Gotha P 60 flying wing projects

Maveric

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
14 January 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
746
Hi all,

I have found this fantastic drawing of the Gotha P.60C ( Source: FliegerRevue 1979 ).

Servus Maveric ;D
 

Attachments

  • Gotha P60C.jpg
    Gotha P60C.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 1,132
Here some drawings from Reichdreams N.20
 

Attachments

  • P.606.jpg
    P.606.jpg
    187.2 KB · Views: 363
  • P.605.jpg
    P.605.jpg
    214 KB · Views: 345
  • P.604.jpg
    P.604.jpg
    155 KB · Views: 925
  • P.603.jpg
    P.603.jpg
    137.5 KB · Views: 944
  • P.602.jpg
    P.602.jpg
    155.7 KB · Views: 1,006
  • P.601.jpg
    P.601.jpg
    124.2 KB · Views: 1,003
Good to have you back with us Justo!
 
Here is from the French Science et Vie N°374 (November 1948):
 

Attachments

  • P.60A (S&V 374, Nov 1948).gif
    P.60A (S&V 374, Nov 1948).gif
    417.6 KB · Views: 577
from http://www.luft46.com/gotha/gop60a.html
 

Attachments

  • gop60a-7a.gif
    gop60a-7a.gif
    21.3 KB · Views: 215
  • gop60a-6a.gif
    gop60a-6a.gif
    6.5 KB · Views: 432
  • gop60a-5a.gif
    gop60a-5a.gif
    7.9 KB · Views: 451
  • 3bgp60a2.gif
    3bgp60a2.gif
    24.3 KB · Views: 491
  • 3bgp60a1.gif
    3bgp60a1.gif
    22 KB · Views: 495
Justo, these drawings of Luft46 are not accurate (scale is not correct / dimensions of the crew are too small, etc.); in the lower part of the Luft46 page you will find the original (?) Gotha-drawings. I think it´s important to rely on facts as far as original drawings and descriptions still exist.
 
(scale is not correct / dimensions of the crew are too small, etc.);

Pilot scale? ::)
 

Attachments

  • ñ 405.jpg
    ñ 405.jpg
    163.7 KB · Views: 204
  • ñ 404.jpg
    ñ 404.jpg
    258.5 KB · Views: 190
  • ñ 403.jpg
    ñ 403.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 198
  • ñ 402.jpg
    ñ 402.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 216
  • nn.jpg
    nn.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 269
  • n.jpg
    n.jpg
    325.8 KB · Views: 245
I study the gotha p60 concept...... :( :-[ and i don't find a good wing profile (autostable or reflex needed for all wing flying), a bad body design..... no wash out of wings tips.....and drag rudder not efficient....who designed this incredible project.. ???
 
just made the AC analyse :eek: .....i think the engines are too much in back.... :-\
 

Attachments

  • Gotha go p 60 AC.jpg
    Gotha go p 60 AC.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 329
There are 4 30 mm MGs at front and lotsa ammo too..did you consider that ?
 
here the horten Ho 229 AC analyse.......i consider the weigh of two engines and her place.....
 

Attachments

  • horten Ho 229 AC.jpg
    horten Ho 229 AC.jpg
    14.3 KB · Views: 297
position of differents parts around the cg of Ho 229.....engines..fuel tanks...weapons....elevons and flaperons...drag rudder in correct position....
 

Attachments

  • typenblatt2.jpg
    typenblatt2.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 465
  • typenblatt.jpg
    typenblatt.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 457
P.60 is really butt ugly in my opinion.
I must be something the designer drew to look busy to avoid concentration camp.
 
gery said:
position of differents parts around the cg of Ho 229.....engines..fuel tanks...weapons....elevons and flaperons...drag rudder in correct position....
Click to expand...

Where did you get the second picture? I've never seen a drawing with four Mk 103!
 
There is info on the Gotha P.60 in David Myhra book on the Plane.
 
There is a Gotha origin document in the captured German material held by the air force which does a direct comparison of the 8-229 and the P.60 which details why the P.60 should have been an improvement over the Horton design. It was translated by the Foreign technology division. So, IMHO it is pretty clear that the P.60 was a real project.

Best Regards

Artie Bob
 
With regards to a lot of German projects from that era, it should be considered, that in most cases
they actually weren't ready made plans, that only needed the metal to be cut to get the whole thing
flying ! It's the difference between a "concept", where just a basic idea is formalised and a "project",
where more or less all important planning and calculations are done. So, to look for airfoiuld data and
even washout in the drawings that have survived of the P.60 probably is quite useless. Haven't cared
for its history still yet, maybe even some windtunnel research was done, but as you know, especially
at the beginning of such research, there still are a lot of parameters, that may change during development.
 
Ok jemiba,

But the design of an "all wing plane" depending of the choice of airfoil in priority.....as you can see for the Ho 229....the body shape was designed with the HO airfoil ....it was the way for german's project and for allied project like northrop flying wings...or for this Armstrong Whitworth AW 52...that look like th FW 1000x1000x1000 (excelent work made by tim Cameron) ....

The Go P60 airfoil look "naca symetric".....not efficient in this case....it don't make lift effect....
Other point, at this time an "all wing" needed a dihedral for stability ad washout of the wings tips.....
 

Attachments

  • 2955.jpg
    2955.jpg
    8.5 KB · Views: 363
  • AW-52_4.jpg
    AW-52_4.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 259
  • tcfw3-1.jpg
    tcfw3-1.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 260
  • tcfw3-2.jpg
    tcfw3-2.jpg
    47.1 KB · Views: 164
I checked the CG at mac 25 and indeed it is grossly behind...engines are fully behind the C of G.
 
please tell me what airfoil do you use.....for your MAC...???this incredible airfoil.???
 
gery said:
please tell me what airfoil do you use.....for your MAC...???this incredible airfoil. ???
Click to expand...
MAC40% means that the CG is measured 40% from the average leading edge..this usually the rearmost place where CG can be..generally 25% from the front.
P.60 seems to stay whitin..I'd say 28-35% considering the whole mission duration ( fuel load CG is a tad forward of the CG ...and ammos ). Gun mounting is heavy duty is this one. But you are correct it is not noseheavy..rather on the other side. Is this why Ho-229 had huge nose wheel ?
 
sorry topspeed....lift effect of a plane depending of airfoil design.....your theory is not right for an all wing...

Please send me you study or shema....where do you place the cg.. ???
 
here is the P.60 lay out;

p60acut1.gif

Also this P.60 like Ho-229 features a pretty heavy nose gear. Looking at the side view you can locate the CG by looking at the main gear position. CG has to be at very front end of the engines.
What is a leading edge flap..anyone know ? How do those drag rudders operate ?
 
gery said:
impossible configuration.....

look that please.......

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/theory/theory.html
Click to expand...

I know what bugs you..but you ought to realise that this has more sweep than Horten brothers planes...it will balance the plane regardles the CG being slightly aft...and this craft needs rear location at landing due to high speed configuration..to be able to use higher AOA at landing to get max lift and slow it down.
But still I think the plane wasn't tuned in yet..and pleniminary skethes were just design studies..all these later fine tuned drawings conform it..plane would sit on its back it it was made after the sketches. I think you are right about that.
 
never......

i Just want to see some realist technical informations about it.....

In your cutaway....i can see many errors...."leading edge flap" was no used at this time..other point....flaps under body was never used in flying wings at this time...
drag rudder are not in good position.....i dont see a good reflex airfoil..and the engines
are too much in back....the engines are not at good scale....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom