Gotha Go 345, P 52 and P 53 projects

Jemiba

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2006
Messages
8,639
Reaction score
3,575
Triggered by the discussion about the rescue operation for the iranian hostages,
I'll show a technique to land in the smallest possible area, developed during 1944
by the Gotha aircraft company. The Go 345 would really have had the possibilty
to land vertically, no mention of course, of taking-off again !
Interesting to see the page "Punktlandung Katastrophe" (pinpoint landing catastophe),
which describes the landing in the event of a failure of the braking rockets. It is said,
that it should have been survivable ! Honestly, I never would have dared the "normal"
pinpoint landing ...

(from LUFTFAHRT Monographie LS2)

[pictures removed and replaced with higher quality ones further below]
 
from "Waffen Revue":

[some pictures removed and replaced with higher quality ones further below]
 

Attachments

  • Gotha P.52.jpg
    Gotha P.52.jpg
    176.8 KB · Views: 1,346
  • Go 345 A , B.jpg
    Go 345 A , B.jpg
    195.5 KB · Views: 1,250
Thank you, Justo !

BTW, is the seaplane towing the P.52 related to a real design? ???
 
Hi guys,

Jemiba said:

BTW, is the seaplane towing the P.52 related to a real design?

I could not find in my sources any Gotha P52 other than an advanced flying wing fighter. That glider sure looks more like a P50/II with floating habilities and a hinged nose door. On the towing plane, that is probably a Gotha design, who knows if they tended it against the He115/Ha140?
 
Hi,

Does anyone have information on Gotha P-52 and P-53 flying-wing projects.
I found the following in the book “German Jet Genesis”, by David Masters, Jane’s Publishing Company Ltd., 1982.

“These two designs were interim projects coming between the Horten Ho IX flying-wing fighter testbed and the Ho 229, later to become Go 229. Power was to be supplied by two Jumo 004B turbojets of 1,984lb (900kg) st each.”

Searching SPF, the only post concerning the reference is from Wurger in the “German Cargo Glider” topic, dated October 1st, 2008:
“I could not find in my sources any Gotha P52 other than an advanced flying wing fighter.”

But with some drawings in the same topic indicating that the P-52 was a conventional layout aircraft (glider).

Are more information available on this P-52 project?
Quid of the P-53?

Thanks in advance,
 
From "Unknown" N.5 (Post 3)
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0005.jpg
    Escanear0005.jpg
    207 KB · Views: 432
  • Escanear0004.jpg
    Escanear0004.jpg
    144 KB · Views: 349
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 407
More on the P.53 Z, later designated as the Go 345:

The transport version
1°) The original Gotha card file presenting the project
2°) Artwork depicting the breakdown of parts for construction
3°) A sketch depicting the aircraft about to land
4°) Artwork depicting the aircraft flying
5°) A three-view arrangement
6°) Artwork depicting engine installation

All pictures taken from Luftfahrt Monografie LS 2: Die Sturm und Lastensegler (no longer available).
 

Attachments

  • Go 345 Triebwerkanlage.jpg
    Go 345 Triebwerkanlage.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 219
  • Go 345 Transport.jpg
    Go 345 Transport.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 234
  • Go 345 artwork small.jpg
    Go 345 artwork small.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 217
  • Go 345 Transporter-Landung.jpg
    Go 345 Transporter-Landung.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 187
  • Go 345 Teilbarkeit small.jpg
    Go 345 Teilbarkeit small.jpg
    109.5 KB · Views: 188
  • Go 345 Transport card.jpg
    Go 345 Transport card.jpg
    117.7 KB · Views: 476
More on the P.53 Z, later designated as the Go 345:

The precision landing (Punktlandung) version

1°) The original Gotha card file presenting the project
2°) Artwork depicting a Heinkel 111 and a Go 345 in "normal towing" situation
3°) Artwork (presumably cover art) presenting the Go 345 project
4°) Artwork depicting a belly landing situation
5°) Artwork depicting Go 345 start with skid and rocket
6°) Artwork depicting the Go 345 in "normal precision landing" situation
7°) Artwork depicting the Go 345 in "Catastrophe precision landing" situation
8°) A three-view arrangement
 

Attachments

  • Go 345 Punktlandung.jpg
    Go 345 Punktlandung.jpg
    61.9 KB · Views: 229
  • Go 345 Punktlandung Katastrophe.jpg
    Go 345 Punktlandung Katastrophe.jpg
    121 KB · Views: 243
  • Go 345 Punktlandung normal.jpg
    Go 345 Punktlandung normal.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 225
  • Go 345 Start mit Kufe und Rakete.jpg
    Go 345 Start mit Kufe und Rakete.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 168
  • Go 345 Bauchlandung.jpg
    Go 345 Bauchlandung.jpg
    129.7 KB · Views: 160
  • Go 345 Geheim!.jpg
    Go 345 Geheim!.jpg
    265.5 KB · Views: 150
  • Go 345 Normalschlepp.jpg
    Go 345 Normalschlepp.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 154
  • Go 345 Punktlandung card.jpg
    Go 345 Punktlandung card.jpg
    172.5 KB · Views: 159
Four pictures of the wind tunnel model:
 

Attachments

  • Go 345 wind tunnel model 4 small.jpg
    Go 345 wind tunnel model 4 small.jpg
    101.3 KB · Views: 131
  • Go 345 wind tunnel model 3 small.jpg
    Go 345 wind tunnel model 3 small.jpg
    108.8 KB · Views: 116
  • Go 345 wind tunnel model 2 small.jpg
    Go 345 wind tunnel model 2 small.jpg
    227.5 KB · Views: 116
  • Go 345 wind tunnel model 1 small.jpg
    Go 345 wind tunnel model 1 small.jpg
    227 KB · Views: 137
Wow! Is it a solid fuel rocket? I'd be curious of any mention of why they thought putting a liquid fuel rocket in the nose of a transport glider, and then intentionally crashing it on its nose, was a good idea... As I understand it - those early engines were an order of magnitude more volatile than I care to think about.
 
Retrofit said:
Does anyone have information on Gotha P-52 and P-53 flying-wing projects.
Click to expand...

The Gotha P.52 was NOT a flying wing.

It was an assault freight-carrying glider (Sturmsegelflugzeug und Universal-Transportsegler).

(see attachments)
 

Attachments

  • P52a.jpg
    P52a.jpg
    280.2 KB · Views: 1,005
  • P52b.jpg
    P52b.jpg
    314.7 KB · Views: 965
  • P52c.jpg
    P52c.jpg
    309.5 KB · Views: 861
  • P52d.jpg
    P52d.jpg
    323.1 KB · Views: 818
Topics merged.

It appears clearly now that Justo's theory about the P 52 and P 53 being flying wing designs is not right. I have left his images here for now, however, but they would probably best suited elsewhere.
 
Justo´s theory?....ha,ha
;D
 

Attachments

  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    250.9 KB · Views: 214
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    103.6 KB · Views: 232
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    722.3 KB · Views: 191
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    336 KB · Views: 204
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    273.9 KB · Views: 241
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    339.7 KB · Views: 786
Ouch. Okay. So there were two distinct Gotha P 52 and two distinct Gotha P 53 projects?

I'll have to split this topic again...
 
Hi,


here is the Gotha Go.345B glider 3-view.
 

Attachments

  • 345B.JPG
    345B.JPG
    16.8 KB · Views: 160
Hi,


here is a drawing to Gotha Go.345 variants.
 

Attachments

  • 345.JPG
    345.JPG
    35.7 KB · Views: 162
The Go 345B seems to have a swinging nose? What was it intended to carry ? With a cargo bay width of
around 1.70 m a VW Kübelwageb would hardly fit in.
(I found more or less the same drawing on http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/go345.html,
but the actual source is something else, I think ? ;) )
 
Jemiba said:
The Go 345B seems to have a swinging nose? What was it intended to carry ? With a cargo bay width of
around 1.70 m a VW Kübelwageb would hardly fit in.
(I found more or less the same drawing on http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/go345.html,
but the actual source is something else, I think ? ;) )
Click to expand...

I think that Swinging nose serve not for cargo, but for the paratrooper get faster out the glider.
like this wet analog
640px-Defense.gov_News_Photo_040623-N-2903M-001.jpg
 
Michel - a swing nose would allow faster loading/unloading on the ground, but not in the air.
 
From Jet & Prop 1/1996,


here is the Gotha Go 345B.
 

Attachments

  • Go.345B.png
    Go.345B.png
    614 KB · Views: 223
Skyblazer said:
Retrofit said:
Does anyone have information on Gotha P-52 and P-53 flying-wing projects.
Click to expand...

The Gotha P.52 was NOT a flying wing.

It was an assault freight-carrying glider (Sturmsegelflugzeug und Universal-Transportsegler).
Click to expand...


My dear Skyblazer,


here is a clearer view to Gotha P.52.


http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/g/Gotha%20Waggonfabrik/P-52/Sturmsegelflugzeug/Skizzen/01.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    266.5 KB · Views: 264
Gotha 354b’s hinged nose would speed unloading .... similar to Waco CG4 assault gliders. Wacos were designed to carry a Jeep and towed AT gun. Once landed, they simply drove the Jeep out the front as a rope raised the nose. Some Jeeps towed cargo trailers.
Gotha’s 1.7 metre interior width sounds tight on a 1.6 m wide VW Kubelwagen, but would easily accommodate a Kettenrad (1 m wide) and/or 37mm AT gun (1 m wide). Paratroopers could always use more AT guns.
 
Last edited:
OP Lockheed tested a C-130 with JATO bottles facing forward (from their forward fuselage mounts). As the plane touched down, JATO bottles fired to reduce ground roll. YouTube.com has video of the test C-130 breaking up during a botched landing.

Gotha 354 drawings include two distinctly different power plants: landing versus cruise. The point landing concept uses a braking chute plus forward-firing rockets. The braking chute is big enough to slow and stabilize a near vertical descent (dependent on winds). At the last second, retro rockets fire to soften impact. Just the momentum of the fuselage tipping from vertical to horizontal is likely to injure inhabitants! The process would terrify test pilots!
This reminds us of Russian paratrooper propaganda films from the 1970s. Film shows Russians dropping light tanks (with stabilizing chutes) that fire retro-rockets a couple of seconds before impact. We hope the Russian system was limited to cargo drops.

OTOH several Go345 drawings depict pulse-jet engines and significant fuel tanks. We suspect that these cruise engines allowed tow planes to release well short of enemy AAA and jet-powered gliders continue towards their targets. A disadvantage was the distinctive buzzing noise created by pulse-jets. See films of V-1 buzz bombs attacking London.
 
Last edited:
Film shows Russians dropping light tanks (with stabilizing chutes) that fire retro-rocketsa couple of seconds before impact. We hope the Russian system was limited to cargo drops.
Click to expand...

That's the same, or a similar, system to that used on Soyuz capsules . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)#Descent_module

". . . during re-entry. It is slowed initially by the atmosphere, then by a braking parachute, followed by the main parachute which slows the craft for landing. At one meter above the ground, solid-fuel braking engines mounted behind the heat shield are fired to give a soft landing. "


cheers,
Robin.
 
riggerrob said:
OP Lockheed tested a C-130 with JATO bottles facing forward (from their forward fuselage mounts). As the plane touched down, JATO bottles fired to reduce grand roll. YouTube.com has video of the test C-130 breaking up during a botched landing.
Click to expand...

You are referring to the Credible Sport YMC-130H that was hurriedly developed as a possible Iran hostage rescue vehicle. It is probably one of the least likely ideas in aviation history: clusters of ASROC missile booster, AGM-45 Shrike, RIM-66 Standard motors attached to a C-130. See:

http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2010/11/credible-sport-super-stol-hercules.html
 
Gotha P52 and P53 - Gotha tailless projects ?
Clear evidence exists in the form of original drawings, with the project numbers on them, for these being an amphibious glider from mid 1943 and the Go.345 from late 1943.
Projects P54 and P55 remain unknown. However, a drawing of P56, the towed fuel tank for the Ta.152 , is dated 6.3.44 but I believe development started much earlier.
It is fair to assume that P54 and P55 pre-date P56.
The unpowered Horten H.IX.v1 glider didn't even fly until 1.3.1944 and Gotha didn't get their hands on the Hortens drawings until June 1944 i.e. after P56 was created.
There was no earlier Horten - Gotha collaboration.

We also know that P57 was an aerotowed bomb and P58 an aerotowed glider fighter ( awaiting confirmation on P58), only P59 remains unknown.
Gotha did not begin design work to modify the Ho.229 centre section to the definitive Ho.229.V6 pre-production variant until September 1944 - just as they finished checking and recalculating the original Ho.229 drawings. Consequently development of a Gotha flying wing was unlikely to have started until the last quarter of 1944, indeed, drawings of the tailless P60 are dated no earlier than January 1945.

So what is the evidence for P52 and P53 being precursors to the P60 ?

There are no original German documents.
The ONLY evidence is one line of text in - German Aircraft - New and Projected Types, 1946
Given the evidence for and against, I suggest that the British report got it wrong as regards P52 and P53.

Paul
 
Gotha 147 was an experimental, parasol, monoplane, flying wing, recce airplane designed in 1934 by Dipl. Ing. Albert Kalkert.
Gotha was also sub-contracted to build Horton 229 jet interceptor flying wings, but they were captured incomplete at the end of WW2.
 
Returning to this subject, can I ask Stargazer if you could show the Gotha index card that proves the P.53Z was redesignated Go.345 ? as nothing in the discussion clarified this point or indeed if there is any basis for the designation P53Z

I would like to modify my post #33, as initial contact between Horten and Gotha appears to have begun as early as April 1944 but only in respect of Gotha building the H.IX (as it then was). However, the timeline for a Gotha project predating the H.IX simply doesn't work and there is no primary evidence that I am aware of. It simply appears to be an error in German Aircraft new and projected types.

Go345B - Hesham provided an airbrush picture of the Go.345 and the brief caption stated there was one example at Rechlin - however, there does not seem to be any original documents or drawings to prove that this version, with the nose loading door, is anything more than a postwar creation - a pity as I rather fancy modelling it !

It would be great if we can resolve these two old chestnuts.
Paul
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom