I see their effort at preserving the white race as anything but a "dark history". White genocide enthusiasts such as yourself may view it as a "dark history".
What they really needed was a printer that made trained pilots, infantry and tankers. By the end, they were giving sailors, pilots, and even coal miners rifles to fill out understrength infantry. No wonder weapon or an ocean of petrol was going to save them. They were out of warfighters.
@@wllwll-zh7ig from Germany's point of view they were very much in their lane. First of all redressing the wrongs of the Versailles treaty and then acquiring the lebensraum or living space they thought their future required. This is why we have conflict, because what our lane is is a highly subjective idea. Looking at the whole situation what boggles my mind is Germany had several opportunities where they might have settled for half a cake but they decided not only that they wanted the whole thing but they wanted to eat it right now. So from my point of view even though the cost was immense it's probably for the best and that our favorite little Austrian extrovert wasn't much of a strategist. Imagine what would have happened it had Germany not declared war on the United States in 1941 or if Hitler had had a brain wave and accepted Stalin's offer to join the Axis in 1940. He might also have simply not invaded the Soviet Union letting him concentrate elsewhere or the UK might have gotten a clue and come to terms in 1940 when everything seemed against them. On such things hinge the fate of Nations
Despite the several things they had going for them Germany did not have a huge "military potential" as it happened they ended up punching way above their weight class but as you said their ability to staff and supply their military was exhausted and ultimately that's why they lost.
Looks like I found another model railroader, lol. I love my Scale Trains GTEL “Big Blow” turbine and own 3 other variants of the turbines UP used. It would be great if someone made a detailed model of the coal turbine unit as you mentioned. I’m an SP and UP fan, dad worked for both until retirement. I had no idea about the Germans using coal powered aircraft, odd but understandable.
Anyone who has ever seen the flamethrower blow torch effect of pulverized coal blown into a boiler in a power station or locomotive (like the Henschel Locomotives of the 1950s) will know that a coal powered ram jet would work. It's completely plausible and doable. A small rocket in the middle of the ramjet would induce an airflow for starting the ramjet at zero speed and could then be switched of.
@@DeliveryMcGee The first diesels were low speed diesels and worked by injecting the fuel with highly pressurized air. It certainly could have been possible to inject dose in pulverized coal to a chamber and inject it. The issue would have been the effect of erosion on the pistons. High speed diesels only became possible due to Robert Bosch's direct injection patents. -Today there are a number of "clean coal" programs which would purify and clean the coal first and then burn it in a closed brayton cycle gas turbines. These transfer the heat into the working fluid by walls and the coal never touches the turbine. ABB operated such turbines for power generation in the 1950s and 60s. They worked very well. The idea of 'clean coal' is to collect the CO2 and sequester it underground (depleted oil wells, aquifers)
No one, not even the desperate nation states, has ever tried a coal powered jet engine. I have no idea how long a development time it would take to work out all the bugs in such a design or if it is even possible for such a use in such a small airframe. This dose reek of being a project to keep engineers out of combat and that is the only way this engine actually works.
Guy was also covering his own ass by doing so, so I would hesistate in praising him. Lets not forget guy was active contributor to German war machine prior to that.
@@B1SCOOP im not sure you can blame anyone for that, refusing your ("civilian") duties would mean prison at best and more likely a work camp. being german didnt exclude you from consequences, at all.
@@LOL60345 blaming? I'm not. But assuming guy was another Schindler is as much naive, especially when he "protected" his own "tribe". That was nothing more than weaseling his way out of combat service. Plain act of survival, not resistance in any chance, even passive. If he was a forced worker, he would be taken without questions and immediately sent on the front.
It's true that the Lorin coal fired ramjet was not flight tested, but it was successfully wind tunnel tested in Austria in 1945. This is where is was discovered the the coal needed to be sized into uniform smaller pellets. The pellets were placed in a rotating gridded round cage of sorts and ignited by a chemical fuel jet.
-Pulverized coal when blown into a power station boiler or a locomotive boiler looks like a fame thrower or blow torch. Having seen it and seen it be controlled its entirely plausible. -Antony Kay's "German Jet Engines and Gas Turbines" talks of the constant volume Holzworth gas turbines that were operated by the German railways as peak load generators in the 1930s which used coal. In this type of gas turbine compressed air is admired into a combustion chamber via a poppet valve and then the valve closed and ignited. The hot air is exhausted over an exhaust poppet valve to drive a turbine. There are usually two chambers to ensure constant flow. It worked well on oil but on coal the water cooled turbine eroded. -So called closed bray ton cycle gas turbine engines ran for years in Switzerland of coal and may make a come back as part of the clean coal programs around the world.
Exactly, as a coal pellet powered ramjet, turbojet or turbofan engine is possible. However, there were issues. With the Lorin ramjet, there were three main issues: The rotating basket would need to be replaced every flight, liquid fuel made from coal had a better power to thrust ratio, and the weight of the fuel to range of a liquid fuel made from coal was better than the Lorin ramjet... The same holds true for a turbo jet or turbofan engine made from coal, but that also has the major issue of damaging the turbine blades due to the coal deposits making them out of balance... Of course using coal to make a solid fuel rocket engine would likely be a better idea, as solid fueled engines have been made using synthetic rubber and aluminum oxide. Fortunately, the Nazi's didn't have the aluminum to waste as part of the oxidizer...
@@davidhollenshead4892 Hey Dave, I thought the modern day SRBs used perchlorate for oxidizer...I am aware that powered aluminium is used in the recipe tho. The exact recipe for the shuttle SRBs is disclosed in Wikipedia. My buddy used to work for Branson ... I think they used hydrogen peroxcide to burn (oxidize) what ever it was they were using as their solid...a polymer of sorts (I think.) Ciao! Kevin
@@davidhollenshead4892 The problem with generating liquid fuel from coal is the capital equipment. The steal required was equal to 1/4 the US Navy and the Panzers and U-boats that could have been built enormous. The Bergious Hydrogenation process at the time was about 55% 60% efficient so you loose 40% of the heating value of the coal. The more compact Fischer-Tropsch plants was even less efficient (40%). The real problem was that the Plants could easily be bombed and were. The Geilen plan at the end of the war planed for 1 massive underground Bergius Hydrogenation Plant and 6 dispersed hardened hidden Fischer Tropsch plants plus dozens of mini plants. -In reality the German synthetic coal to fuel plants had 90% of the output destroyed and were repeated bombing targets. Hence the value of a coal powered aircraft. -The Germans developed new fluidised bed coal gasifiers and fluidsed bed reactors that along with new catalysts would have significantly increase efficency and reduced the plant size but these came too late to implement.
@@williamzk9083 the problem is still getting the right size, and the management of the injector. in the power station injector it is blown by air. yet mixing the power and the air still has to be done.
You couldn't report that for another 20 years, or so, because Doritos weren't invented until 1964 and they would not have become a meaningful part of the culture until the 1980s.
So I work in Aerospace, and a few years back, I had a long conversation with an old engineer (now retired) about building a ram jet that operated on coal dust. This guy had done some research on it, and in his explanation to me, commented that there is such a device used to both pull grain dust out of silo's and consume it, considering grain dust is also extremely explosive - requiring grain elevators to have all manner of dust suppression systems to prevent disaster. Also note that one of my coworkers lost her brother in a grain elevator explosion... giving weight to the notion that if coal dust were fed into a ram style combustion tube, you could likely get reasonable thrust. In a ram jet configuration, the dust delivery would likely need some sort of augur system to move the dust from the fuel bins (a bit like the olde steam trains had for delivering coal) and there would need to be considerable spark suppression to keep the fire where it ought to be and not working its way backward into the storage system... but it does seem that since coal dust is a good bit more volatile than coal chunks, a working flying thing could be built... After our conversation, I started imagining some sort of steam-punk coal powered bi-plane design, and I have a few pages of rough sketches working out some of the requirements. No we didn't consider that it could be fast... or be a war machine, but now seeing this video, I'll have to rethink it. Might be fun.
It has through modern investigation been virtually proved it was the explosion of coal dust in empty holds that was the secondary cause of the loss of the Lusitania after torpedoing.
@@josega6338 Hello, yes that was true in a supposedly minor activity. An interviewed historian on the TV many years ago claimed there were some boxes of grenades on board apparently for test purposes. Grenades were a developing format of ammunition at that time and these were an American version of interest to the British. The explosive ability of some dusty atmospheres is well known especially coal and flour. It is the amount of flour in functioning windmills which caused fire in many lightening strikes with the wooden mechanisms adding more solid fuel. If the holds were empty in the ship towards the end of the voyage the shaken coal dust from impact surrounding the area of strike would have hugely magnified the explosion and apparently more recent investigation has indicated the strike was the in the area of empty coal storage. The explosive munitions theory was raised almost immediately as a defence against sinking a passenger vessel with substantial loss of life though it was unlikely at the time anyone had a full knowledge of the manifest. Lots of politics in the cradle of war!
@@josega6338 The Lusitania was a British ship. It carried artillery shell casings and cartridges. These were not considered munitions by the British because they had not yet been filled with propellants and explosives. it was obvious they would be used against Germany. The Lusitania was also carrying large amounts of 303 rifle ammunition described as hunting ammunition. -If anyone wanted to travel safely between the US and Britain they could do so safely on an American Ocean Liner as Germany did not attack US flagged ships. -Since the British Navy was arming its merchant ships and had been using q-ships (armed ships disguised as innocent trawlers or neutrals) the German submarines had stopped stopping and searching when in British waters in and exclusion zone. Hence Lusitania was attacked by one torpedo. She was hit because her captain had not maintain high speed and she sank because her captain then ran her at full speed to shore which scooped in water. She was used for depth charge practice which destroyed must evidence of munitions though we have her manifest and some evidence found.
@@williamzk9083 This makes me remember the case of Stampa Bay, where German fleet was confined an sunk when they lost WW I. Some britons shot at unarmed German sailors. I never had any interest in WW I, my attention in WW II is focused only in Airplanes and other technology issues. But there is people who would like making same as Simon Wiesenthal, hunting nazis, when nsdap dissapeared, with no continuers, in May 1945. 'Insane at any age'
It will be great to see some more air fight with it or even same from othere perspectives .... Its crazy great awsome especialy camera from back and fires shoots from engine like in "kill vehicle" that intercept nuclear warheads. When its shoot at aproatching bomber .....wow its creazy soo cool! :D
@@FoundAndExplained need to force city officials to cut own wealth to support daca+ lower taxes permanently by big amount for all those making below 150k per year to prove daca worth it since for ages DC never lower living cost only print dollars to do more refugee crisis Nuland Hillary McCain podesta deeply involved start ukraine crisis strike first blood but use woman that put severed finger in wendy chili 2.0 shameless blame russia, recall pbs putin file podesta when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc/Britain(thank Blair Iraq france stolen libya gold) to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0 but remain rich recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election left wing media give protest t-shirts to san quan mayor for lying about never receive maria supplies th-cam.com/video/qYmCtYLE9k0/w-d-xo.html george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support = 1. th-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/w-d-xo.html 2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria th-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/w-d-xo.html current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y= 2. th-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/w-d-xo.html 3. th-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/w-d-xo.html dnc establishment kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip, crash car in to wisconsin parade thanks to nbc follow jury bus smearing ritten house too th-cam.com/video/UxoL8tHSa7g/w-d-xo.html ray epps-fake sole survivor from ritten house case 2.0/podesta 2.0 when you look at left wing msm collaborate th-cam.com/video/OnVHhn-vgUw/w-d-xo.html dnc smear looking into treat covid symptoms/travel bans but permit parades/riots, recall snitches get rewards? a. th-cam.com/video/06Fyg4maLWg/w-d-xo.html b. th-cam.com/video/P1FUMdHU29c/w-d-xo.html
Lippisch was an amazing designer. Who also came up with the annular wing amomgst other things. By the way, the Me 163 B Komet had two MK 141 cannons, and they were of 30mm calibre. And though they.were found to be a 'a bit much' on the racketen floh, they were nevertheless used on the tiny fighters.
9:07 Being that the F-106 is my favorite aircraft of all time, I would definitely like to see more videos down this line, yes. Amazing work, as always!
@@manuwilson4695 Man, ever since I was a kid, I've just always liked the way it looks. I didn't say it was the best or anything, just that it's my favorite.
@@manuwilson4695 I don't know what to tell you, man. I like lots of planes, the Hustler included, but ever since I read about the 106 in a book back when I was like 5, it's always just activated my neurons. So does the Avro Arrow, by the way, and I will never forgive Canada for cancelling it. I guess I just enjoy outdated delta-wing interceptors.
@@manuwilson4695 I want to respond to you, but I have absolutely no idea what to say. Keep questioning, I guess, always ask questions, but don’t be disrespectful about it…That’s all I have to say.
It's doubtful that it'd be good for supersonic speeds, as compressibility & critical Mach theory, and area ruling were unknown. Like the Me-163 (also a Lippisch design), it was good for higher sub-sonic speeds than just about anything else. The glider seems to have flown well, and scale models of the p.13a did well.
I'm confident coal would work mind you it would be a huge PITA to deal with for cleaning maintenance and refueling. the design actually did make sense in their situation though coal to petroleum conversion processes they also developed were preferable.
The Luftwaffe (or at least Lippisch) conception of ramming was to disable an enemy aircraft, with the ramming aircraft surviving an attack. This is not really anything like a Kamikaze attack, which sacrifices the life of pilot and loss of aircraft.
Well thats more for the comfort of the pilot. Being real how would the plane survive making such a high speed contact. I mean even if it did the pilot could just aswell end up being knocked out or having some broken bones, or worse. I would believe unless this is a job for heavily indoctrinated SS men that most pilots trying to fly this thing would fire 5 rounds, realize how retarded and flimsy the thing is and how unlikely it even is the machinegun is gonna do any damage at all, spot the tailgunner of the bomber already getting him on his sigths and just ditch the plan and eject as soon as possible. With the japanese Kamikaze pilots you atleast had a chance because you were kinda setting them up to drown in heavy military gear anyway if they didnt pull the plan through.
Ramming into bomber's wings ort tail was not in the design features of L-13/ DM-1; simply, fom the swept of leading edge, it will slip. This aim was in other machines that never flew, as Zeppelin Rammer. An smart approach to sending bombers down was a photoelectric cell [A Einstein got his Nobel price from this, after attending lectures on the subject in a German University, his Croatia-born (as Nikola Tesla) first wife, Maliç, who transposed his ideas into mathematics, made him give her the money from Nobel price when splitting], the fighter passed below bombers; when photoelectric cell detected one above, it automatically fired a battery of rockets or cannons, angled 45º upwards.
Indeed. The Luftwaffe used steel props and late in the war determined the survivability of a pilot using his plane as a weed eater was actually high. He would bail and hopefully return to do it again 😂.
@@billcat1840 Japanese were reported assessing pilot losses in suicide actions won't be higher than in combats were a chance of survival supposedly existed. No interest in this subject.
Wenn du genauer hinguckst ist fast alles in Star Wars und Captain America von deutschen Flugzeugdesigns aus dem 2.Weltkrieg beeinflusst! Damalige Ingenieure und technische Zeichner waren ihrer Zeit weit voraus und sehr Experimentierfreudig! Ob diese Designs auch wirklich Flugtauglich gewesen wären, wage ich allerdings zu bezweifeln... Die meisten Projekte waren immer auf die selben damals verfügbaren Triebwerke beschränkt, die fernab von Zuverlässig waren...
I did read somewhere that they had managed to make a coal powered engine. The issue was that it wasnt as powerful as the rest engines but it wasn't an issue cause it could be made cheaper and it was just enough to fly (on paper)
If you read the book ‘Only the Wing’ the novelty’s of Horten’s design is fully explained. This design had several problems; ejecting the undercarriage was one and another was the clumping of the coal fuel feeding the engine. The thickness of the wings was deliberate in many of his designs to accommodate both a twist in the section and encompass machinery. The difference in control technology by Norden was the clamshell control on the end of the wing but Horten discovered early on the the corrective surfaces had to vary both up and down at the same time and did it by gearing them together. Two designers chasing the same problems independently!
The are 3 approaches to the "suicide ramming" -Japanese spiritual strike of divine wind (against ships) -Russian "Taran" with a very sturdy airplane that mostly didn't kill the pilot (against planes) -And this, a true suicidal run. Also didn't work. Also the war had changed too much to work
Not sure what you mean by "first delta plane". If you mean Lippisch invented the delta wing; no he didn't, that's a common misconception, it was around long before him.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Lippisch invented a delta wing that worked and worked well at transonic and supersonic speeds. Triangular fins on 16th century gunpowder rockets don't count.
@@williamzk9083 Who said anything about fins on a rocket? The concept of a delta wing aircraft goes back to the mid 19th century, and there were delta wing aircraft flying before his ideas took shape. It's not hard to do research, instead of just parroting what everyone else says.
0:57 That looks like a present day map of Europe. The pre-WW2 German Polish and Polish Soviet borders were both quite a bit further to the east back then vs now. 1:02 Ironically to the Germans one of the original goals for invading the Soviet Union was getting hold of the oil fields in the Caucasus.
Since a lot of modern hobbyists use commercial rocket engines which have rubber as a fuel source leads me to believe this could well have been a viable engine design and the only reason it was never pursued was because everyone working on rocket design after the war had better fuel options.
5:12 My understanding is that: When coal burns, it primarily releases Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Monoxide is usually produced by combustion of a fuel along with Carbon Dioxide, such as when a fuel is burned, then some of the exhaust, containing Carbon Dioxide, is recirculated. When being recirculated and heated past a certain temperature, the Carbon Dioxide loses one of it's Oxygen atoms, becoming Carbon Monoxide.
Yep, as the US also learned about the bell shape rear end of the flying wing to help future experiments with stabilization until the flight control computer took over stabilization
That was a really clever idea, using coal to produce carbon monoxide, and then burning that. I can see why this might be too low thrust, not all that much carbon monoxide is produced. But maybe it would work if it had on-board oxygen instead of an air intake. Things become a lot more explosive in the presence of pure oxygen.
Gas lights in houses and streetlights before the advent of electricity burned CO and hydrogen obtained by distilling coal with steam. Probably why there were so many ghosts in Victorian times, the lamps were running rich, causing hallucinations from CO poisoning.
They should have forgotten about other "wundewaffen" ideas for fighters and made versions of the Komet with jets, better guns and proper landing gear. There were several designs by Lippish, including a 2 seat, twin-jet fighter/bomber
just like with any engine a ramjet can run on anything that burns with proper modification. A hypersaturated coal powder/ air mixture would most likely work. like a dust explosion.
The key was pressure thrust, the flame/aura, aren't reasons for movement. The *coal* could've been feasible, had the element been lighter than liquid/gas volume. It would be known in modern air tactics as super sonic wing divers. Drone jet crafts, only manned back then. A latest stealth version & manned operated, would've been known as F-17, dropped out of a bomber
"does not incorporate vertical control surfaces", not quite correct, flying wings do not incorporate additional stabilising surfaces. Pitch stability in flying wings is usually attained by incorporating a reflexed wing profile to produce a positive pitching moment coefficient. Yaw stability is another matter, many flying wings did incorporate some kind of fin and rudder surfaces to prevent flat spin. The Prandtl wing is not only finless solution for yaw stability, by progressively reducing the Cl zero at the tips, leading to the whole L/D vectors rotating forward, this means that in a roll, the upgoing tip has a component of forward thrust while the down going tip has drag, yawing the wing into the banked turn. Conventional aircraft experience adverse yaw in response to allerion control, which necessitates a fin and rudder to counteract. This conventional solution is a balance between Dutch roll instability & spiral dive instability. Prandtl's 1933 solution is by far the most efficient, the Hortons used it for their war and post war designs, but it largely went unnoticed by the rest of the world. NASA only seems to have discovered it in the 80s or so, but they do give Prandtl the credit. So the upshot is that apart from the Hortons, all successful flying wings either had drag devices such as fins & rudders or were death traps waiting to happen.
The Me 163 used wing sweep, leading edge slots and a small amount of reflex for stability. The Horton X and Ho 229 used reflexed autostable airfoil in the thickened bat like center section but a combination of 2 degrees twist and wing sweep for the remainder of the wing. Northrop used wing sweep a huge amount of twist (4 degrees) and slats. Slats and slots produce a slight pitch forward when they act.
@@williamzk9083 Yes, the Me 163 used reflex to solve for pitch stability, but used a fin & rudder to solve adverse yaw, relying on the pilot. The Horton wings all used the Prandtl wing or a close approximation to it. They tended to have a long root chord extending far back. This area of the wing had the highest Cl & therefore highest camber. In the interests of putting reflex as far rearward as possible, the root chord is where that would be most noticeable. The tips were meant to be at zero Cl, therefore pretty near zero camber, consequently reflex there would be hard to pick, depending how the reflex was generated. Not sure which Northrop design you refer too. Accounts I read indicate they were rather difficult to fly requiring a lot of the pilot. The huge amount of twist is similar to the Prandtl's solution, unloading the tip to zero Cl. I didn't think Northrop was aware of Prandtl's solution, though on reflection, the wings were mostly post war. NASA didn't seem to publish anything on the Prandtl wing till the 80s, and their early reports indicated that Prandtl's paper had been overlooked. Perhaps it was a national secret shared with Northrop. A feature of the Prandtl wing is that the wing should twist to zero Cl at the tips. The geometric twist, would depend on the aircrafts mean operational Cl. If the wing is to fly fast, then you would have a low amount of camber and low operational Cl, therefore the geometric twist would be smaller than for, a slower wing with a high mean operational Cl. So we can't really draw conclusion from geometric twist alone. Sweep, there are at least a couple of considerations. Aircraft designed for speeds approaching and above supersonic speeds will have a swept leading edge for shock wave reasons, but supersonics is not my area. It is possible to build a straight plank wing that is stable, just relying on reflex alone. However, that can be rather twitchy fast in response to trim (which effectively alters reflex). Wing sweep mostly has a damping effect on flying wing pitch control, making things somewhat "less exciting", but can also reduce the area devoted to reflex, improving efficiency.
"Flying wing" is a media-hype term. It can mean anything that either uses the wing as the major connective structural element holding things together instead of a static-drag tubular fuselage, or which houses most/all internal volume in a wing or lifting surface (see Burnelli aircraft. The CBY-3 is restored in a museum today, and some media talking heads called it a "flying wing", though it had wings and tail) See the "flying heel-lift" youtube on the Arup S-2 from Indiana in the '30s, which was called that, though it had a fin and at least as much fuselage to house the engine and crew. The basis for the Vought V-173, it was 780lb, 37hp, 85 kts with 18kts landing speed, stall-spin proof. Many designers tried completely tail-less, then moved on to wing-tip fins which were a little less terrible. Those that put a big fin aft behind a prop, worked well. Various iterations of sweep on leading and/or trailing edge worked, all with no separate horizontal stabilizer, though some added a little elevator (Payen/Aubrun AP-10. Cheranovsky BICh-3, BICh-7a, BICh-20. Fauvel AV-10, AV-60. By the purist's definition of a "flying wing", which means no fins, the Northrop XB-35 nor the YB-49 counted, since they had vertical fins. See the 1960 Horten I.Ae-38, which doesn't qualify according to many, because of sort of a fuselage and wing-tip fins. Agreement about the purist's definition without a fin having never produced a stable flyable workable plane. (B-2, many hang-gliders and drones and such included.) BTW, see the Russian pre-war Kharkiv KhAI-3. After trim and control issues were worked out, it gained civil airworthiness certification and served for a few years as a general utility transport. 2.2 tonne, 1 tonne payload, 100 hp engine, speeds from 32-78 kts.
@@JFrazer4303 Yes, I tend to agree that the term has no formal definition. I don't disagree with including fins within a flying wing design, it's just that I see the goal as efficiency and fins & rudders are drag surfaces. For that reason, while they are a solution, they are not the ultimate efficient goal IMO. Prandtl's wing appears to offer a path is that direction, though I am aware that it can be a knife edge as with the Ho229 on loosing one engine. A fin & rudder may well have prevented the spiral dive crash. Here is an 8 foot 2ch RC flying wing I designed back in about 1978 or so, as you see it has a fin & body & I still call it a flying wing. I didn't know much aero theory back then but did a series of smaller free flight models to get that far with minimising reflex & determining CG. As you see, it had a sub fin & body, it was meant for an arts course, to resemble a bird & I thought a fin necessary according to things I had read that that time. Solar film covering was a fail but all I could find available to me at the time unfortunately. drive.google.com/file/d/1269Ckcpf4vkWNOuWdSc28lf2vaST8vEi/view?usp=sharing
Dang ok, I've been building scale models since I can remember and know about all the aircraft of the world because of this and my interest and love for aviation and war history, but I must admit that this one is new to me, I've never known bout this plane till now 👀👍
If you question the propeller in the front of the me-163 And it's usage? Well i'll tell you; The propeller on the front of the me 163 was used to generate power or electricity to the cockpit. because it's supersonic speed caused the propeller to spin like crazy and generate power. Also the lippisch p13a looks like a dorito
I wonder what its handling characteristics would have been. Their new pilots were already getting highly abbreviated training. Seems like another project that kills more germans than allies.
Lipische's other aircraft such as the Me 163 all had excellent handling though the landing speeds tended to be high. The Me 163 when the tanks were half empty couldn't even be stalled, it just mushed forward.
SO. Lipscich(?) was "The Other German" There seems almost nothing on this guy. He seemed to be involved in scads of designs for Convair. I'd love to hear more about this mystery man.
Thanks that you makes something like THIS!!!! A relative of mine spoke to my about this and I couldn't believe my ears?!?! The most eco-friendly aircraft by todays standard!!!!!!
@@manuwilson4695 Hi Wilson. I am engineer. I have also a patent in a turbine engine, 2012 (Switzerland). I also know that besides the fuels for aircraft, there exists various types of moderators for fuels that are not the best for the environment and no one speaks about them. In relation to the fuels that exists for aircraft, carbon could have been a much more better option. I leave the climate debate to your generation, that are sufficiently clever to measure the environmental impact of carbon based fuels and lithium refinement. Good luck with this thinking.
Finely Atomized Coal Dust could have powered the 1st Mass Produced "Pulsed Detonation Engine" (something that still doesn't even exist today so don't blame him for not getting the engine testing completed before 1945!). With a Delta Design, a strong tricycle landing gear setup would have worked well. A stacked Dual-Ramjet (would have looked like the fast English Lightning) would have given great speed!
If the coal was finely powdered, and fed into the combustion chamber where the initial ignition was liquid fuel powered, maybe. The original diesel engine was initially going to use powered coal as fuel. Excessive wear stopped that.
Might have worked, but it would likely be difficult to get going. Some people have got wood fired gas turbines working (more as a lark than anything useful), but the heat-up part of the cycle takes quite a long time. But once a boost pressure is established, the things run until the fuel runs out. I could see trying the same principle with ram air as even more challenging given how finicky the powerplant setup would be.
pyrolysis: the coal was roasted by a small amount of liquid fuels in the absence of fresh air, producing dense smoke, which went to the jets. There are youtubes on wood gas IC engines for things like generators & pumps, and it's been used for vehicles.
@@JFrazer4303 - Those gas generator vehicles are painfully slow. When used to power Japanese busses during WWII, when the bus got to a step hill, the passengers got out and pushed! In any case, the title to this story is nonsense. The ram jet is called a rocket.
You can run a ramjet on coal dust, or other FPF (fine powdered fuel), as mentioned by williamzk, the fuel is delivered like liquid fuel but pushed by compressed air rather than pumped. The delta shape is easier to make out of wood, but you don't save resources with disposable planes. The aircraft would need landing gear and guns etc. but could use very little aluminum and petroleum.
9:40 Just because it wasnt done doesnt mean the idea was not feasible. It sounds daft but everything does before its done. Don't be so dismissive. I love the concept, I have no clue if its doable. But someone should try it. Not like I'm supporting a bunch of coal power fighters but i love proving concepts right or wrong.
Aircraft are pretty fragile. A Steel cable suspended by a blimp could cut right through a bombers wing. Hence this was Not a suicide weapon as you specifically noted the reenforced wing which was designed to slice through the bomber's wing or other control surfaces without damaging itself. Hanna Reich did present Hitler with the idea of V1 ramjets used as suicide attack craft, Hitler rejected the concept. Lippish was a brillant and his desgns became the basis of later western and Soviet aircraft.
I went to a museum few days ago in northfolk and saw an exact full scale copy of this rocket plane the fact that a coal powered engine like this that powered it could work was what blew my mind but so smart
I have an interesting item to try dig up....on an old black n white film about the world wars, i recall it being ww2 but in the footage a short portion showed a hospital gurney that had a spring loaded guillotine at one end, if i remember correctly it was labeled an execution bed. I can find absolutely nothing about this item, but it was pretty cool .
@@WolfeSaber At one point Stormbok pilots, specially modified Fw 190s with much extra Armour and bullet proof glass as well as two 30mm canon which could destroy a allied bomber with only 3 hits were ordered to ram the bomber if they failed to destroy it. This only happened if the guns jammed. The order was resented by the pilots and rescinded quickly as the Stormbok pilots were already highly motivated volunteers that were inclined to ram anyway. The survival rate was surprisingly high, in excess of 50%. It should be noted that it wasn't a 'self sacrifice' mission as the 50% survival rate didn't make it so. Kamikaze were bolted into their aircraft so that they would relax into their fate. Oscar Bosch, an Stormbok pilot, remembers visiting family in Hamlin and the terror they experienced when the town was bombed. He volunteered after that, determined to protect the people below.
Mining coal is labor and machine intensive. It requires a working rail network as well (for the volumes needed). Coal mines... at least their entrances and rail networks are easy targets for allied bombing.
![Nazi Super Tank - P-1000 Ratte - [ Largest Tank EVER ]](/img/n.gif)
This thing was a flying Dorito of death, a totally bonkers design that would look vaguely adorable if it wasn't for its dark history.
Ho-229: "There can only be one"
I expected to see you here:)
Looks like a Star Wars fighter. 😁
I see their effort at preserving the white race as anything but a "dark history". White genocide enthusiasts such as yourself may view it as a "dark history".
Please explain what's inefficient about the shape? Where I stand you seem to be the inefficient one.
What they really needed was a printer that made trained pilots, infantry and tankers. By the end, they were giving sailors, pilots, and even coal miners rifles to fill out understrength infantry. No wonder weapon or an ocean of petrol was going to save them. They were out of warfighters.
They needed not try and take over the world. Germany needed to stay in their lane and check themselves instead.
@@wllwll-zh7ig from Germany's point of view they were very much in their lane.
First of all redressing the wrongs of the Versailles treaty and then acquiring the lebensraum or living space they thought their future required.
This is why we have conflict, because what our lane is is a highly subjective idea.
Looking at the whole situation what boggles my mind is Germany had several opportunities where they might have settled for half a cake but they decided not only that they wanted the whole thing but they wanted to eat it right now. So from my point of view even though the cost was immense it's probably for the best and that our favorite little Austrian extrovert wasn't much of a strategist.
Imagine what would have happened it had Germany not declared war on the United States in 1941 or if Hitler had had a brain wave and accepted Stalin's offer to join the Axis in 1940. He might also have simply not invaded the Soviet Union letting him concentrate elsewhere or the UK might have gotten a clue and come to terms in 1940 when everything seemed against them.
On such things hinge the fate of Nations
Despite the several things they had going for them Germany did not have a huge "military potential" as it happened they ended up punching way above their weight class but as you said their ability to staff and supply their military was exhausted and ultimately that's why they lost.
Watch Red Dawn. If it comes down to it, kids will be the military force.
Are we still talking about Nazi Germany or 2022 Russia 😂😂😂
Oddly enough gm had an engine in the 70s that was a coal powered turbine..... And it worked
Looks like I found another model railroader, lol. I love my Scale Trains GTEL “Big Blow” turbine and own 3 other variants of the turbines UP used. It would be great if someone made a detailed model of the coal turbine unit as you mentioned. I’m an SP and UP fan, dad worked for both until retirement. I had no idea about the Germans using coal powered aircraft, odd but understandable.
Anyone who has ever seen the flamethrower blow torch effect of pulverized coal blown into a boiler in a power station or locomotive (like the Henschel Locomotives of the 1950s) will know that a coal powered ram jet would work. It's completely plausible and doable. A small rocket in the middle of the ramjet would induce an airflow for starting the ramjet at zero speed and could then be switched of.
Rudolf Diesel's 1892 paper proposing the engine that bears his name suggested coal dust as a possible fuel.
A couple of videos of a coal powder burner:
th-cam.com/video/n_g7Vpffq2k/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/sxHRNiRqDy0/w-d-xo.html
@@DeliveryMcGee The first diesels were low speed diesels and worked by injecting the fuel with highly pressurized air. It certainly could have been possible to inject dose in pulverized coal to a chamber and inject it. The issue would have been the effect of erosion on the pistons. High speed diesels only became possible due to Robert Bosch's direct injection patents.
-Today there are a number of "clean coal" programs which would purify and clean the coal first and then burn it in a closed brayton cycle gas turbines. These transfer the heat into the working fluid by walls and the coal never touches the turbine. ABB operated such turbines for power generation in the 1950s and 60s. They worked very well. The idea of 'clean coal' is to collect the CO2 and sequester it underground (depleted oil wells, aquifers)
not really. The problem is delivery of the coal dust.
No one, not even the desperate nation states, has ever tried a coal powered jet engine. I have no idea how long a development time it would take to work out all the bugs in such a design or if it is even possible for such a use in such a small airframe. This dose reek of being a project to keep engineers out of combat and that is the only way this engine actually works.
Respect to him for continuing his design so his students and engineers didn’t have to die fighting a losing war
Guy was also covering his own ass by doing so, so I would hesistate in praising him. Lets not forget guy was active contributor to German war machine prior to that.
@@B1SCOOP im not sure you can blame anyone for that, refusing your ("civilian") duties would mean prison at best and more likely a work camp. being german didnt exclude you from consequences, at all.
@@LOL60345 blaming? I'm not. But assuming guy was another Schindler is as much naive, especially when he "protected" his own "tribe". That was nothing more than weaseling his way out of combat service. Plain act of survival, not resistance in any chance, even passive.
If he was a forced worker, he would be taken without questions and immediately sent on the front.
@@B1SCOOP i will agree with you, after the 1941 pardon the punishment for germans was often frontline combat.
It's true that the Lorin coal fired ramjet was not flight tested, but it was successfully wind tunnel tested in Austria in 1945. This is where is was discovered the the coal needed to be sized into uniform smaller pellets. The pellets were placed in a rotating gridded round cage of sorts and ignited by a chemical fuel jet.
-Pulverized coal when blown into a power station boiler or a locomotive boiler looks like a fame thrower or blow torch. Having seen it and seen it be controlled its entirely plausible.
-Antony Kay's "German Jet Engines and Gas Turbines" talks of the constant volume Holzworth gas turbines that were operated by the German railways as peak load generators in the 1930s which used coal. In this type of gas turbine compressed air is admired into a combustion chamber via a poppet valve and then the valve closed and ignited. The hot air is exhausted over an exhaust poppet valve to drive a turbine. There are usually two chambers to ensure constant flow. It worked well on oil but on coal the water cooled turbine eroded.
-So called closed bray ton cycle gas turbine engines ran for years in Switzerland of coal and may make a come back as part of the clean coal programs around the world.
Exactly, as a coal pellet powered ramjet, turbojet or turbofan engine is possible. However, there were issues.
With the Lorin ramjet, there were three main issues: The rotating basket would need to be replaced every flight, liquid fuel made from coal had a better power to thrust ratio, and the weight of the fuel to range of a liquid fuel made from coal was better than the Lorin ramjet...
The same holds true for a turbo jet or turbofan engine made from coal, but that also has the major issue of damaging the turbine blades due to the coal deposits making them out of balance...
Of course using coal to make a solid fuel rocket engine would likely be a better idea, as solid fueled engines have been made using synthetic rubber and aluminum oxide. Fortunately, the Nazi's didn't have the aluminum to waste as part of the oxidizer...
@@davidhollenshead4892 Hey Dave, I thought the modern day SRBs used perchlorate for oxidizer...I am aware that powered aluminium is used in the recipe tho. The exact recipe for the shuttle SRBs is disclosed in Wikipedia.
My buddy used to work for Branson ...
I think they used hydrogen peroxcide to burn (oxidize) what ever it was they were using as their solid...a polymer of sorts (I think.) Ciao! Kevin
@@davidhollenshead4892 The problem with generating liquid fuel from coal is the capital equipment. The steal required was equal to 1/4 the US Navy and the Panzers and U-boats that could have been built enormous. The Bergious Hydrogenation process at the time was about 55% 60% efficient so you loose 40% of the heating value of the coal. The more compact Fischer-Tropsch plants was even less efficient (40%). The real problem was that the Plants could easily be bombed and were. The Geilen plan at the end of the war planed for 1 massive underground Bergius Hydrogenation Plant and 6 dispersed hardened hidden Fischer Tropsch plants plus dozens of mini plants.
-In reality the German synthetic coal to fuel plants had 90% of the output destroyed and were repeated bombing targets. Hence the value of a coal powered aircraft.
-The Germans developed new fluidised bed coal gasifiers and fluidsed bed reactors that along with new catalysts would have significantly increase efficency and reduced the plant size but these came too late to implement.
@@williamzk9083 the problem is still getting the right size, and the management of the injector. in the power station injector it is blown by air. yet mixing the power and the air still has to be done.
Imagine your B-17 was shot down and you have to report to base that you were destroyed by a flying Dorito
u would not be reporting at all my boy
You couldn't report that for another 20 years, or so, because Doritos weren't invented until 1964 and they would not have become a meaningful part of the culture until the 1980s.
The Me-163 "Komet" had that effect, earlier in the war.
@@DocWolph
@@rejiequimiguing3739 …
Most Lippisch designs were nuts you could make a whole channel on them.
*blohm & voss concepts laughs in the background*
Dude, your animation is getting more and more slicker by the minute! I love your videos, keep it up!!!
So I work in Aerospace, and a few years back, I had a long conversation with an old engineer (now retired) about building a ram jet that operated on coal dust. This guy had done some research on it, and in his explanation to me, commented that there is such a device used to both pull grain dust out of silo's and consume it, considering grain dust is also extremely explosive - requiring grain elevators to have all manner of dust suppression systems to prevent disaster.
Also note that one of my coworkers lost her brother in a grain elevator explosion... giving weight to the notion that if coal dust were fed into a ram style combustion tube, you could likely get reasonable thrust.
In a ram jet configuration, the dust delivery would likely need some sort of augur system to move the dust from the fuel bins (a bit like the olde steam trains had for delivering coal) and there would need to be considerable spark suppression to keep the fire where it ought to be and not working its way backward into the storage system... but it does seem that since coal dust is a good bit more volatile than coal chunks, a working flying thing could be built...
After our conversation, I started imagining some sort of steam-punk coal powered bi-plane design, and I have a few pages of rough sketches working out some of the requirements. No we didn't consider that it could be fast... or be a war machine, but now seeing this video, I'll have to rethink it. Might be fun.
It has through modern investigation been virtually proved it was the explosion of coal dust in empty holds that was the secondary cause of the loss of the Lusitania after torpedoing.
@@glynluff2595 Some said the 'Lusitania' carried a load of explosives to supply the ennemies of Germany in WW I.
@@josega6338 Hello, yes that was true in a supposedly minor activity. An interviewed historian on the TV many years ago claimed there were some boxes of grenades on board apparently for test purposes. Grenades were a developing format of ammunition at that time and these were an American version of interest to the British. The explosive ability of some dusty atmospheres is well known especially coal and flour. It is the amount of flour in functioning windmills which caused fire in many lightening strikes with the wooden mechanisms adding more solid fuel. If the holds were empty in the ship towards the end of the voyage the shaken coal dust from impact surrounding the area of strike would have hugely magnified the explosion and apparently more recent investigation has indicated the strike was the in the area of empty coal storage.
The explosive munitions theory was raised almost immediately as a defence against sinking a passenger vessel with substantial loss of life though it was unlikely at the time anyone had a full knowledge of the manifest. Lots of politics in the cradle of war!
@@josega6338 The Lusitania was a British ship. It carried artillery shell casings and cartridges. These were not considered munitions by the British because they had not yet been filled with propellants and explosives. it was obvious they would be used against Germany. The Lusitania was also carrying large amounts of 303 rifle ammunition described as hunting ammunition.
-If anyone wanted to travel safely between the US and Britain they could do so safely on an American Ocean Liner as Germany did not attack US flagged ships.
-Since the British Navy was arming its merchant ships and had been using q-ships (armed ships disguised as innocent trawlers or neutrals) the German submarines had stopped stopping and searching when in British waters in and exclusion zone. Hence Lusitania was attacked by one torpedo. She was hit because her captain had not maintain high speed and she sank because her captain then ran her at full speed to shore which scooped in water. She was used for depth charge practice which destroyed must evidence of munitions though we have her manifest and some evidence found.
@@williamzk9083 This makes me remember the case of Stampa Bay, where German fleet was confined an sunk when they lost WW I. Some britons shot at unarmed German sailors.
I never had any interest in WW I, my attention in WW II is focused only in Airplanes and other technology issues.
But there is people who would like making same as Simon Wiesenthal, hunting nazis, when nsdap dissapeared, with no continuers, in May 1945.
'Insane at any age'
The combat animations are once again amazing! Great work!
Thanks so much!
It will be great to see some more air fight with it or even same from othere perspectives .... Its crazy great awsome especialy camera from back and fires shoots from engine like in "kill vehicle" that intercept nuclear warheads. When its shoot at aproatching bomber .....wow its creazy soo cool! :D
@@FoundAndExplained need to force city officials to cut own wealth to support daca+ lower taxes permanently by big amount for all those making below 150k per year to prove daca worth it since for ages DC never lower living cost only print dollars to do more refugee crisis
Nuland Hillary McCain podesta deeply involved start ukraine crisis strike first blood but use woman that put severed finger in wendy chili 2.0 shameless blame russia, recall pbs putin file podesta
when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc/Britain(thank Blair Iraq france stolen libya gold) to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0 but remain rich
recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election
left wing media give protest t-shirts to san quan mayor for lying about never receive maria supplies
th-cam.com/video/qYmCtYLE9k0/w-d-xo.html
george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support =
1. th-cam.com/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/w-d-xo.html
2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria
th-cam.com/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/w-d-xo.html
current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y=
2. th-cam.com/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/w-d-xo.html
3. th-cam.com/video/IBeRB7rWk_8/w-d-xo.html
dnc establishment kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip, crash car in to wisconsin parade thanks to nbc follow jury bus smearing ritten house too
th-cam.com/video/UxoL8tHSa7g/w-d-xo.html
ray epps-fake sole survivor from ritten house case 2.0/podesta 2.0 when you look at left wing msm collaborate
th-cam.com/video/OnVHhn-vgUw/w-d-xo.html
dnc smear looking into treat covid symptoms/travel bans but permit parades/riots, recall snitches get rewards?
a. th-cam.com/video/06Fyg4maLWg/w-d-xo.html
b. th-cam.com/video/P1FUMdHU29c/w-d-xo.html
These animations are so good like I dont even get how you make these, also great video keep it up
I’ve been following you for a few months, I just wanted to say that your videos are amazing! continue like this!
I would love to see something on the F-106 Delta Dart. Maybe throw in some what-if scenarios, so we can see that plane in action?
Lippisch was an amazing designer. Who also came up with the annular wing amomgst other things.
By the way, the Me 163 B Komet had two MK 141 cannons, and they were of 30mm calibre. And though they.were found to be a 'a bit much' on the racketen floh, they were nevertheless used on the tiny fighters.
9:07 Being that the F-106 is my favorite aircraft of all time, I would definitely like to see more videos down this line, yes. Amazing work, as always!
@@manuwilson4695 Yes.
@@manuwilson4695 Man, ever since I was a kid, I've just always liked the way it looks. I didn't say it was the best or anything, just that it's my favorite.
Not sure what you're getting upset over, my dude.
@@manuwilson4695 I don't know what to tell you, man. I like lots of planes, the Hustler included, but ever since I read about the 106 in a book back when I was like 5, it's always just activated my neurons. So does the Avro Arrow, by the way, and I will never forgive Canada for cancelling it. I guess I just enjoy outdated delta-wing interceptors.
@@manuwilson4695 I want to respond to you, but I have absolutely no idea what to say. Keep questioning, I guess, always ask questions, but don’t be disrespectful about it…That’s all I have to say.
It's doubtful that it'd be good for supersonic speeds, as compressibility & critical Mach theory, and area ruling were unknown.
Like the Me-163 (also a Lippisch design), it was good for higher sub-sonic speeds than just about anything else.
The glider seems to have flown well, and scale models of the p.13a did well.
DM-1, Lippisch L-13 was tested, resulted stable above Mach 2
I'm confident coal would work mind you it would be a huge PITA to deal with for cleaning maintenance and refueling. the design actually did make sense in their situation though coal to petroleum conversion processes they also developed were preferable.
They may have invented "A" way to turn coal into oil, but they definitely weren't the first.
That was first invented in Scotland in the mid 1800's.
I saw one of those at the Military Aviation museum in Virginia Beach. The photo at the end is actually of the one at the Military Aviation Museum.
The Luftwaffe (or at least Lippisch) conception of ramming was to disable an enemy aircraft, with the ramming aircraft surviving an attack. This is not really anything like a Kamikaze attack, which sacrifices the life of pilot and loss of aircraft.
Well thats more for the comfort of the pilot. Being real how would the plane survive making such a high speed contact. I mean even if it did the pilot could just aswell end up being knocked out or having some broken bones, or worse.
I would believe unless this is a job for heavily indoctrinated SS men that most pilots trying to fly this thing would fire 5 rounds, realize how retarded and flimsy the thing is and how unlikely it even is the machinegun is gonna do any damage at all, spot the tailgunner of the bomber already getting him on his sigths and just ditch the plan and eject as soon as possible.
With the japanese Kamikaze pilots you atleast had a chance because you were kinda setting them up to drown in heavy military gear anyway if they didnt pull the plan through.
Ramming into bomber's wings ort tail was not in the design features of L-13/ DM-1; simply, fom the swept of leading edge, it will slip.
This aim was in other machines that never flew, as Zeppelin Rammer.
An smart approach to sending bombers down was a photoelectric cell [A Einstein got his Nobel price from this, after attending lectures on the subject in a German University, his Croatia-born (as Nikola Tesla) first wife, Maliç, who transposed his ideas into mathematics, made him give her the money from Nobel price when splitting], the fighter passed below bombers; when photoelectric cell detected one above, it automatically fired a battery of rockets or cannons, angled 45º upwards.
Indeed. The Luftwaffe used steel props and late in the war determined the survivability of a pilot using his plane as a weed eater was actually high. He would bail and hopefully return to do it again 😂.
@@billcat1840 Japanese were reported assessing pilot losses in suicide actions won't be higher than in combats were a chance of survival supposedly existed. No interest in this subject.
The P13a did remember me at the "Tridroid Starfighter", from Star Wars 3 and Star Wars the Clone Wars.
Wenn du genauer hinguckst ist fast alles in Star Wars und Captain America von deutschen Flugzeugdesigns aus dem 2.Weltkrieg beeinflusst! Damalige Ingenieure und technische Zeichner waren ihrer Zeit weit voraus und sehr Experimentierfreudig! Ob diese Designs auch wirklich Flugtauglich gewesen wären, wage ich allerdings zu bezweifeln... Die meisten Projekte waren immer auf die selben damals verfügbaren Triebwerke beschränkt, die fernab von Zuverlässig waren...
Good video of a very unconventional aircraft. I have a 1:72 scale model of it, but I didn't know it was to be coal fired.
Just imagine the fear of seeing a flying dorito heading towards you at supersonic speed.
coal powered no less
Or Cool Ranch dust powered 😮
The world didn’t know what a Dorito was until 1966.
Funny moniker though 🤣🤣🤣
I did read somewhere that they had managed to make a coal powered engine. The issue was that it wasnt as powerful as the rest engines but it wasn't an issue cause it could be made cheaper and it was just enough to fly (on paper)
If you read the book ‘Only the Wing’ the novelty’s of Horten’s design is fully explained. This design had several problems; ejecting the undercarriage was one and another was the clumping of the coal fuel feeding the engine. The thickness of the wings was deliberate in many of his designs to accommodate both a twist in the section and encompass machinery. The difference in control technology by Norden was the clamshell control on the end of the wing but Horten discovered early on the the corrective surfaces had to vary both up and down at the same time and did it by gearing them together. Two designers chasing the same problems independently!
The are 3 approaches to the "suicide ramming"
-Japanese spiritual strike of divine wind (against ships)
-Russian "Taran" with a very sturdy airplane that mostly didn't kill the pilot (against planes)
-And this, a true suicidal run. Also didn't work. Also the war had changed too much to work
Your first animation is incredible. It's amazing to watch your production value grow, and you're talent increase over time
F-102 and F-106 direct developments of this AC, by the OG designer btw.
I feels like the same thought process went behind a TIE fighter from star wars. Cheap, mass produced and very specific for his role.
Your content is amazing and only getting better. keep it up! that into was awesome
Gives a whole new meaning to a RAM jet.
YOU MISSED THE CHANCE TO NAME IT “KAMINAZI”
First Delta plane! Best aerodynamics ! Prof. Lippisch was decades ahead of its time!
Not sure what you mean by "first delta plane". If you mean Lippisch invented the delta wing; no he didn't, that's a common misconception, it was around long before him.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Lippisch invented a delta wing that worked and worked well at transonic and supersonic speeds. Triangular fins on 16th century gunpowder rockets don't count.
@@williamzk9083
Who said anything about fins on a rocket? The concept of a delta wing aircraft goes back to the mid 19th century, and there were delta wing aircraft flying before his ideas took shape.
It's not hard to do research, instead of just parroting what everyone else says.
Thanks!
0:57 That looks like a present day map of Europe. The pre-WW2 German Polish and Polish Soviet borders were both quite a bit further to the east back then vs now.
1:02 Ironically to the Germans one of the original goals for invading the Soviet Union was getting hold of the oil fields in the Caucasus.
what would be cool is a racing series with these haha they are like flying go-karts !
would be more like human sized drone racing !
Since a lot of modern hobbyists use commercial rocket engines which have rubber as a fuel source leads me to believe this could well have been a viable engine design and the only reason it was never pursued was because everyone working on rocket design after the war had better fuel options.
5:12 My understanding is that: When coal burns, it primarily releases Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Monoxide is usually produced by combustion of a fuel along with Carbon Dioxide, such as when a fuel is burned, then some of the exhaust, containing Carbon Dioxide, is recirculated. When being recirculated and heated past a certain temperature, the Carbon Dioxide loses one of it's Oxygen atoms, becoming Carbon Monoxide.
I have his book, EIN DREIECK FLIEGT, A Delta Flies. he also worked for Collins Radio, in Cedar Rapids Iowa.
Coal is too dirty to be used in jets. Imagine all the dirt and caking due to unburned components of the coal. Bound to fail.
Yep, as the US also learned about the bell shape rear end of the flying wing to help future experiments with stabilization until the flight control computer took over stabilization
That was a really clever idea, using coal to produce carbon monoxide, and then burning that. I can see why this might be too low thrust, not all that much carbon monoxide is produced. But maybe it would work if it had on-board oxygen instead of an air intake. Things become a lot more explosive in the presence of pure oxygen.
Gas lights in houses and streetlights before the advent of electricity burned CO and hydrogen obtained by distilling coal with steam. Probably why there were so many ghosts in Victorian times, the lamps were running rich, causing hallucinations from CO poisoning.
4:35 Ramjet engines, not just "back then", ALWAYS need forward speed to be able to start and run.
Reminds me of a TIE fighter. I agree with comments below, the animations are sweeeet!!!!!!!
Cheers!
Me163 was my favorite WWII fighter.
They should have forgotten about other "wundewaffen" ideas for fighters and made versions of the Komet with jets, better guns and proper landing gear.
There were several designs by Lippish, including a 2 seat, twin-jet fighter/bomber
@@JFrazer4303 I got a degree in aerospace engineering because of Lippisch. Should have studied welding instead.
@@JFrazer4303 The MIG 15 borrows a lot from the ME-263V1, the designers seemed to be more comfortable with a conventional tail.
This looks like a Star Wars fighter
Pretty cool tho 😎
This thing looks like the A-wing from Star Wars.
just like with any engine a ramjet
can run on anything that burns with proper modification. A hypersaturated coal powder/ air mixture would most likely work. like a dust explosion.
An excellent video, as always! But... the designer's name is Alexander Lippisch, which is pronounced "Lee-pee-sh", not "Lee-pee-see-ch" 😀
4:32 Ramjets need enough forward velocity from some other means still. A few pulsejets operate at zero velocity.
We almost went back to the Steam punk era.
The key was pressure thrust, the flame/aura, aren't reasons for movement. The *coal* could've been feasible, had the element been lighter than liquid/gas volume. It would be known in modern air tactics as super sonic wing divers. Drone jet crafts, only manned back then. A latest stealth version & manned operated, would've been known as F-17, dropped out of a bomber
I've seen a star wars fighter that looked something like this.
"does not incorporate vertical control surfaces", not quite correct, flying wings do not incorporate additional stabilising surfaces. Pitch stability in flying wings is usually attained by incorporating a reflexed wing profile to produce a positive pitching moment coefficient. Yaw stability is another matter, many flying wings did incorporate some kind of fin and rudder surfaces to prevent flat spin. The Prandtl wing is not only finless solution for yaw stability, by progressively reducing the Cl zero at the tips, leading to the whole L/D vectors rotating forward, this means that in a roll, the upgoing tip has a component of forward thrust while the down going tip has drag, yawing the wing into the banked turn. Conventional aircraft experience adverse yaw in response to allerion control, which necessitates a fin and rudder to counteract. This conventional solution is a balance between Dutch roll instability & spiral dive instability. Prandtl's 1933 solution is by far the most efficient, the Hortons used it for their war and post war designs, but it largely went unnoticed by the rest of the world. NASA only seems to have discovered it in the 80s or so, but they do give Prandtl the credit.
So the upshot is that apart from the Hortons, all successful flying wings either had drag devices such as fins & rudders or were death traps waiting to happen.
The Me 163 used wing sweep, leading edge slots and a small amount of reflex for stability. The Horton X and Ho 229 used reflexed autostable airfoil in the thickened bat like center section but a combination of 2 degrees twist and wing sweep for the remainder of the wing. Northrop used wing sweep a huge amount of twist (4 degrees) and slats. Slats and slots produce a slight pitch forward when they act.
@@williamzk9083 Yes, the Me 163 used reflex to solve for pitch stability, but used a fin & rudder to solve adverse yaw, relying on the pilot.
The Horton wings all used the Prandtl wing or a close approximation to it. They tended to have a long root chord extending far back. This area of the wing had the highest Cl & therefore highest camber. In the interests of putting reflex as far rearward as possible, the root chord is where that would be most noticeable. The tips were meant to be at zero Cl, therefore pretty near zero camber, consequently reflex there would be hard to pick, depending how the reflex was generated.
Not sure which Northrop design you refer too. Accounts I read indicate they were rather difficult to fly requiring a lot of the pilot. The huge amount of twist is similar to the Prandtl's solution, unloading the tip to zero Cl. I didn't think Northrop was aware of Prandtl's solution, though on reflection, the wings were mostly post war. NASA didn't seem to publish anything on the Prandtl wing till the 80s, and their early reports indicated that Prandtl's paper had been overlooked. Perhaps it was a national secret shared with Northrop.
A feature of the Prandtl wing is that the wing should twist to zero Cl at the tips. The geometric twist, would depend on the aircrafts mean operational Cl. If the wing is to fly fast, then you would have a low amount of camber and low operational Cl, therefore the geometric twist would be smaller than for, a slower wing with a high mean operational Cl. So we can't really draw conclusion from geometric twist alone.
Sweep, there are at least a couple of considerations. Aircraft designed for speeds approaching and above supersonic speeds will have a swept leading edge for shock wave reasons, but supersonics is not my area. It is possible to build a straight plank wing that is stable, just relying on reflex alone. However, that can be rather twitchy fast in response to trim (which effectively alters reflex). Wing sweep mostly has a damping effect on flying wing pitch control, making things somewhat "less exciting", but can also reduce the area devoted to reflex, improving efficiency.
"Flying wing" is a media-hype term. It can mean anything that either uses the wing as the major connective structural element holding things together instead of a static-drag tubular fuselage, or which houses most/all internal volume in a wing or lifting surface (see Burnelli aircraft. The CBY-3 is restored in a museum today, and some media talking heads called it a "flying wing", though it had wings and tail)
See the "flying heel-lift" youtube on the Arup S-2 from Indiana in the '30s, which was called that, though it had a fin and at least as much fuselage to house the engine and crew. The basis for the Vought V-173, it was 780lb, 37hp, 85 kts with 18kts landing speed, stall-spin proof.
Many designers tried completely tail-less, then moved on to wing-tip fins which were a little less terrible.
Those that put a big fin aft behind a prop, worked well. Various iterations of sweep on leading and/or trailing edge worked, all with no separate horizontal stabilizer, though some added a little elevator (Payen/Aubrun AP-10. Cheranovsky BICh-3, BICh-7a, BICh-20. Fauvel AV-10, AV-60.
By the purist's definition of a "flying wing", which means no fins, the Northrop XB-35 nor the YB-49 counted, since they had vertical fins.
See the 1960 Horten I.Ae-38, which doesn't qualify according to many, because of sort of a fuselage and wing-tip fins.
Agreement about the purist's definition without a fin having never produced a stable flyable workable plane. (B-2, many hang-gliders and drones and such included.)
BTW, see the Russian pre-war Kharkiv KhAI-3. After trim and control issues were worked out, it gained civil airworthiness certification and served for a few years as a general utility transport.
2.2 tonne, 1 tonne payload, 100 hp engine, speeds from 32-78 kts.
@@JFrazer4303 Yes, I tend to agree that the term has no formal definition. I don't disagree with including fins within a flying wing design, it's just that I see the goal as efficiency and fins & rudders are drag surfaces. For that reason, while they are a solution, they are not the ultimate efficient goal IMO. Prandtl's wing appears to offer a path is that direction, though I am aware that it can be a knife edge as with the Ho229 on loosing one engine. A fin & rudder may well have prevented the spiral dive crash.
Here is an 8 foot 2ch RC flying wing I designed back in about 1978 or so, as you see it has a fin & body & I still call it a flying wing. I didn't know much aero theory back then but did a series of smaller free flight models to get that far with minimising reflex & determining CG. As you see, it had a sub fin & body, it was meant for an arts course, to resemble a bird & I thought a fin necessary according to things I had read that that time. Solar film covering was a fail but all I could find available to me at the time unfortunately. drive.google.com/file/d/1269Ckcpf4vkWNOuWdSc28lf2vaST8vEi/view?usp=sharing
Dang ok, I've been building scale models since I can remember and know about all the aircraft of the world because of this and my interest and love for aviation and war history, but I must admit that this one is new to me, I've never known bout this plane till now 👀👍
Same here! How did this one get past me? You never stop learning!
If you question the propeller in the front of the me-163 And it's usage? Well i'll tell you; The propeller on the front of the me 163 was used to generate power or electricity to the cockpit. because it's supersonic speed caused the propeller to spin like crazy and generate power.
Also the lippisch p13a looks like a dorito
At 1:16 "Simply put they needed a CHEAP A** solution that they could build en masse." LOLOL!
Try the Lippisch P15 Diana! Turbojet sanity + Me-163 body
I wonder what its handling characteristics would have been. Their new pilots were already getting highly abbreviated training. Seems like another project that kills more germans than allies.
Lipische's other aircraft such as the Me 163 all had excellent handling though the landing speeds tended to be high. The Me 163 when the tanks were half empty couldn't even be stalled, it just mushed forward.
There is a model of this for X-plane if you want to try flying it.
I want an EDF powered model.
There's good video or a modern day glider of the Me-163.
Ramming was not a strange idea at the time.
Take a look at the Northrop XF-79b
SO. Lipscich(?) was "The Other German" There seems almost nothing on this guy. He seemed to be involved in scads of designs for Convair. I'd love to hear more about this mystery man.
lippisch. but lipzpiritzschisitziszcht was apparently easier to pronounce
Imagine if any country made coal powered aircraft.
@JZ's BFF That make sense.
@JZ's BFF interesting
The design would be a great basis for a Star Wars ship.
Thanks that you makes something like THIS!!!! A relative of mine spoke to my about this and I couldn't believe my ears?!?! The most eco-friendly aircraft by todays standard!!!!!!
Ah yes - another "Mad Hitler" take... this BS again. Is this why we don't see any of these planes even reach the prototype stage?
@@manuwilson4695 Hi Wilson. I am engineer. I have also a patent in a turbine engine, 2012 (Switzerland). I also know that besides the fuels for aircraft, there exists various types of moderators for fuels that are not the best for the environment and no one speaks about them. In relation to the fuels that exists for aircraft, carbon could have been a much more better option. I leave the climate debate to your generation, that are sufficiently clever to measure the environmental impact of carbon based fuels and lithium refinement. Good luck with this thinking.
Yassss
Should do all Wunderwaffe/"Luft 46" Aircraft!!
That cockpit-in-the-vertical-stabilizer idea is giving me Draconian Marauder vibes. Just such an unconventional location.
it would be a very cool rc project with the new edf fan motors it might fly better than expected !
Super cool! Thanks for making this video!
I would love to maybe see a video about "Modern planes who's designs are based on Axis Engineers/Designs"
Doesnt exist aside from a handful. Cope, wheraboo
Finely Atomized Coal Dust could have powered the 1st Mass Produced "Pulsed Detonation Engine" (something that still doesn't even exist today so don't blame him for not getting the engine testing completed before 1945!). With a Delta Design, a strong tricycle landing gear setup would have worked well. A stacked Dual-Ramjet (would have looked like the fast English Lightning) would have given great speed!
One can note a striking similarity between the conceptions of Alexander Lippish and that of frenchman Roland Payen, before and after the war.
The P13 had a landing speed of around 40mph and a V max of mach 2 and was stable throughout it’s range.
That could have been the start of the *Coal War* ? 🤣
I fucking love this thing, coal powder jet engines
It's a Jedi fighter
At least we now know where the Jedi Delta 7 Star fighters is resembled from. Much as the Geonosian Hives we’re resembled from cave stalagmites
I never, not even once, heard that the goal of this project was a ramming plane, weird.
If the coal was finely powdered, and fed into the combustion chamber where the initial ignition was liquid fuel powered, maybe. The original diesel engine was initially going to use powered coal as fuel. Excessive wear stopped that.
Whenever you ask yourself if we want a video on any specific topic the answer is always yes.
Might have worked, but it would likely be difficult to get going. Some people have got wood fired gas turbines working (more as a lark than anything useful), but the heat-up part of the cycle takes quite a long time. But once a boost pressure is established, the things run until the fuel runs out. I could see trying the same principle with ram air as even more challenging given how finicky the powerplant setup would be.
I like the way the narrator calls the designer Lippisch at the beginning, but changes it to Lippisisch, near the end.
Lippisch really thought: you don't shoot bullets, you *ARE* the bullet.
Germany used coal to create synthetic liquid fuels. Their aircraft did not literally burn coal
.
pyrolysis: the coal was roasted by a small amount of liquid fuels in the absence of fresh air, producing dense smoke, which went to the jets.
There are youtubes on wood gas IC engines for things like generators & pumps, and it's been used for vehicles.
@@JFrazer4303 - Those gas generator vehicles are painfully slow. When used to power Japanese busses during WWII, when the bus got to a step hill, the passengers got out and pushed! In any case, the title to this story is nonsense. The ram jet is called a rocket.
I always laugh at the suppressed giggle before the ad pun 😂
Luftwaffe - you want me to ram it?
Inventor - don't worry I also invented a paper parachute.
It premieres when Ian supposedly reaches me 🗿
You can run a ramjet on coal dust, or other FPF (fine powdered fuel), as mentioned by williamzk, the fuel is delivered like liquid fuel but pushed by compressed air rather than pumped. The delta shape is easier to make out of wood, but you don't save resources with disposable planes. The aircraft would need landing gear and guns etc. but could use very little aluminum and petroleum.
9:40 Just because it wasnt done doesnt mean the idea was not feasible. It sounds daft but everything does before its done. Don't be so dismissive. I love the concept, I have no clue if its doable. But someone should try it. Not like I'm supporting a bunch of coal power fighters but i love proving concepts right or wrong.
The problem is the delivery of the fuel to be burned. not very workable for an aircraft. better to use the coal to make liquid fuels.
Aircraft are pretty fragile. A Steel cable suspended by a blimp could cut right through a bombers wing. Hence this was Not a suicide weapon as you specifically noted the reenforced wing which was designed to slice through the bomber's wing or other control surfaces without damaging itself. Hanna Reich did present Hitler with the idea of V1 ramjets used as suicide attack craft, Hitler rejected the concept. Lippish was a brillant and his desgns became the basis of later western and Soviet aircraft.
Which is a better flying dorito, this thing, or the Ho-229
I went to a museum few days ago in northfolk and saw an exact full scale copy of this rocket plane the fact that a coal powered engine like this that powered it could work was what blew my mind but so smart
I have an interesting item to try dig up....on an old black n white film about the world wars, i recall it being ww2 but in the footage a short portion showed a hospital gurney that had a spring loaded guillotine at one end, if i remember correctly it was labeled an execution bed.
I can find absolutely nothing about this item, but it was pretty cool .
The Lippisch delta type I believe model 12 was not designed to be a kamakazi
Well, a few Luftwaffe pilots were told to ram bombers to knock them out.
@@WolfeSaber At one point Stormbok pilots, specially modified Fw 190s with much extra Armour and bullet proof glass as well as two 30mm canon which could destroy a allied bomber with only 3 hits were ordered to ram the bomber if they failed to destroy it. This only happened if the guns jammed. The order was resented by the pilots and rescinded quickly as the Stormbok pilots were already highly motivated volunteers that were inclined to ram anyway. The survival rate was surprisingly high, in excess of 50%. It should be noted that it wasn't a 'self sacrifice' mission as the 50% survival rate didn't make it so. Kamikaze were bolted into their aircraft so that they would relax into their fate.
Oscar Bosch, an Stormbok pilot, remembers visiting family in Hamlin and the terror they experienced when the town was bombed. He volunteered after that, determined to protect the people below.
The design seems to linger on in the home built Verhees Delta. These things are known to fly, quite fast with a tiny engine, and seem to handle AOK.
This looks like Starscream's cybertronian jet form as seen in the beginning the transformers movie 'Bumblebee (2018)'
This thing was awesome to read about.
The lorin ram jet was tested on DO 17z. It was mounted above the plane behind the cockpit
Mining coal is labor and machine intensive. It requires a working rail network as well (for the volumes needed). Coal mines... at least their entrances and rail networks are easy targets for allied bombing.
Late-stage mad Hitler? Implying he was ever sane to begin with??
I've never heard of this one before. Where is the plane kept today?