
speculative, but it was apparently about 3.73 meters
in diameter and 28 meters long. The drawing shown
of the G-4 is based on German returnee descriptions.
The design work on the G-4 eventually aided in the
development of the R-7 ICBM, which gained fame as
the launcher for Sputnik, Vostok and Soyuz.
Apparently this link was discussed when the Pfiel
sketch was made, as a sketch of the R-7 is shown on
Figure 34: Rolf Engel’s sketch of the “Peenemünder the same page.
Pfielgeschoss.” Courtesy G. Harry Stine
Figure 35: Conceptual layout of German/Russian G-4

Part Two: the Sänger Silverbird
One of the most forward thinking concepts to emerge first serious mathematical examination of long range
from the Second World War was Eugen Sänger’s supersonic rocket travel, it proved difficult to find a
“Silverbird,” known to the world as the “antipodal publisher. The craft described had a circular cross-
bomber.” In the early post-war years, much effort and section, large angular wings and a single rocket
political intrigue followed both Sänger and his engine… but dimensions were lacking.
Silverbird, as the design provided the first serious and
well-documented effort towards a manned The layout of the Silverbird was modified by 1938,
spaceplane. Next to the A-4, the Silverbird was the with the wings becoming smaller compared to the
most important rocket project to come out of wartime size of the craft, and the fuselage drastically changing
Germany. The Silverbird was the project that strived shape. A stainless steel wind tunnel model was built
best and hardest for manned spaceflight during World in ’38, and tested at supersonic speeds. At this early
War II, and in many important ways it greatly date, the Silverbird was meant as a space transporter,
advanced both the technical state of the art and without a specific military role. However, as early as
thinking about the utility of rockets for 1934, Sänger was writing about using his rocketplane
intercontinental bombardment. On the other hand, the for intercontinental bombardment; interestingly, the
Silverbird, much like the A-series, has generated a US was aware of Sängers notions for a rocket bomber
large volume of unwarranted speculation, fiction and at least as early as 1942, when the NACA translated a
fantasy. copy of his 1934 paper.
As was the practice in Nazi Germany,

several different organizations with little or no cross-
communications were working on the same idea at
the same time, dividing resources. While von Braun’s
team was developing the A-series of missiles for the
German Army, Eugen Sänger was busy developing
intercontinental bomber rockets of his own for the
Lufwaffe. There was very little communications
between the efforts.
Sänger spent from August 1937 to August

1942 at the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt (Research
Institute for Aviation) Hermann Göring rocket test
center in Trauen. He ended the war years working at
the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug (DFS)
in Bavaria working on ramjets, were he made a
number of important strides in that field. However,
he also worked on another project, which he called
“Silverbird:” a manned spacecraft meant to bomb
New York from Germany.
While impractical from a technical and

military standpoint (barring the availability of nuclear
weapons), the Silverbird was a work of pure genius.
The fact that it likely would have melted on re-entry
is a minor point compared to the basic concepts that
were laid out. It was in fact the first serious effort at
designing a modern manned spacecraft. Figure 36: The cover of Sängers important report, “A
Rocket Drive for Long Range Bombers,” the revised
Sänger began working on the idea of a 1944 version of his 1941 report
rocket-powered spaceplane early on. In 1932, he tried
to publish a book on the subject; while this was the

Figure 37: an overview of the Sänger Silverbird
Figure 38: Sketch from the English translation of the original report showing the Silverbird, booster, sled and track
Figure 39: internal arrangement of the Silverbird

Figure 40: Modern reconstruction of the Sänger Silverbird (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 41: Isometric views of the Silverbird. Modern reconstructions; surface details are speculative. (copyright
©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 42: A view into the engine compartment. Notice that the nozzle was supposed to be as wide as the fuselage;
since the fuselage was twice as wide as it was tall, this would have meant an elliptical cross-section nozzle, a design
feature that would have been very difficult to engineer.
The Silverbird was Sänger’s dream. The 28 The notion of using a skipping trajectory to
meter long Silverbird looked like a lengthened reduce the heating load on a re-entering spaceplane
flatiron with stubby wings. Sänger knew that he lasted into the late 1950’s or early 1960’s, largely as
would not be able to put such a vehicle into orbit a result of Sänger’s work. Unfortunately,
using fuel oil and liquid oxygen as rocket propellants. experimentation, especially during the Dyna Soar
But he imagined the next best thing: if it could get to program, showed that a skipping re-entry does not
Mach 10 and above the sensible atmosphere, the reduce the heating load on a spaceplane as compared
Silverbird could extend range by gliding; the to a direct entry. The heat shed by the craft during the
spaceplane was shaped to maximize performance in bounce above the atmosphere is minimal, as it is due
this regime. It would drop ballistically from space entirely to radiation, and radiation is typically an
into the upper atmosphere; the extreme forward speed inefficient means of shedding heat. The use of
would mean an excess of lift, and the craft would radiation as a means of heat rejection is most efficient
“skip” off the atmosphere. Each skip would reduce when the hot object is very hot, incandescent or
the forward speed slightly, consequently each skip better. Thus when the Dyna Soar was under
would be a little lower (both the troughs and the development, the plan was for it to plow straight in,
peaks) and shorter as it converted kinetic energy of and glow white hot… the exterior surface of the craft
forward velocity into upward kinetic energy, boosting would get blazingly hot, but the duration would be
it back up into space. The thought was that not only brief. But the Silverbird, though it would not attain
would this strategy increase range (and it would), it the same peak temperatures, would be subjected to
would also reduce the heating load on the craft by that heating over a longer length of time. The
allowing it to slow down and absorb heat from re- repeated heatings would permit the structure to be
entry, pop back up into space and radiate that heat completely heat-soaked, and would keep the entire
away. The cycle would repeat, but each time the structure dangerously hot for a long time.
heating would be lessened, until the Silverbird no
longer had the kinetic energy to bounce back into Worse still, structurally, are all the shape
space. edges. While the sharp wings and sharp corners on
the underside of the fuselage led to an effective
supersonic lifting shape with minimal drag, such

edges simply do not withstand hypersonic speeds fuel as a coolant jacket around the engine, serving the
well. Put simply, the heat of hypersonic flight and re- double role of cooling the engine and pre-heating the
entry (which, by the way, comes not from friction but fuel, the Sänger design used water as a coolant. A
from compression of the air) is focussed on the water pump would force water through channels
leading edges of the craft. The larger the radius of wrapped around the engine; the water would be
that leading edge, the more structural area receives boiled to high pressure steam. The steam is then used
that heat load. This reduces the thermal loading per to drive the propellant turbopumps; after passing
unit area, and lowers the temperature. But a sharp through the turbines, the cooled steam would be
leading edge means that a vast amount of thermal passed through a heat exchanger where it would be
energy is dumped into a small bit of structure… a bit condensed back to water to be used again.
of structure which will quickly turn to liquid and flow
away. Materials that would permit passively cooled This was an elegant solution to the problems
sharp leading edges for hypersonic craft have only of engine coolant and propellant pumping. It would,
been developed in the past few years. in theory, result in no loss of working fluids during
operation, while the A-4 system would constantly
In order to make the shape of the Silverbird expend hydrogen peroxide. However, a closed-loop
survivable at hypersonic speeds would require either system like this would be difficult to make function
materials fifty years in advance of what was available well, and there would be numerous efficiency losses.
at the time… or active cooling systems. Using fuel, Closed-loop systems like this have not been
oxygen or water as a coolant circulating through the successfully employed on subsequent rocket systems.
at-risk edges would help greatly; the system would
work even better if the coolant liquid was dumped
overboard through tiny holes. Transpiration cooling
like this would help sheath the craft in coolant gas.
While this method might have worked on the
Sivlerbird, it was not planned or described, and is
included as pure speculation. An active cooling
system like this would also add considerable mass to
the craft, not to mention cost and schedule.
To help get the Silverbird to Mach 10, a

launch track was planned for initial takeoff. Equipped
with a large rocket-powered booster, the Silverbird
would surpass 500 meters/second before lifting off of Figure 43: A full-scale but untested prototype engine
its sled and shooting into the sky. Concern was raised coolant loop
regarding the ability of a sled to slide on a steel track
at supersonic speeds; in order to demonstrate the In order to begin the process, a hydrogen
concept, special stainless steel bullets were made for peroxide gas generator was to be used to drive the
a military carbine, then fired into a steel spiral track. propellant pumps. Unlike the A-4, which also used a
After some initial failures, when the bullet was hydrogen peroxide gas generator to drive its
greatly eroded, the careful use of the proper turbopumps, the Silverbird only used the hydrogen
lubricants showed that steel sliding on steel at high peroxide for a brief period. The steam and oxygen
speed was feasible. These tests began in June 1939. from the gas generator would be passed through a
special turbine system to drive the pumps, and then
While at the Trauen test facility, which dumped overboard. Once the engine was up to power
Sänger designed, a number of rocket engines of and the water coolant was being boiled, the primary
increasing thrust were designed, built and turbopump system would take over.
successfully tested. The tests culminated in the firing
of a one-ton thrust motor for a duration of five One effect that the planned employment of
minutes; impressive as that may have been, the this operating system has had is that virtually every
engine for the Silverbird needed to have a thrust one post-war reconstruction of the Silverbird has been
hundred times greater. dead wrong. Drawings, paintings, computer
renderings and models often show the Silverbird
A major difference between the Sänger having secondary rocket engines (or even solid rocket
engine concept and the A-4 engine was the means of motors) inside the rear of the vehicle alongside the
cooling. While the A-4 engine used the alcohol/water main rocket engine. However, according to Sängers

plans and drawings, there were no such auxiliary
engines. Where this misunderstanding seems to have
come from is a mistranslation of one of the original
drawings. The drawing, shown with an English
translation in Figure 37, points to “Rocket motor with
support equipment.” In the original German, it is
labeled “Rocketenmotor mit Hilfsmachinen,” literally
“rocket motor with help machines.” However, in the
original English translation of the report, it was
labeled “Rocket motor with auxiliary engines.” This
translation is in error, and has led to sixty years of
misunderstandings. This author has repeated the same
mistake, both in an earlier article in APR and in a
scale model.
By varying the payload mass, range

performance could be greatly altered. The basic
weapons load was 8 tons worth of bombs (either a
cluster or a single large bomb); this could be dropped
on New York, while the Silverbird would continue on
to the antipode of the launch site, i.e. halfway around
the planet (hence “antipodal Bomber”), with
maximum altitude reached of 160 kilometers.
But reducing the bombload to 1 ton

increases range to 91,870 kilometers, or 2.25 times
around the world. This would not be truly orbital, as
it would be skipping all the way; but considerable
time would be spent in freefall, as maximum altitude
reached would be an impressive 1,296 kilometers.
In the fall of 1942, the project was officially

terminated due to the need for near-term, realistic
weapons. The Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt (Research
Institute for Aviation) immediately rejected Sängers
report, much to Sängers dismay. He spent the
majority of the duration of the war designing and
building ramjets and designing ramjet powered
fighters at the DFS. His interest in Silverbird
remained, however, and in September 1944 he
managed to get copies of his report on rocket engines
for long range bombers published, albeit at half the
length of the original report. By then, of course, it
was far too late to accomplish much.
Figures 45 through 49 show possible

skipping trajectories for different values of exhaust
velocity (c), burnout velocities (Vo) and bombloads. Figure 44: Modern reconstruction of Silverbird
Figures 46 and 48 are half-global range, while Figure booster and sled (copyright ©2005, Scott Lowther)
49 goes all the way around. Figures 50 through 58
show the range of the vehicle for different missions
and bombloads.

Figure 45: c=3000 m/sec, Vo=4000 m/sec, 11.5 t
bombs
Figure 48: c= 3000 m/sec, Vo= 6000 m/sec, 0.3 t

bombs
Figure 46: Absolute (dashed) and relative paths from

an equatorial eastern launch for c= 3000 m/sec, Vo=
6000 m/sec, 0.3 t bombs
Figure 49: Effect of releasing bomb at an altitude of

40 km and velocity of 6060 m/sec for a launch of c=
4000 m/sec, Vo= 7000 m/sec, 3.8 t bombs
Figure 47: Absolute (dashed) and relative paths for a
western equatorial launch c= 3000 m/sec, Vo= 6000
m/sec, 0.3 t bombs

Figure 50
Figure 51

Figure 52
Figure 53

Figure 54
Figure 55

Figure 56
Figure 57

Figure 58
A table showing the capabilities of the Silverbird

based on different bomb loads and differently-
performing rocket engines. The performance of the
craft was very dependent upon the performance of
the engine. By assuming an engine with an exhaust
velocity of 5000 meters/second (an unreasonable
assumption; modern high performance
hydrogen/oxygen engines have exhaust velocities of
4500 meters/second or so), the craft would be able to
circle the world several times. But with an exhaust
velocity of 3000 meters/second (a rather
unimpressive engine by modern standards), the craft
would struggle to make it once around the world with
a bomb load of only a few hundred kilograms.
Sanger briefly examined the use of nuclear

power for the engine. He determined that
performance would be greatly improved, but that the
technology was too far in the future to be useful.
Along with nuclear power, Sanger also seriously
examined the use of liquid ozone (which is extremely
sensitive to vibration and detonates energetically)
instead of LOX, and metalized liquid fuels. By
mixing very fine powders of aluminum, beryllium,
lithium, magnesium or boron with an oil, greatly

improved performance was possible. Sanger built
small liquid rocket engines which ran successfully on
these mixtures. In the decades since, metalized fuels
have remained of interest, but practical problems
have always prevented their use.
Figure 60: Quite possibly the most misinterpreted

drawing in aerospace history. What this drawing
shows is a statistical result of a bombing campaign
targeting New York City. Essentially, it is a bell
curve showing the level of destructive energy that
would be unleashed upon the region given bomb
aiming errors and a vast number of bombs. It has
repeatedly been reproduced to serve as evidence that
the Germans were planning on nuking New York…
but it shows nothing of the kind.
Figure 59: In much the same way that the damage of The fact that this does not show a nuking of New
the V-2s one-ton warhead was greater than that of the York would be reasonably obvious even if no other
V-1s one ton warhead due to the added kinetic information was available. Were this an attempt at
energy, Sänger examined the effect of bombs that showing how much energy would be dumped on
would retain a large measure of their velocity. Instead NYC courtesy a single bomb, it would not be a bell
of producing a circular region of destruction, the curve, but would instead show an exponential spike
effect of coming in at a shallow angle and at high at the center. But it nevertheless can be passed off as
speed is to produce a teardrop shaped zone of “proof” of a Nazi nuclear bomb by those who are not
destruction. The area of destruction is considerably so interested in honesty.
greater than for a low velocity bomb. The practicality
of a bomb hitting more or less horizontally at very
high velocity is, of course, questionable.

After the war, copies of this report fell into Instead of a bomber, though, the upper stage would
the hands of both the Allies and the Soviets. Interest be used to launch satellites or resupply space stations.
in Sänger was not nearly as intense as interest in von
Braun’s team among the major powers; von Braun Sadly for Sänger, his success in seeing his
had a product ready to go, while Sänger needed far designs fly to space was nowhere near that of von
more development. Nevertheless, there was an Braun. He died without ever seeing a launch vehicle
abortive attempt by Soviet agents to kidnap Sänger of his conception fly.
sometime in 1947. The attempt failed in part due to
the fact that Sänger was already in France, not in In the reconstructions in this article, the
Germany or Austria as the Soviets had thought, and cockpit is shown as being completely submerged
partially due to the fact that one of the two agents within the fuselage. This is how the limited art in
decided to defect to Britain. Nevertheless, the Soviets Sangers report portrays it (see Figures 37, 38 and 39).
spent some considerable effort to develop their own However, the description can be construed instead to
version of the Silverbird; the exact extent of their give the Silverbird a small raised canopy. An
progress is unknown in the West. illustration commissioned by Sanger a number of
years after the war backs this view up. However, the
Meanwhile, after things settled down and issue remains clouded.
Dornberger spent a few years in Britain under
investigation of war crimes, interest started to appear Another confusing design feature is the
in the United States in the concept of manned rocket- engine itself. Drawings of the engine (Figure 42)
powered military vehicles. In 1947, Dornberger show it to have a nozzle exit diameter the same as the
became a consultant to the Air Materiel Command, width of the fuselage. But the fuselage was only half
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In 1950, he as thick as it was wide; thus, it appears that the
became a consultant to the Bell Aircraft Company. nozzle was to have an oval or elliptical cross section.
For rocketeers interested in manned rocketplanes, But such a nozzle would be extremely difficult to
Bell, with its X-1 and X-2 rocketplanes, was clearly build and operate. Thus reconstructions (such as the
the place to be. Dornberger was instrumental in one in Figure 40) show a conventional nozzle that is
getting Bell to think in terms of boost gliders, a fraction of the size of that drawn for Sanger. But
eventually culminating in the BoMi, RoBo and Dyna smaller nozzles would have lower performance.
Soar projects. But to aid the program, in 1952 Another unknown.
Dornberger went to Paris and asked Sänger to join
him at Bell. Sänger declined the offer; he had family Silverbird data:
in Europe, and his friends helped to convince him Length: 28.0 meters
that he would not be happy in American corporate Span: 15.0 meters
culture. Whether this is true or not is impossible to Weight breakdown:
say, of course, but Eugen Sänger decided to stay in Cockpit: 500 kg
Europe. Until his death in February 1964, Sänger Rocket Engine: 2500 kg
worked (first in France and then, after the summer of Wings: 2500 kg
1954, in Germany) in the space industry, with one of Fuselage: 3250 kg
his final projects being the Junkers RT-8. This Tail/Landing Gear/Bomb Bay: 1250 kg
vehicle, which was described in APR issue V1N6, Total: 10,000 kg
was effectively a modernized version of the Propellant: 90,000 kg
Silverbird. A small two-stage spaceplane was to be
launched from a track, using a steam rocket booster.

Part 3: Oberths Space Mirror
One of the “greats” in the early days of a mirror twice the size and orbiting at 6,000
modern rocketry, Herman Oberth helped to not only kilometers, he thought, would be capable of raising
formulate the basics of astronautics and rocketry, he the temperature on the target spot to 200° C.
also did an admirable job of popularizing rocketry
and advancing the cause of space travel. One of the
concepts he championed both before and after the
second world war was the space mirror, a giant
orbiting reflector which would be used to bounce
sunlight to the Earth’s surface. The “spotlight in the
sky” would be used to help nocturnal rescue
missions, aid in nighttime farming, highlight icebergs
in shipping lanes, provide electricity-free city
lighting, alter the weather and other benevolent
missions. A spiderweb structure of hexagonal cells
each equipped with a circular mirror segment with a
thin metal foil reflective surface. Each segment
would be independently aimable, thus achieving a
measure of focussing for the mirror. The mirror
would be from 60 to 90 miles in diameter, and was
singularly un-weaponlike. However, Oberth felt that Figure 61: Oberths space mirror
the mirror would be capable of focussing and
concentrating the sun’s light onto the Earths surface;
Figure 62: Life’s impression of the Nazi space mirror

According to a post-war article in the July somewhat similar giant orbiting mirror as a mean to
23, 1945, Life magazine, the Nazis looked at a bring down death from above. The mirror was

described as being a rigid structure one mile in of causing serious havoc if each cell was turned to
diameter, orbiting at 5,100 miles altitude. A number reflect onto a single target.
of paintings were included in the article showing
details of the mirror; according to the art, the mirror It is clear that the Nazi space mirror would
was to be built from roughly cubic sections about 20 have been a colossal waste of effort as a means of
feet square. Since the launch vehicle (30 feet torching whole cities. Where the idea comes from is
diameter) seems to carry only one section at a time… unclear. It seems likely that the Life article author as
a minimum of 54,740 launches would be needed. working from a mis-reported version of the Oberth
mirror. The mile diameter mirror could have been
The mirror was described as being a mile- simply a single cell from the Oberth mirror, taken out
wide, roughly twenty-foot-thick pressurized and of context However, the idea of the mirror being a
slightly concave disk, entirely covered with sodium giant pressurized structure seems to be pure fantasy.
for reflectivity. Small rocket engines on the back side
would orient the mirror; hydroponic farms would
grow pumpkin plants to convert carbon dioxide in the
mirrors atmosphere into breathable oxygen.
An intriguing (and suitably “mad scientist”)

idea, the concept has a number of serious flaws, not
the least of which is that very little documentation
support it. One of the few near-wartime references
lies in a brief report written by Werner von Braun for
the US Army. In it, von Braun describes Oberth’s
mirror and its numerous peacetime applications. He
also says: “If the mirror is made large enough, and it
could be of extremely light construction, it would
even appear possible to generate deadly degrees of
heat at certain spots of the earth’s surface.” While
this is a reference to using the space mirror for
destructive purposes, the construction of the mirror is
quite unlike that described by “Life.” Figure63: The launch vehicle deploying a mirror
segment.
There is a further problem: the basic concept
has a serious flaw that would simply negate its ability
to serve as a weapon. A mirror focussing a light
source can appear no brighter (per apparent unit area)
than the original source of light. In other words, if the
mirror looks (from the point of view of the “target”)
the same size as the sun, it will project the same
illumination as the sun. Thus, to light up a night-time
target to be as bright as full daylight… a perfectly
built mirror would have to subtend the same angle as
the sun, which is about 0.5°. A mirror one mile in
diameter 5,100 miles distant would far vastly short of
that, at about 0.01°. Oberth’s 150 kilometer diameter
mirror orbiting at 6000 kilometers would subtend an
angle of about 1.4°, about three times the size of the
sun. However, the mirror would of course have to be
inclined somewhat to reflect down to the earth’s
surface, the reflective material would not be a perfect Figure 64: The 30-foot diameter launch vehicle
reflector, and the mirror would not be a solid circle, docked with an air lock.
but a hexagonal mesh with a multitude of separate
circular reflectors inscribed within each hexagonal
cell. Still, the Oberth mirror would hold the potential

Part 4: Pure Fiction: “Projekt Saucer”
One of the most enduring myths about

aviation developments in the Third Reich is the The fact that the German program was given
flying saucer. Since Rudolph Lusars 1957 book the same name as the hysteria sweeping the world, as
“German Secret Weapons of the Second World opposed to all the other possible project names, is an
War,” any of a number of highly dubious claims have indicator that the program was fictional – and meant
been made about German wartime circular aircraft. to cash in on a current craze. In the years since, some
Starting with odd but barely believable tales of purported Nazi flying saucers have been written
VTOL aircraft making use of large rotors with tip- about in the main stream press, never with any real
turbojets, these claims rapidly expanded to include justification… and quite often with photos that are
highly advanced designs that reached Mach 2 to clearly fakes. The vast majority of these reports
designs that used electromagnetic propulsion systems appear to be outright hoaxes. But once a hoax has
and have now gone completely ‘round the bend to caught on, it is hard to erase it from “common
include notions of anti-gravity “Vril Saucers” and knowledge.” Many books have been written about
joint German-Japanese missions to Mars in 1945, urban legends, and websites have been created to
launched, of course, from highly secret bases in counter them… yet they continue to be believed,
Antarctica. Writing a cogent and complete history of despite proof of their falsehood.
the German flying saucer myth would be a
monumental task given the speed with which vast Claims of technologically advanced “Project
mountains of pure bullshit are added to the mythos. Saucer” craft are quite often put forward by groups or
individuals whose motives are at best dubious. Neo-
The fact is that there WERE studies for Nazis and some of the more bizarre New Agers have
circular wings in wartime Germany. However, with produced some rather laughable “designs” and
one exception, none of these studies seem to have associated claims, but never anything remotely
amounted to much more than some mathematical substantial or believable. The concept of Nazi flying
doodling or preliminary wind tunnel testing. One saucers received a boost in 1975 with the publication
Arthur Sack, farmer, did in fact build a small fabric of “UFO’s: Nazi Flying Saucers?” by one Christof
covered circular winged aircraft (the AS-6); it has Friedrich. Friedrich was in fact a pseudonym for
been reported that the one attempt at flight was a Ernst Zundel, a well known Nazi sympathizer and
dismal failure. The AS-6 was little more than a Holocaust denier. This was a rather amateurish
homebuilt wood-tube-and-fabric aircraft of unusual book… but in the mid-1970’s, when Pyramid Power,
and, as it turns out, unfortunate configuration. It Hare Krishnas, Disco, Jimmy Carter, Ancient
simply did not want to leave the runway. Astronauts, lime-green polyester leisure suits and
many other forms of foolishness were seen as
Beyond that, searches for German flying reasonable, an amateurish book of complete nonsense
saucers invariably come up empty, at least for was able to carry some weight. In 1998, Zundel
reliable source data. It appears that Lusars book, posted on his website the fact that the book was
coming in the midst of the flying saucer’s greatest published to gain publicity… but not for UFOs.
popularity, was the source of much of the “Projekt Zundel used the opportunities opened by his UFO
Saucer” (as the idea of a Nazi flying saucer has come “revelations” (such as radio interviews) to discuss
to be known) foolishness. Lusar wrote (and provided Holocaust revisionism. Money made from his UFO
a crude sketch) of a “Fliegende Untertassen” (flying book was used to help publish a number of
saucer) supposedly under development in Germany “revisionist history” books such as Richard
during the war. It featured a roughly spherical cupola, Hardwoods “Did Six Million Really Die?”
surrounded by a multitude of large, broad and
triangular blades, looking not unlike the forward Zundels book presented Lusars rotary wing
compressor of a turbofan. The blades, which were design, along with a number of apparently “new”
apparently largely flat (not given a lot of twist or designs of increasing size and capability, up to a
camber), would spin around the cupola and provide “Model III” 225 feet in diameter and capable of
both vertical lift and forward thrust. Such designs 4,000 kph speed. While Zundels book at least didn’t
were jotted down before Lusars book, and many claim that these saucer-shaped craft were capable of
after; but it nevertheless remains a highly impractical spaceflight, it did not take long for the designs to be
means of building a flying craft. No substantiating appropriated by others and declared as space-going
data or drawings were provided. Nazi craft. Miranda and Mercado, mentioned

previously with regards to their manned A-9, took the the Germans supernatural scientific powers, an
Lusar design and carried it further, and turned excuse is made for their success… and an excuse is
Zundels “Model III” into, surprisingly, something made for the failure of Eastern Europe to fight off the
somewhat less impressive. However, other books Germans.
have taken the Zundel designs and run riot with them,
including such bizarre books as “Space Aliens From This interest in and exaggeration of German
the Pentagon,” which gives the Model III an anti- technological prowess has since the fall of the Soviet
gravity drive system capable of interplanetary flight. Union gone to wholly ridiculous lengths. There are
now books and videotapes (available for a price,
An amusing branch of the Nazi Flying obviously) that reveal the never-before heard stories
Saucer mythos has been the “Vril Saucer” line. So- of German flying saucers visiting other worlds,
called “Vril Saucers” are supposedly powered not so including a joint German/Japanese mission to Mars.
much by fantastical technology, but flat-out magic, Fortunately, the hogwash at this level is blisteringly
using “Vril” energy (a product of the spiritualism obvious to just about everyone, and only a few
movement in the 19th century). Recent drawings people (charitably referred to as “nuts”) actually
purporting to show Vril Saucers have included believe it.
drawings of the “fling saucer” reported by George
Adamski in the 1950’s, complete with the “Projekt Saucer” has produced some
Luftwaffe’s “Balkan Cross” symbol. It’s all the more occasionally interesting science fiction, but there is as
entertaining given that the Adamski saucer, one of yet no evidence that the concept, or even the name,
the better known saucers to come from the saucer existed prior to 1957. The “Nazi Flying Saucer”
craze of the 50s due to Adamskis remarkably clear mythos is useless as a means of learning more about
photos, was in fact a photo of a model. So apparently, wartime German technology, but it is very useful as a
not only did the United States spirit away German tool to teach about the foibles of human nature. Since
rocket scientists to work on the post-war American World War II, the Nazis have held a unique position
rocket program… the US also nabbed German in human imagination… if a work of fiction needs a
antigravity scientists and magicians to build post-war source of pure evil capable of high technology or
models. Perhaps there’s a dark side to “Industrial occult mysteries, the Nazis fit the bill. Star Trek, for
Lights and Magic” that they’re not telling us about... example has run the concept of “Space Nazis” into
the ground, with hardly a season going by without
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many of some subtle or overt reference being made. The
the latest episodes in the Nazi Flying Saucer saga marriage of the Third Reich with flying saucers was
have come from “researchers” in the former Warsaw thus virtually inevitable.
Pact. As with the rest of the “Luftwaffe, 1946” genre,
there appears to be considerable interest in that The fact is, German progress towards
region in the notion of Nazi super-science. spaceflight in the years leading up to and during
Explanations for why this is get into psychology; one World War II was truly astonishing. The true story is
of the more plausible sounding explanations – at least impressive enough, and needs no embellishments.
to this author – is that the Nazi conquest of Eastern The distortion of the record serves no purpose but to
Europe was so complete, and the subsequent Soviet muddy the waters… and put money in the pockets of
domination was so oppressive and yet incapable of those willing to fib for a buck.
getting past the war, that a reason needed to be found
to explain the Germans power. And by granting to
Conclusions
There were efforts afoot in World War II Germany that definitely could have led to spaceflight and, in a convoluted
way, actually did. Had Germany not lost the Second World War, a German being the first man in orbit and a
German being the first man on the moon are realistic prospects.

References:
A-1/A-2: Holsken
Holsken, Dieter, “V-Missiles of the Third Reich The V- Klee/Merk

1 andV-2,” Monogram Aviation Publications,
Sturbridge, MA, 1994. A-7:
Klee, Ernst and Merk, Otto, “The Birth of the Missile,” Hahn, Fritz. “Waffen und Geheimwaffen des
E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1963 deutschen Heeres 1933-1945;” Bernard & Graefe,
Koblenz, 1986
Ley, Willy “Rockets, Missiles & Space Travel,” The
Viking Press, 1957 Holsken
A-3: A-8:
Dornberger, Walter “V-2” The Viking Press, New “A-8 Entwurfsgestaltung, Leistungsherechnung und
York, 1954. Stabilitats-untersuchungen,” Archiv Nr 68/23 g.k.,
paper dated 8-4-1942
Holsken
A-9/A-10:
Klee/Merk
“Anderung der bisherigen Flugbahncharakteristik von
A-4: Ruckstoßaggregaten zur Erzielung großerer
Schußweiten,” Archiv Nr 71/1, paper dated 16 June
Benecke, T, Hedwig, K., Hermann, J. “Flugkorper und 1939
Lenkraketen,” Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Koblenz,
1987 Hermann, Rudolf, “The Supersonic Wind Tunnel
Installations at Peenemünde and Kochel and Their
Benecke, Th., and Quick, A. “History of German Contributions to the Aerodynamics of Rocket-
Guided Missiles Development,” Wissenschaftliche Powered vehicles,” paper via US Space and Rocket
Gesellschaft fur Luftfahrt, Brunswick, 1957 Center Archives
Engelmann, Joachim, “V2 Aufbruch zur Raumfahrt,” Holsken

Podzun-Pallas-Verlag GmbH, 1985
Simon, Leslie, “German Research in World War II,”
Holsken John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1947
Klee/Merk Manned A-9:

Kooy, Ir Dr. J.M.J. and Uytenbogaart, Prof. Dr. Ir “Story of Peenemünde”
.W.H. “Ballistics of the Future,” The Technical
Publishing Company, Haarlem, Holland, 1946. Private correspondence with Kenneth Gatland
Ordway, Frederick I. III and Sharpe, Mitchell “The A-11/A-12:

Rocket Team,” Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers, New
York, 1979 “Historical Monograph: Army ordnance Satellite
Program,” Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Redstone
Pocock, Rowland “German Guided Missiles” Arco Arsenal, Alabama, 1958
Publishing Company, Inc. New York, 1967
Bergaust, Erik “Werner von Braun,” National Space
A-4b: Institute, Washington, D.C., 1976
‘The Story of Peenemünde, or What Might Have Lasby, Clarence “Project Paperclip,” Atheneum, new
Been” Collection of papers and interviews assembled York, 1971.
shortly after the war. Via USAF Museum Archives.
Von Braun’s Space Station:
Holsken
“Historical Monograph”
A-5:
“Story of Peenemünde”

A-60: Sänger-Bredt, Irene “The Silver Bird Story: A
Memoir,” paper delivered at the Fourth History
Dornberger, Walter “Peenemünde Die Geschichte der Symposium of the International Academy of
V-Waffen,” Bechtle, Esslingen, 1981 Astronautics, October 1970.
Sänger, Eugen “Recent Results in Rocket Flight

Radiological V-2 Technique,” NACA TM-1012, Washington, D.C., 1942
(Translation, original published 1934)
Henshall, Philip “Vengeance: Hitler’s Nuclear Weapon
Fact or Fiction?” Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd, Phoenix Sänger, Eugen “Rocket Flight Engineering,” NASA
mill, UK, 1995. Technical Translation TT-223, Washington, D.C.,
1965 (Original published 1933)
Stine, G. Harry, “ ICBM,” Orion Books, New York,
1991. Space Mirror:
Miranda/Mercado Manned A-9
Oberth, Hermann “Man Into Space,” Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, London, 1957
Miranda, J. and Mercado “Secret Wonder Weapons of
the Third Reich German Missiles 1934-1945,” Schiffer
“The German Space Mirror,” Life magazine, July 23,
Publishing, Ltd, Atglen, PA, 1996
1945
Miranda, J. and Mercado “V.T.O. Interrceptor Dossier
“Story of Peenemünde”
No 9”
Projekt Saucer:
Pfiel:
Friedrich, Mattern (AKA Zundel, Ernst) “UFO’s Nazi
Zaehringer, Alfred, “German Returnees Sketch Red
Secret Weapon?” Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto,
IRBM Power Unit,” Missiles and Rockets, July 21,
Canada, 1975.
1958.
Lyne, William, “Space Aliens From the Pentagon,”
Ritchie, Donald, “Soviet Rocket Propulsion,” in
Creatopia Productions, Lamy, New Mexico, 1993.
Proceedings of the Fifth Ballistic Missile and Space
Technology Symposium, Volume II, Propulsion and
Lusar, Rudolf “German secret weapons of the Second
Auxiliary Power Systems, Academic Press, New York,
World War.,” Philosophical Library, New York,1959
1960
Masters, David, “German Jet Genesis,” Jane’s
Hogg, Ian “German Secret Weapons of World War 2,”
Publishing Company, Ltd., London, 1982
Arms and Armour Press, London, 1970
Miranda, J., Mercado, P. “German Circular Planes,
Stine
Dossier No 10”
Private correspondence with G. Harry Stine
Stevens, Henry, “Hitler’s Flying Saucers,” Adventures
Unlimited Press, Kempton, IL, 2003
Sänger Silverbird: Vesco, Renato, and Childress, David Hatcher “Man-
Made UFOs 1944-1994 50 Years of Suppression,”
“A Rocket Drive for Long Range Bombers,” Sänger, Adventures Unlimited Press, Stelle, IL, 1994.
Eugen. (Translation CGD-32 by M. Hamermesh,
Radio Research Laboratory) Deutsche
Luftfahrtforschung, Ainring, August 1944

BOEING WS-110A
By Dennis R. Jenkins
Almost from the end of World War II, the Strategic consecutively. In July 1955, after Model 713-1-208,
Air Command began searching for faster bombers. all nuclear airplanes became Model 722 and the
Through a long and winding road this led to the WS- chemical airplanes remained Model 713 with no
110A competition that pitted Boeing against North intermediate dash number. The last dash number
American for what would become the ill-fated B-70 continued consecutively regardless of chemical or
contract. nuclear configuration. In October 1955, the project
organizations were physically separated, with the
The Boeing Design, Take I nuclear program moving to Harbor Island with a
group from Wichita in preparation for its transfer to
that division, while the chemical program remained
Boeing, of course, had a long history of developing
in Plant II. At this time, the files were also separated
strategic bombers for the U.S. Air Force. The B-17
and each project’s model numbers ran consecutively
Flying Fortress and B-29 Super Fortress from World
from –230 on. In mid-November 1955, the nuclear
War II were legendary; the B-47 Stratojet and B-52
effort was cancelled, although further study
Stratofortress were examples of the post-war
continued under an internal Boeing work order until
technological explosion that introduced swept wings
the end of December.2
and podded engines, allowing high-speed flight for
large aircraft.
Initially, family of eight chemical and nuclear
airplanes was designed around a 400,000 pound gross
Boeing began work on what would become WS-
weight with a 7,500-pound bomb load. Performance,
110A very early. Oddly, the first related effort was
weight, and design details for these airplanes were
the MX-1847 study of nuclear-powered aircraft for
published in August 1954. Typical of the early
logistic and air defense missions. Unfortunately,
designs was the Model 713-1-101; this chemically
nothing could be found describing the results of the
powered aircraft was 170 feet long with a high-
study, other than it was a catalyst for the MX-2145
mounted swept wing spanning 116 feet. A single
study that investigated intercontinental strategic
ducted fan engine was mounted under each wing,
bombers. This study confirmed the desirability of a
with an additional engine on each side of the fuselage
Mach 3 bomber, but predicted that its combat radius
just below the trailing edge wing root. Bicycle
would be too short to be operationally useful.
landing gear was located in the fuselage, with
Subsequent studies concentrated on the development
outrigger gears located in fairings that extended
of advanced fuels and aerodynamics, and resulted in
ahead of the wing near the tips. A crew of four was
significant enough performance gains that Boeing
located in the nose. The Model 713-2-102 was
engineers believed a useful high-altitude Mach 3
generally similar except nuclear engines replaced the
bomber could be designed.1
fuselage-mounted ducted fan engines with the reactor
The first design to be drafted was the Model 713
located just behind the weapons bay where the
series, beginning in August 1954 under the direction
chemical airplane carried additional fuel.3
of Benjamin F. Ruffner and J. M. Wickham. In
December 1954, the study was divided into two
The study continued in late August 1954 with the
projects, a nuclear-powered effort led by Ruffner and
Model 713-1-113, the first concept that was thought
a chemical-powered side led by Lloyd T.
to have the range and payload capability necessary of
Goodmanson. This effort continued until early
an intercontinental bomber. This design was pursued
December 1955.
in great detail and was used as a basis for parametric
studies that included engine size and location,
The 713 model numbers consisted of three parts.
landing gear type, wing planform and size, body
Each model number had the 713 prefix followed by a
–1 for chemical configurations or a –2 for nuclear
2
configurations. This was followed by a second dash Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
number that began at –101 and continued System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp.
38–39.
3
Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
1
Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp.
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, p. 1. 2-3.
Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

shape, nose configuration, and structural materials. airplane, the –229 was constructed from aluminum
The final configuration was a sleek swept-wing and limited to Mach 2 dash speeds, although the
aircraft that was 177 feet long and spanned 121.5 general configuration was similar.7
feet. The wing provided a gross area of 4,000 square
feet and had a leading edge sweep of 45 degrees. In December 1955, attention turned to a new concept,
Gross weight was again estimated at 400,000 pounds, intended mainly to increase the radius of action of the
and four ducted fan engines were mounted in new bomber. The Model 724 study began in
individual pods under the wing. A small weapons bay December 1955 with –1 and ran through February
could carry a 7,500-pound “package” while five MX- 1957 with the –16. The study was under the direction
601 air-to-air defensive missiles were carried in the of Lloyd Goodmanson and Douglas E. Graves. The
aft fuselage. Performance was estimated to include a Model 724-1 was the first Boeing design to use
subsonic radius of 4,000 nautical miles, with a dash “floating” wingtips for range extension. The basic
speed of Mach 2 at 60,000 feet.4 airplane was very similar to the Model 713-1-169,
although it was 209.5 feet long with a wingspan of
Models 713-1-114 through 713-1-168 were designed 118.3 feet. The primary external difference was the
with varying gross weights, engine arrangements and addition of an outrigger landing gear in a streamline
sizes, wing planforms and sizes, wing loadings, and fairing projecting behind the wing between the two
types of engines, both chemical and nuclear. The engine nacelles. The defensive missiles made a
Model 713-1-169 was the final design proposed as comeback, this time looking more like the Falcon
the Boeing Model 713 to the Air Force in April 1955. missiles they would ultimately evolve into. What
This swept-wing airplane was powered by four low- really made the design different, however, was the
pressure ratio turbojet engines with afterburners and addition of two large fuel tanks carried on their own
could carry a bomb load of 10,000 pounds. A crew of wing section outboard of the basic aircraft. Each of
four operated equipment that allowed attacking the fuel tanks was 8 feet in diameter and 62 feet long,
targets while the airplane was dashing at Mach 3 and and housed a landing gear to support it during taxi
60,000 feet altitude after a long-range subsonic and takeoff. The dedicated wing section spanned 55
cruise.5 feet, but was mounted obliquely on the fuel tank to
continue the sweep of the normal wing. The bomber
The mostly stainless-steel Model 713-1-169 was 200 would take off with the floating wingtips attached,
feet long and spanned 118 feet. The four engines using the fuel contained within their tanks during the
were located in individual pods very far outboard on first part of the journey. The extensions would be
the wings. The fuselage was unusually slender, with jettisoned before the bomber entered enemy airspace
the wings mounted near the mid-point. A largely and were not recoverable.8
conventional tricycle landing gear was used, although
its retraction sequence was particularly complicated The next Boeing design using the floating wingtips
since both main gear were stowed in the fuselage. was a radical departure from the comparatively
Large fuel tanks dominated the fuselage and wing. A normal-looking Model 724-1. Boeing documentation
crew of four was seated in individual ejection in March 1956 described the Model 724-13 as “a
capsules. It appears the MX-601 defensive missiles straight wing, canard type airplane weighing 300,000
were deleted from this design, but an unidentified pounds powered by four turbojet engines with
“sophisticated” ECM system was included.6 afterburners carrying a bomb load of 10,000 pounds
and a crew of four.” However, the overall design was
Interestingly, Boeing continued looking at alternative very unusual. Although described as “straight wing,”
configurations under the Model 713 designation even in reality the design featured a trapezoidal planform
after submitting the “final” design. The first was the spanning 70.6 feet with a General Electric X275
Model 713-1-229, generated in October 1955. engine mounted under each wingtip. Two other
Whereas the –169 had been a steel Mach 3 dash engines were mounted on the sides of the fuselage
under the trailing edge of the wing. No conventional
4
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp.
4–6. See also Boeing report D-16382A, B, and C.
5 7
Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp.
7–9. See also Boeing report D-16794. 10–11.
6 8
9–10. See also Boeing report D-16794. 12–14, 38-39.

horizontal tail surfaces were fitted, the design relying
totally on the canard for pitch control.9 The Model 724-15 was 156.6 feet long and spanned
93.5 feet. The airplane was powered by four General
The fuselage was 156.6 feet long, with the wing Electric X275A turbojet engines in individual pods
mounted about two-thirds of the way back. The basic under the outer portion of the wing. The four-man
airplane had an empty weight of 106,710 pounds, crew sat behind a retractable ramp that was installed
with a maximum take-off weight of 225,000 pounds ahead of the windshield to provide better
and a maximum flight weight of 300,000 pounds. aerodynamics at high speeds. The same offset crew
The fuselage had a diameter of 12.5 feet, and a arrangement used in the Model 724-1 was retained.
10,000-pound weapon could be carried in the single An air-to-air refueling receptacle was located just
bomb bay. Four crewmen sat in an unusual ahead of the retractable windshield ramp. The main
arrangement; the pilots were side by side, the landing gear retracted into the fuselage just behind
bombardier-navigator behind the co-pilot and the the weapons bay. The airplane had an empty weight
“battle director” behind him. Comparatively large of 135,500 pounds and a maximum take-off weight
areas inside the fuselage were dedicated to of 350,000 pounds.13
electronics, primarily ECM equipment, and the
bomb-nav system. Conventional chaff and flare Each of the Model 724-1003 floating wingtips was
dispensers replaced the defensive missile system.10 75.8 feet long and had an oblique wing that spanned
The Model 724-1001 fuel tanks were fairly good- 90.8 feet. Since the wing continued the same sweep
sized aircraft themselves. The floating wingtips had a as the main airplane, each wingtip panel was
span of almost 81 feet, and the fuel tanks were 6.6 different, although the fuel tanks themselves were
feet in diameter and nearly 76 feet long. Each fuel identical. Each had an empty weight of 31,000
tank had a horizontal and vertical stabilizer, was pounds and an all-up weight of 180,000 pounds. The
fitted with a tricycle landing gear and had an empty wingtip panels were not reusable, did not have an
weight of 24,500 pounds and an all-up weight of engine, and were meant to be dropped prior to the
131,000 pounds. Again, the tanks were not airplane entering enemy airspace. They were
recoverable, the landing gear being provided to equipped with landing gear to make ground handling
facilitate take-off only. Operationally the floating easier, and to support themselves during taxi and
wingtips would be empty at takeoff and filled during takeoff.14
the first aerial refueling. The fuel in the wingtips
would then be used first so that they could be Boeing also proposed an alternate design to the
jettisoned before entering enemy airspace.11 Source Board. The Model 724-16 had more powerful
By July 1956, Boeing had progressed to the Model General Electric X279A engines, different floating
724-15, which was the design presented to the Source wingtips, a higher flight weight (425,000 pounds),
Selection Board Evaluation Team on 24-26 July. This and a 4,000-pound increase in useful military load.
370,000-pound airplane returned to the basic This airplane was 175.25 feet long and had a
concepts explored in the Model 724-1, with a wingspan of 93.5 feet. Instead of the retractable ramp
conventional empennage instead of a canard and a of the Model 724-15, the –16 had an articulating
more conventional wing planform. A crew of four nose: the forward 30 feet could swing down
and up to 10,000 pounds of bombs, along with approximately 15 degrees to provide pilot vision
another 10,000 pounds of ECM equipment and during low-speed operations – shades of the
expendable countermeasures (the defensive missiles supersonic transport a decade later. The articulating
again being deleted).12 nose held the aerial refueling receptacle, all of the
radar antennas, and some of the electronic equipment.
9 The crew arrangement was also different, with the
two systems operators facing backward directly
15–17. See also Boeing report D-17597.
10
13
15–17. See also Boeing report D-17597. Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
11
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. 18–20. See also Boeing report D-17597-1 and D2-
15–17. See also Boeing report D-17597. 1100.
12 14
18–20. See also Boeing report D-17597-1 and D2- 18–20. See also Boeing report D-17597-1 and D2-
1100. 1100.

behind the two pilots, all in individual escape developments included turbojet engines with reduced
capsules.15 supersonic fuel consumption, and basic research in
aerodynamics at the NACA Ames Aeronautical
While the Model 724 study was in progress, another Laboratory allowed the contractors to refine their
study was initiated that resulted in the Model 725. airframe configurations to varying degrees. During
This study began in January 1956 with –1 and ran late 1956 and early 1957, both contractors realized
through December 1957 with the –143 under the that if the entire aircraft was optimized for a single
direction of Benjamin Ruffner and D. W. Thurlow. flight condition – as opposed to a split mission
The first concept was a chemically powered vehicle configuration designed to accommodate two
and looked at parameters such as variations in the conditions – the combat radius of an all-supersonic
bomb load and gross weight, afterburning versus vehicle could be competitive with subsonic ones. The
non-afterburning engines, engine size and location, engine contractors seemed to support this theory.
high-energy fuels, range extension vehicles, and Both airframe contractors also concluded that, as
canard and tail-less configurations. Models 725-41 suggested by the Air Force, a boron-based high-
through –45 were tail-less airplanes of various gross energy fuel used in the engine afterburner would
weights using a delta planform. The most developed provide a 10- to 15-percent increase in range over
of the Model 725 designs was the –44 configuration. conventional JP-4. This extra range, however, would
This design had a 4,500 square foot delta wing that come at a significant cost in terms of fuel system
spanned 92.3 feet and a fuselage that was 150.6 feet complexity and engine design.. By March 1957, it
long. Four X275 engines were located in individual seemed almost certain that the new weapon system
pods on the outer wings. This part of the study could be an all-supersonic cruise vehicle instead of
concluded in April 1956.16 one using the split-mission scenario. Both contractors
quickly abandoned the floating wingtip concept and
Back to the Drawing Board each began investigating the use of high-energy fuel
to allow for smaller aircraft or significantly longer
Besides floating wingtips, the Boeing and North ranges or greater payloads in some combination.18
American preliminary designs had another factor in
common – both were rejected by the Air Force. Upon On 30 August 1957, the Air Force – assuming the
seeing the concepts, Curtis LeMay is reported as concept had been studied sufficiently – told Boeing
saying, “These aren’t airplanes, they are three-ship and North American that a winner would be selected
formations.” At roughly 750,000 pounds fully loaded, after a short competitive design period. On 18
300,000 pounds more than the B-36 and B-52, there September, the Air Force issued a final request for
were no runways in the world that could support proposals that called for a cruise speed of Mach 3.0
either proposed aircraft. Additionally, many in the to Mach 3.2, an altitude of 70,000 to 75,000 feet, a
Air Force had grown wary of the floating panel range of 6,100 to 10,500 nautical miles, and a gross
concept after the 1953 TIP TOW crash. In September weight between 475,000 and 490,000 pounds. The
1956, a disappointed Air Staff recommended that bomber was to be capable of operating in accordance
both contractors “return to the drawing board.”17 with the “SAC alert concept” where one third of a
unit’s aircraft were to be airborne “within 15 minutes
Returning to a “preliminary study” status allowed after receipt of the order” to launch. The final Boeing
both contractors to seriously reconsider their design and North American proposals would be due in 45
approach. Technology was advancing at a rapid pace days.19
and all concerned were getting smarter. New
The resulting designs were for much more realistic
15 aircraft. They were about the same length as the B-
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. 52, but had slightly less wingspan, were a little taller,
21–23. See also Boeing report D-17597-2. and weighed about 10 percent more. Both aircraft
16
Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons were designed to use existing B-52 bases and to be
18
24–25 and 38–39. See also Boeing report D-17738. Marcelle Size Knaack, Post-World War II Bombers,
17
Report of the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee (Washington: Office of Air Force History, 1988), p.
of the Committee on Armed Services, United States 564.
19
Senate, 86th Congress, Second session, “The B-70 AFSC Historical Publication 61-51-2, “Development of
Program” (Washington: Government Printing Office, Airborne Armament, 1910–1961,” October 1961, p.
1960), p. 4; Marcelle Size Knaack, Post-World War II II-316; Marcelle Size Knaack, Post-World War II
Bombers, (Washington: Office of Air Force History, Bombers, (Washington: Office of Air Force History,
1988), p. 563. 1988), p. 564.

maintained by existing skills available to SAC. The crew of four was arranged with the systems
Although delayed, it appeared that WS-110A was operators facing rearward behind the pilots. The
finally on a more realistic track. complex articulating nose used on some Model
724/725 configurations was abandoned, leaving the
The Boeing Design, Take II pilot with no forward visibility during low-speed
operations except via a television system. The single
weapons bay was offset to the left side of the
Despite the fiscal problems being experienced on
fuselage (a fuel tank occupied the other side).23
WS-110A, during November 1956 Boeing made a
concentrated effort to achieve a technical
Further study into the aerodynamic characteristics of
breakthrough in airplane performance to meet more
this airplane resulted in the addition of a large (350
nearly the WS-110A requirements. Highly
square foot) canard surface on the Model 804-1A in
concentrated studies of airframe configurations,
July 1957. Externally, this revised configuration was
engines, high-energy fuels, boundary layer control,
almost identical – excepting the canard – to the basic
and staging were conducted in an effort known as
airplane, although it grew to 208.6 feet long.
“Tea Bag.” Led by Edward Z. Gray, this effort
Internally, the crew compartment was rearranged so
studied no less than 28 basic concepts, with many
that all four crewmembers faced forward.24
parametric excursions from each. The basic ideas
included all-supersonic profiles, subsonic-cruise,
The Model 804-2 used a different fuselage shape and
supersonic-dash profiles, floating wingtip designs,
increased wing sweep with slightly larger engines,
hydrogen-powered designs, and one design that used
but was not pursued very far. The Model 804-3 had a
an innovative approach to boundary layer control to
greater wing sweep, and had a short life. The Model
extend its range. These designs all carried either
804-5 used larger engines, while the Model 804-6
Model 724 or Model 725 designations; the results of
had a 650,000-pound gross weight. Neither was
the study were published in December 1956.20
considered satisfactory.25
The investigation of the all-supersonic configuration
This left the Model 804-4, which was submitted to
seemed to yield the most promise, so Boeing began
the Source Selection Board Evaluation team during a
to concentrate on that idea. The Model 804 began in
meeting of 4–6 November 1957. This design had a
January 1957 with the –1 in February 1957 and ended
gross weight of 542,000 pounds and a large canard
on 23 December 1957 with the –10. H. W. “Bob”
surface that folded to an upright position during
Withington and Lloyd Goodmanson led the study.
subsonic flight and lowered to horizontal during
The Model 804-1 was a development of the Model
supersonic flight. Exactly why this complicated
725-115 and tailless delta wing configurations
approach was adopted was not explained. Externally,
studied during Tea Bag.21
the airplane – excepting the odd canard – did not
differ significantly from the Model 804-1A although
The Model 804-1 was a sleek, delta-wing airplane
the wing planform was a little less trapezoidal.26
that was 201.1 feet long with a 94.5-foot wingspan.
The wing planform, although described as a delta,
The Model 804-4 was just over 206 feet long with a
was actually a large trapezoid with clipped wingtips.
94.5-foot wingspan and the six GE X279J turbojet
No canard or horizontal control surfaces were used.
engines were still in individual pods under the back
A large dorsal vertical stabilizer and smaller ventral
of the wing. Small windows allowed limited forward
stabilizer provided directional stability. Six GE
vision from the cockpit, although they were recessed
X279E turbojet engines were arranged in individual
pods under the trailing edge of the wing. The airplane
had a maximum taxi weight of 499,500 pounds with 28-30. See also Boeing report D2-1433.
23
a 24,200-pound military load (weapons and defensive Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
systems).22 System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp.
28–30. See also Boeing report D2-1433.
24
20
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. 31–33. See also Boeing report D2-1433-1.
25
26–27. See also Boeing report D2-1417. Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
21
Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, p. 34.
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. See also Boeing report D2-2364.
26
28–30 and 38–39. See also Boeing report D2-1433. Boeing report D2-2371, “History: Boeing Weapons
22
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, pp. 34–36. See also Boeing report D2-2055.

into the fuselage and would probably have provided December 1957. Despite this setback, some of the
next to no visibility during the high-angle-of-attack Boeing designs went on to influence future
landings that are normal of a delta-wing airplane. Supersonic transport (SST) studies.31
Again, the crew faced forward, still in individual
escape capsules. The weapons bay was enlarged to
occupy the entire fuselage cross-section and could
carry a single 10,000-pound or single 25,000-pound
weapon. A large VLF antenna, characteristic of many Note: All images courtesy of the
of the Boeing designs, projected rearward from the
trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. A drag chute Boeing Historical Archives
was provided to help slow the airplane, allowing it to
operate from any runway capable of accommodating
the B-52.27
Although the Model 804-4 was the design entered

into the WS-110A competition, Boeing continued to
evaluate several other concepts. The Model 804-7
used six Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet engines, the
Model 804-8 had six dual-cycle J58s and could cruise
at Mach 4, the Model 804-9 used six dual-cycle X279
engines for Mach 4 cruise, and the model 804-10 had
six dual-cycle Curtiss-Wright DC-36 engines.28
Compression Lift Ultimately Wins

The Air Force evaluation group,29 numbering about
60 members, reviewed the North American proposal
during the last week of October; Boeing had their
turn during the first week of November.30 The North
American proposal was unanimously found superior
to that of Boeing, and the Air Force formally
announced North American’s selection on 23
27
34–36. See also Boeing report D2-2055.
28
System 110A (Model 804),” 26 December 1957, p. 37.
See also Boeing reports D2-2411, D2-2412, D2-2413,
and D2-2451.
29
For the first time in an Air Force procurement, the using
command (SAC, in this case) was allowed to
participate in the evaluation. Previously this had been
limited to the Air Research and Development
Command and the Air Materiel Command. Due to the
success of the three-team evaluation group, the Air
Force changed its source selection procedures, the
using command becoming an integral part of the
selecting process.
30 31
AFSC Historical Publication 61-51-2, “Development of AFSC Historical Publication 61-51-2, “Development of
Airborne Armament, 1910–1961,” October 1961, p. I- Airborne Armament, 1910–1961,” October 1961, p. I-
140; Report of the Preparedness Investigating 140; Report of the Preparedness Investigating
Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate, 86th Congress, Second session, United States Senate, 86th Congress, Second session,
“The B-70 Program” (Washington: Government “The B-70 Program” (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1960), p. 49; Marcelle Size Knaack, Printing Office, 1960), p. 49; Marcelle Size Knaack,
Post-World War II Bombers, (Washington: Office of Post-World War II Bombers, (Washington: Office of
Air Force History, 1988), pp. 564–566. Air Force History, 1988), pp. 564–566.

Boeing Model 804-004 instrument panel
Boeing Model 804-004 escape capsule

Landing gear of the Boeing Model 804-004

Inboard profiles of the Boeing Model 713-1-133 and Model 804-004
Not to scale.

X-Wing By Scott Lowther
Helicopters are, compared to conventional fixed wing provide much of the lift. The rotor was a “hot cycle”
aircraft, very efficient at low speed, vertical takeoff rotor, where the exhaust from turbojet engines was
and hover. Fixed-wing aircraft, compared to directed through the hub and to the rotor tips, where
helicopters, are typically capable of much higher jet thrust would spin the blades. For forward thrust,
speeds. Over the years, many attempts to marry the the jet thrust would be used normally. In this
concepts together have been attempted, with varying particular design, the jet thrust would be used to
degrees of success. One of the more interesting power high bypass ratio fans. Transition would occur
approaches is the “X-Wing.” in this concept, the at approximately 150 knots.
helicopter rotor (four-bladed, hence the “X” in “X- Empty wt: 26,230 lbs
Wing,” describing the two forward-swept and two Gross weight (VTO): 45,500 lbs
aft-swept wings in planform) is stopped in flight, and Max Gross wt: 68,000 lbs
becomes the wings of the aircraft. This is Engines: 2 GE1/J1 gas generators
advantageous because it means that the weight of
separate rotors and wings is not needed, and that the
drag associated with rotors at high speed is greatly
reduced and used to generate useful lift. The history
of the X-Wing concept is long and full of many
variations... but while the notion is ingenious,
numerous plaguing problems have meant that it has
not been adopted or even tried in flight. The
following article presents a number of the X-Wing
and X-Wing-like designs that have been put forward
through the years.
The first design is a 1965 Hughes Tool

concept for a recovery/transport aircraft. Its three- Figure 1: Hughes Hot Cycle rescue craft
bladed rotor would stop and lock into place for
forward flight; the large delta-shaped hub would
Figure 2: Hughes Hot Cycle rescue craft

weight of one million pounds, 400,000 pounds of that
being payload. Cruising at Mach 0.75, it was
expected to have a range of 11,750 nautical miles,
burning 176,500 pounds of fuel in the process.
The rotor-wing would be powered by a

series of high-performance gas generators located
within the hub. The rotor would not be attached to the
fuselage by a conventional single “axle,” but would
instead be constrained within a circular track atop the
wide fuselage.
Of much greater seriousness were the series

of three-bladed “Heliplane” designs produced at the
Ryan Aeronautical Company (See APR issue V2N5
for details on the origin of the concept). This concept
was quite similar to the Hughes design mentioned
before, except that the rotor-wings were much closer
to being true delta wings. Quite a number of these
designs were produced and patented by Peter Girard
of Ryan. Figure 4 shows an early design featuring a
forward drive propeller and a “biplane configuration
for the rotor-wings, which in this case were true
Figure 3: Lockheed X-Wing transport deltas. No dimensions were given, but size can be
estimated from the scale of the cockpit canopy.
Of perhaps somewhat dubious design
seriousness, the Lockheed California Company put
forward (1968 or before) a design for a very large X-
Wing transport aircraft (see Figure 3) with a gross
Figure 4: Biplane “Heliplane” (Ryan, 1962)

By 1963, Ryan had renamed the concept the The Vertiwing Mark IIIA shown in Figure5
“Vertiwing,” and had released a brochure detailing could seat four, and with two engines could nearly go
the design of a high speed V/STOL recon and attack supersonic. Payload was low, only a few thousand
aircraft using the three-bladed rotor wing. The tips of pounds, and there was fairly little internal volume for
the delta wing were stretched out somewhat to heavy ordnance. Nevertheless, the Mark IIIA has the
produce better lifting rotors. To counter torque look of something that would have made a passable
generated when in rotary winged flight, the port contender for roles such as that filled by the OV-1
vertical stabilizer was another rotor wing, with the Mohawk, and perhaps a modernized version could
three tips of its delta serving as small props. have competed against the AH-66 Comanche.
Figure 5: Vertiwing Mark IIIA (Ryan, 1963)
Figures 6 and 7 show three different craft two different Vertiwing-based approaches to the
patented by Peter Girard of Ryan. Figure 6 shows a concept of a transport aircraft One includes two
high speed VTOL craft with a secondary wing which rotor-wings; the other has more notional ideas
could tilt upward to present minimum drag and some involving variable geometry rotor-wings. Dimensions
aerodynamic control during hover. Figure 7 shows and other data for these patented designs are lacking.

Figure 6: High-speed Vertiwing (Ryan)
Figure 7: Vertiwing transport aircraft (not to scale) (Ryan)

The rotor-wing concept languished for a The Allison T63 turbojet engine would not shaft-
number of years. However, interest rose in the late drive the rotor-wing; instead, exhaust gas from the jet
1970s for high speed VTOL craft, and the X-Wing would be ducted through the blades to the tips. The
returned to promise. In 1977 Lockheed revealed their rotor hub was not axially symmetrical, though; the
concept for a 3,200 pound X-Wing technology rotor would have to stop in a specific orientation.
demonstrator for DARPA. With a rotor diameter of This design, while short-lived, set the stage for the
25 feet and a length of 32 feet, the X-Wing would definitive concept of X-Wing rotor-wing layouts.
have little military application beyond demonstration.
Figure 8: Lockheed X-wing test aircraft (Lockheed)
The largest effort to develop an X-Wing Wing was one such aspect. It was also meant to be
aircraft was associated with the RSRA (Rotor System flyable without the rotor even being attached; as a
Research Aircraft) program. Begun in 1970, Sikorsky consequence, it was fitted with conventional lifting
developed the S-72 RSRA for NASA and the US wings and turbofan engines for considerable forward
Army. It was to be a research aircraft capable of thrust
studying many aspects of helicopter design; the X-

Figure 9: Early concept for an RSRA (Sikorsky, 1972)
Figure 10: Refined concept for an RSRA (Sikorsky, 1972)

Figure 11: RSRA as built, but with an X-Wing (Sikorsky)
The RSRA was not originally designed for trailing edges of the rotors and carefully controlled to
general high-speed rotorcraft studies. It was provide pitch and cyclic control, especially during
originally fitted with the engines and five-bladed transition.. Due to technical and financial problems,
rotor from the S-61 Sea King. In an emergency the the X-Wing was never flown on the RSRA, and the
rotors could be jettisoned; the crew could then either program was canceled in 1988. Not least of the X-
fly the craft as a conventional aircraft or punch out Wings troubles was that during transition the aircraft
with ejector seats. The first RSRA, sans wings and could be expected to lose 1,000 to 9,000 feet in
turbofans, flew as a helicopter in October, 1976; the altitude due to loss of lift and controllability. This
second RSRA made its maiden flight in April, 1978, was a problem that was not truly tackled into the
with wings and turbofans in place. “canard-rotor-wing” concept from McDonnell-
Douglas in the 1990’s. Valving in the hub and
The X-Wing rotor as developed by Sikorsky associated maintenance issues also promised troubles
(see Fig 12) was different from conventional rotors. It
was to be very thick to provide rigidity and ducting RSRA wingspan was 45’1”, fuselage length
for high flow-volumes of air. The air would be was 70’7”.
ejected through slots located on the leading and
Figure 12: X-Wing rotor features (Sikorsky)

Sikorsky put the greatest effort into demonstrator was meant to make use of RSRA
designing X-Wing aircraft, expending a great deal of hardware (57.7 foot diameter rotors, hub and drive
company funds. While many designs were produced hardware, and be available circa 1990. Fuselage
and some studied in considerable detail, information length was 62’ 8,” gross weight was 23,000 pounds
on these designs is generally limited. Two designs and cruise speed was 270 knots (350 knotss
were revealed by Sikorsky in 1985 for Navy attainable in a dive). Power was provided by two
applications (Figures 13 and 14). The technology P&W-100 turboshaft engines of 2500 SHP each.
Figure 13: X-Wing technology demonstrator (Sikorsky, 1985)
The operational aircraft to be derived from

the technology demonstrator was quite similar in The X-Wing aircraft were envisioned as
configuration. Instead of the shrouded fan used for fleet defenders, serving the in anti-submarine,
torque control on the demonstrator, the operational electronic intelligence and early warning capacities.
aircraft used thrust vectoring; the turboshaft engines Another capability would be for combat search and
used were mounted inboard and their jet exhaust and rescue; the X-Wing would be able to race to the
fan bypass air were ducted to the tail, where they location of a downed pilot far faster than a helicopter
could be used for both forward and yaw thrust. The would, and yet would be able to hover and search
mixing of jet exhaust and fan bypass air would much like a helicopter when it got to the search site.
greatly cool the exhaust, lowering the aircrafts IR The X-Wing would also be configured as a radio
signature. jammer, and to serve as an airborne guidance control
system for surface launched missiles.
The desire was to use this X-Wing on
aircraft carriers and DD-963 class ships. Thus it had
to fit into small spaces for storage – as a result, the
The fuselage of the operational X-Wing was
operational craft was to be smaller than the
to be 61’ 10” long and 12’ 6” wide. Gross weight was
demonstrator. Since the operational aircraft had a
38,000 pounds, and cruise speed was Mach 0.8 at
surplus of power in hover (due to the fact that it was
30,000 feet; it could attain Mach 0.95 in a dive.
to attain high speed), a smaller rotor (50-foot
Conversion between rotary-wing and fixed-wing
diameter) loading was possible The rotor would fold
would occur between 180 and 200 knots. Power was
when stowed. The operational rotor was notable
provided by two turboshaft engines of 11,400 SHP
longer in chord and more tapered than the RSRA-
each, which were capable of converting from
derived demonstrator rotor. This would have made
turboshaft to turbofan as required.
the rotors more rigid when used as forward-swept
wings.

Figure 14: X-Wing operational aircraft (Sikorsky, 1985)
Sikorsky produced a number of other X- designer who actually drew them. Detailed data for
Wing designs. The following pages show a number these designs is largely lacking, unfortunately. Dates
of these designs; the layout drawings were provided are approximately 1985-1988.
to the author by Andrew Whyte, the Sikorsky
Figure 15: Artists impression of a Naval X-Wing in flight (Sikorsky)

Figure 16: Layout of Naval X-Wing, same vehicle as shown in Figure 15. Note that the vectored exhaust nozzles are mounted below the tail
95
and well forward, as opposed to right at the tail in the previous X-Wing design. Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
96 Aerospace Projects Review
Figure 17: Layout of X-Wing, This design features side-by-side seating and what appeares to be a weapons bay on the underside. Cargo
and/or personell transport seem likely roles. Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
Figure 18: Layout of an X-Wing fighter design. This and the following similar designs were meant to be subsonic
craft, and to carry their weapons internally. Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte

Figure 19: Inboard and cross-
sectional views of X-Wing fighter
shown in Figure 18. Note details of
thrust vectoring system in the tail.
None of these craft used afterburners.
Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew

Whyte

Figure 20: Cutaway view of X-Wing Fighter. Drawing from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
Figure 21: Patent drawings of a variant X-Wing fighter design, with a different tail. While dimensions for this craft
(which is also shown in the following drawings) are lacking, they can be assumed to be as for the other X-Wing
design. (United Technologies Corporation, US Patent D297,005, 1988)

100 Aerospace Projects Review
Figure 21 Layout of X-Wing fighter, same design as shown in Figure 20. Note clean aerodynamics of the fuselage. Dated 1986. Drawings
from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
Figure 22: Artists impression of X-Wing fighter in flight. Painting from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
101
Figure 23: Another X-wing fighter variant, this time featuring a T-tail and pusher props Fuselage is quite different
from the other X-Wing fighter designs.Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
Figure 24: Pusher-prop X-Wing fighter variant with the same tail as the X-Wing fighter shown in Figure 18.
Dimensions are likely to be the same. Drawings from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte

Figure 25: Artists impression of X-Wing fighter in flight. Painting from Sikorsky, via Andrew Whyte
103
The final design in this collection is an X- patent drawings clearly show the helicopter to be
Wing attack craft designed and patented by Northrop, armed with Sidewinder missiles, most likely AIM-
design patent filed for in 1984. Information on this 9Js, with a length of 3.07 meters each. If the
design outside of the patent seems to be lacking, proportions are correct, this means that the helicopter
though it may well have been an LHX contender has a fuselage length of approximately 10.9 meters/
(eventually won by the Boeing RAH-66 Comanche). 35.8 feet. Rotor diameter would be about 9.7 meters /
As with most patents, most of the dimension, weight 31.8 feet. Cruise speed was given as 230 knots, and
an performance data is slim at best. However, the gross weight about 13,000 pounds.
Figure 26: Patented Northrop attack X-Wing (Northrop patent D291,194, 1987),

Figure 27: Patented Northrop attack X-Wing (Northrop patent D291,194, 1987)
Figure 28: Patented Northrop attack X-Wing (Northrop patent 4,711,415, 1987)

Dash On Warning Concept
By Scott Lowther
By the mid 1970’s, it was becoming clear that would be used for efficient long-duration cruise.
American land-based ICBMs were vulnerable to Cruise conditions would be reached approximately
first-strike attack from increasingly accurate Soviet 300 seconds after launch. The aircraft would have to
ICBMs. Consequently, alternate basing systems were be designed to be stable and controllable from sea
considered… including “Dense Pack” silos, super- level and low speed up to Mach 3 and the upper
hardened silos, train and road mobile ICBMs, ICBMs atmosphere; however, the fact that two separate
carried by and launched from cargo planes, even propulsion systems were to be used (rockets and jets)
small submarines operating in the Great Lakes. One meant that the jets could be designed to operate
of the more unusual concepts for basing and efficiently at the cruise condition. The two liquid
operability for ICBMs was the “Dash On Warning” rocket propellants studied were LOX/LH2,
concept. commonly used on space launch vehicles (but so far
never on military weapons systems), and
Studied at the NASA-Ames Research Center unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) with
and the Aerophysics Research Corporation of nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). UDMH and N2O4, unlike
Bellevue, Washington, the Dash-on-Warning concept liquid oxygen or liquid hydrogen, are liquids at room
used large aircraft to carry MX and MX-derived temperature, and can be stored easily for extended
ICBMs. The aircraft were to be kept on the ground periods. Performance is not as good as with
but in a constant state of readiness; in the event of a LOX/LH2, but bulk density is greater and operations
warning, the aircraft would launch vertically under are much simpler.
rocket power to escape from the base as quickly as
possible. It would then dash to a loiter location where Configurations studied varied greatly,
it would orbit as subsonic speed. The aircraft would though only a few were illustrated – and then only as
then either launch its missile or return to base, as notional concepts. One design was for a vehicle of
conditions dictated. conventional layout with straight wings; it was
studies as both a staged solid and unstaged liquid
Several vehicle designs were examined, rocket boosted vehicle. Straight wings would provide
though none in great detail. Basic payload was two a low structural weight with good lifting capability,
100,000 pound MX missiles, designs with two or but with considerable drag at high speed. The staged
four 80,000 MX variants were also examined. vehicle had a single large solid rocket booster on the
Rockets would be used, either liquid or solid, for underside, while the unstaged version had four liquid
vertical takeoffs. For designs with solid rockets, the rocket engines in the tail. After rocket engine
boosters would be jettisoned after burnout. Designs burnout, an inflatable shroud would cover the tail to
using liquid rockets would retain them onboard as an reduce drag.
integral part of the design.
Another design utilized variable geometry
Dash time was of primary concern. A design wings; swept back for low drag during boost and the
requirement was that the craft should be able to dash ballistic arc, they would sweep out for more efficient
to 50 nautical miles away from the launch site within low-speed loiter. This design was more
three minutes from the go order. The vehicle would aerodynamically efficient than the straight-winged
boost straight up for the first thousand feet; it would version, but had the expense of added weight. Again,
then begin a gradual pitch-over. The vehicle would it could be launched either using internal rocket
go supersonic while climbing past 20,000 feet; the engines or an external solid rocket booster.
rockets would burn out around 76 seconds after
launch, at an altitude of 70,000 feet and a speed of A third design was optimized to make best
Mach 3. Peak burnout accelerations were typically on use of the two flight conditions of the craft… low-
the order of 3 gees. The craft would continue drag for boost and ballistic arc, and high lift for
upwards on a ballistic trajectory, with apogee at efficient subsonic cruise. To achieve this, it used a
100,000 feet. The plane would then begin a descent single-pivot wing. During boost, the wing was
to around 27,000 feet, where it would loiter for up to stowed parallel to the fuselage, providing minimal lift
6 hours at Mach 0.55, awaiting the command to and drag. But for loiter, the wing would rotate 90
either launch or return. Conventional turbojet engines degrees and produce a straight, efficient wing. The

single pivot would weigh considerably less than the strengthened to take landing with the MX in the
dual pivots of the conventional variable geometry payload bay. The re-entry thermal protection system
design. Since the pivot would be located at the center and RCS jets and associated propellant tanks would
of lift of the wing, rather than at the wing root (where also be removed. An inflatable shroud would fair
it would have to take not only the lift of the wing, but over the engines and improve aerodynamics after
also considerable torque), the stresses on the pivot burnout, as with the other integral liquid rocket
would be greatly reduced. designs.
Perhaps the oddest concept was to modify However, even with these modifications, the
the Space Shuttle into an MX-carrier. The missile 6000,000 pound gross weight Shuttle derived vehicle
would be carried within the Shuttles payload bay, could only carry a single missile and cruise for two
with rocket propellant tanks filling the rest of the hours; consequently, the Shuttle concept was dropped
bay’s volume (presumably N2O4/UDMH; there from consideration.
would have been nowhere near enough volume for
LOX/LH2). The single vertical tail was replaced with The Dash-On-Warning was a relatively
twin tails to give the upwards-ejecting missile minor effort, and no serious effort to actually
clearance. Two turbojet engines were mounted above implement it (or even do detailed vehicle designs)
the wings, which were given extended span (93 feet) appears to have been made.
for greater lift. Since the MX weighed considerably
more than any payload a conventional Shuttle would
carry, the landing gear would have to be considerably
Figure 1: Fixed-wing Dash-On-Warning aircraft with integral liquid rockets (©2005, Scott Lowther)

Figure 2: Skew-wing Dash-On-Warning carrier using a solid rocket booster – a UA 1207 is depicted (©2005, Scott
Lowther)
Figure 3: Shuttle-derived Dash-On-Warning MX Figure 4: Geometric data on Dash-On-Warning

carrier (©2005, Scott Lowther) configurations

The Future
Now that the final issue of APR is out the door, a few words about the future.
For starters: This is not the final issue of APR.
What this is, is the last regularly scheduled issue sold via subscription. I expect to produce more issues in the
future... at random intervals, and sell them to whoever wants them. No subscriptions will be taken. As can be seen
by comparing the date on the cover of this issue with the date on your nearest reliable calendar... maintaining a
schedule can be a bit rough.
Secondly: now that AAPR is technically finished, I intend to get to work on several other projects that have been put
off. The one that has kept me most occupied of late is a project begun in October, 2003: “US Bomber Projects.” This
was described briefly in the last issue. Since then, some considerable effort has gone into it, and important decisions
have been made. The most important decision made so far is to do all the drawings myself. Rather than include
drawings of often distressing quality, I’m making them all myself. A result of the drawings made to date (between
June 23 and July 18, 2005) is shown below:

The aircraft shown in that illustration are shown to scale with each other, another advantage to doing the drawings
myself. Since beginning the project, I have learned that Tony Buttler, author of similar books on British and Soviet
fighter and bomber projects, is also doing books on US fighters and bombers. A previous effort of mine on the
Dyna-Soar was scuttled when I discovered that another Dyna-Soar book was in the works; but this time I’m forging
ahead anyway. Buttler and I will be focusing on different aspects... he’s going after the more conventional, while I
am – as can be seen in the drawings – going after the more oddball concepts. Nuclear powered bombers and
bombers that fly above the atmosphere will have big sections.
The drawings I will produce will be as accurate as I can make them. However, in some cases, some concession to
aesthetics will be required. Take, for example, the drawings in this issues article about Dash-On-Warning concepts.
The original drawings were extremely schematic, as can be seen below; drawing them so that they didn’t look like
crap (especially the Shuttle-derived version) took considerable effort.
Publication date for the Bomber Book is impossible to guesstimate. If it occurs in 2006, I’ll be stunned. Once I’ve
got something vaguely presentable, I will probably shop it around to actual publishing houses... but it may well be
that I’ll self-publish it. In any event, between now and then I may well try marketing certain aspects of it to help
fund the effort. Anybody care to donate a grant to the cause?

11305 W 10400 N
Thatcher, UT 84337

pv5n6 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

pv5n6 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 5, Number 6 November-December, 2003

Raumwaffe, 1946 Boeing WS-110A

Aerospace Projects Review

2 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Part One: The Peenemünde Efforts

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 3

The propulsion system was similar to that of

The nose of the A-3 was packed with

The A-3 was a masterpiece of engineering.

4 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 5

Although the A-4 rocket comes next

The A-5 was quite similar to the A-3 in

The A-5, like the A-3, had a parachute

Prior to the launch of the first A-5, there was

6 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 7

8 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 9

10 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 11

12 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 13

14 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

One of the earliest concepts for a boost-glide

Figure 12: A-9/A-10 as of June 10, 1941

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 15

16 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 17

18 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 19

20 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 21

22 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 23

24 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 25

26 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 27

The A-12 reconstruction shown is entirely

Figure 24: 1946 painting (by de Beek) of the A-11

28 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 29

30 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review

Maximum - 1.98 - 80 ~100 12.9 ? ? ? 550 -

Maximum - - - 330 750 ? ? ? 300 - 500 5000 -

Alcohol/ Alcohol/ Alcohol/ Alcohol/

Propellant ? ? ? 8692 8692 ? ? ? ? 11,910 50,560

- - 0.9 3.564 ? 1.28 ? ? 3.55 3.564 9

32 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 33

34 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 35

This design was revealed in Walter

The fact that the A-60 was unveiled in a

36 Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003

Henshalls Radiological V-2

Aerospace Projects Review September-October 2003 37

In Stine’s book “ICBM,” he describes a Another problem with the “Peenemünder

The fact that the drawing of a conical rocket

Speculation is certainly possible with this

Figure 35: Conceptual layout of German/Russian G-4