A9 Amerika rocket

[jetboy]

Hi,its my first post,im usually on Britmodeller,in the real space section,its a bit lonely at times?lol.I would like to get into a bit more scratchbuilding,and try and build some of the more unusual missiles,rockets,and space hardware.
Im currently trying to build all the saturn variants,built and unbuilt,but getting a sick of seeing black&white,paint jobs at the moment,back to post in hand,i thought you might want to see my recently finished A9,im currently just doing another version of this,

loads more if you want to see them,best wishes Don

sorry should have put these pics on,when i first posted,so heres some more

the priming/filling

Right chaps,it got us here,will it make it home

fist design of camo

i made the mistake of varnishing over the canopy..Doh!

this is the launch stand that comes with the kit,but this version doe,nt need this as it was designed,for in flight seperation,with something like this-the A9-A10-A11.

A9-A10-A11-not started yet,but just mocked up to show you it,looking very much like a multi-stage Saturn/apollo,i wonder why?,,,,dont answer that,i was joking?

hope you like it,Best wishes Don

 

[Steve Pace]

Very nice indeed! -SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

Assuming, for the moment, that the *manned* A-9 wasn't just a modern invention... why would it be camoflaged? It was an expendable ICBM, to be launched from a vast underground fortress. We don't camo ICBMs today. You could paint it hot pink with magnesium flares on the wingtips and loudspeakers blaring "La Cucaracha" at 300 decibels, it would have made no difference for those trying to intercept it.

 

[jetboy]

Hi,thanks for reply,im only assuming here,but as the A9 was designed to go up,and then glide to target,and due to the date of design,no decent guidence available,so it had to have a pilot,who at least got it as far as the U.S coast?,who then had to point the projectile and then bale out to be rescued by a waiting u-boat,i presume,the vehicle would be observable and exposed during the time before impact,a bit different from V2,s which just dropped out of the Air,which were camo,ed,mainly because of the time it took to launch,in the open,as hardened bunkers werea fixed target,so not really secret?.The allie,s took the best option for these weapons,by targeting the supply infrastructure,so really limiting the impact[excuse the pun]that these weapons of the future posed,anyway thats my thoughts on it,sorry if its a bit of a ramble,but it was a glimpse of what was to come...possibly the simpler explanation would be ,,,it looked ucking mean and scary,i dont know? cheers Don

 

[Michel Van]

Assuming, for the moment, that the *manned* A-9 wasn't just a modern invention... why would it be camoflaged? It was an expendable ICBM, to be launched from a vast underground fortress. We don't camo ICBMs today. You could paint it hot pink with magnesium flares on the wingtips and loudspeakers blaring "La Cucaracha" at 300 decibels, it would have made no difference for those trying to intercept it.

That camouflaged stuff is a wide misunderstanding in operation of the V2 missile.

The latest A4 was used on mobil launcher an had to be camouflaged until launch.
So allot people believed the A9 had also to be camouflaged.

but it had look like this during R&D
and for the operational version would certainly look like this:
pained hot pink, with magnesium flares on the wingtips and loudspeakers blaring "La Cucaracha" at 300 decibels during launch... <just kidding, guys ;D>

 

[archipeppe]

That's my contribution.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Super!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Hi,thanks for reply,im only assuming here,but as the A9 was designed to go up,and then glide to target,and due to the date of design,no decent guidence available,so it had to have a pilot,who at least got it as far as the U.S coast?

There is no evidence that the designers intended such a thing. All references that have so far been published about the A-9/A-10 from the wartime era indicate an unmanned ICBM over very large CEP.

,which were camo,ed,mainly because of the time it took to launch,in the open,as hardened bunkers werea fixed target,so not really secret?

The A-10 system would have been even more cumbersome than the Atlas rocket to get up and running. Launching an Atlas from some field just wasn't going to happen; neither was launching an A-10. It would have required a large, presumably heavily defended, emplacement. Remember, at the time the A-10 was actually designed and considered, the Germans pretty much *owned* France, and did not expect much in the way of effective Allied aerial bombardment.

 

[archipeppe]

It would be nice to know when the "manned A9" drawings appeared, during wartime or was some re-elaboration of 50's?


We know that the combination of A9/A10 was intended as a sort of today's ICBM forerunner, but around the "manned A9" myth there was some von Braun's statements or drawing? Or was someone closer to von Braun to mention such kind of missile?

 

[Orionblamblam]

There were a few drawings of a manned, winged V-2 published very shortly after the war. The one with closest to believable provenance was the well-known three-view of the stretched V-2 with stretched fuslelage, swept wings, landing gear and a ramjet. This appeared circa 1946 in a US Army report on Peenemunde, and appears to be a single-stage research vehicle. The "Manned A-9/A-10," however, does not seem to have appeared until the 1990's... as drafted by a member of this very forum. You know who you are...

 

[Michel Van]

You know who you are...

it was not me !
I swear i have nothing to do with this !


Back to A9/A10
I located a possibly production/launch underground bunker for this Project
Sonderbauvorhaben III or "S/III"
Between Mittelwerk V2 production site and V2 engine test stand Vorwerk

more on that HERE
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10740.msg123043.html#msg123043

By the way
Jetboy you really are talented Model builder !

 

[jetboy]

There were a few drawings of a manned, winged V-2 published very shortly after the war. The one with closest to believable provenance was the well-known three-view of the stretched V-2 with stretched fuslelage, swept wings, landing gear and a ramjet. This appeared circa 1946 in a US Army report on Peenemunde, and appears to be a single-stage research vehicle. The "Manned A-9/A-10," however, does not seem to have appeared until the 1990's... as drafted by a member of this very forum. You know who you are...

HI,intresting thread developing,i would answer but,lets be honest its a Model,the original question was why would it be camoe,d,well i thought i gave a very satisfactory reply to that,and your latest question i dont understand,because von braun himself said,that the plans for the,a4b,project plans,showed a pressurized cockpit in place of a warhead,obviosly planning to land it,as it had a tricyle undercarriage,and goes on to say if the A9 dart winged varient were to be mounted on a secound stage booster it would become a supersonic plane,capable of crossing the atlantic,with the A10 booster actually being in concept since 1936,they had not thought much beyond that at the time,but it was mooted that with,a further booster possibly designated A11,and with improved mass ratio,and improved propellant it was feasible to put a piloted A9 in orbit,this was from a book of 1981,fair enough there is no warhead mentioned?,but certainly a pilot,i still like the model though,lolcheers Don

 

[jetboy]

You know who you are...

it was not me !
I swear i have nothing to do with this !


Back to A9/A10
I located a possibly production/launch underground bunker for this Project
Sonderbauvorhaben III or "S/III"
Between Mittelwerk V2 production site and V2 engine test stand Vorwerk

more on that HERE
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10740.msg123043.html#msg123043

By the way
Jetboy you really are talented Model builder !

Hi Mv, no not really,but i do love the subject of rockets,missiles,.space hardware,would love there to be more models available,,of the more obscure stuff,i think having a physical object,instead of paper/pixel,gives the subject more of appeal,to me.I would love to be able to scratch build,some missiles, especially the subject,s no one else does,i may try soon,before i get too old to bother, antyway thanks for looking and commenting,its the only way to learn...off other people.cheers Don

 

[Orionblamblam]

because von braun himself said,that the plans for the,a4b,project plans,showed a pressurized cockpit in place of a warhead,obviosly planning to land it,as it had a tricyle undercarriage

Yes, that's the single-stage research vehicle. Sort of like the X-15. No weapons potential, as it had no warhead.

 

[PlanesPictures]

my contribution from my very old works

 

[jetboy]

hi,thanks for the pics,btw is that the annigrand model,...just love this site,its got loads of g**d s**t,on all the subjects,i like,sorry i digress ,yes thanks for reply..cheers Don

 

[Grzesio]

Assuming, for the moment, that the *manned* A-9 wasn't just a modern invention... why would it be camoflaged?

Hmmm... I have no idea, what was to be A 9 terminal velocity, but the A 4b was to be slow when reaching its target. It was estimated, A 4b terminal velocity, after long gliding, was to be just 360 km/h - slow enough to be intercepted by a fighter.

The "Manned A-9/A-10," however, does not seem to have appeared until the 1990's... as drafted by a member of this very forum. You know who you are...

Do you mean Mr. J.M.? B)

 

[Jemiba]

During this years holidays, I read "Die Rakete und das Reich" by Michael J. Neufeld, describing the
development of rockets in Germany. Very interesting reading and good researched, to my opinion.
A reason for many V2 failures, was the still unknown supersonic flight regime. Instead of doing more
basic research, the V2 was pressed into service with some beefing up of suspected weak points, without
rectifying the real problems. Hard to imagine, that the A9 would have been blessed with a better starting
situation, not to mention the A9/A10. So, speculations about terminal velocity for all those later types
probably are quite academic, at best !

 

[Grzesio]

Well, by the and of 1944 most (if not all) structural problems with the A 4 were already identified and mostly cured. A winged variant as the A 4 b or A 9 presented, of course, a number of another problems, connected with its winged layout and gliding flight profile - stability at sub- and supersonic speeds, new steering system, range exceeding available radio guidance horizon, continuous power supply during the whole flight, strengthened construction due to increased lateral forces etc...
But ten A 4 bs were already under construction then, two were actually launched in December 1944 and January 1945 - so calculating the terminal velocity was not a pure speculation for sure.

 

[Jemiba]

Honestly, that there still were aerodynamical problems was new for me, I had thought, that the aerodynamics
of the V2 were understood quite well, as its shape was more or less that of the well known artillery shell. But, as is
said in the mentioned book, problems arose due to steering the rocket, something, that hadn't been done with shells
before. The uneven aerodynamic loads often resulted in "Luftzerlegern" (disassembly in the air), which occured even
late in the war. A solution would have needed changes in the flight system, but only some structural changes were made.
So, the number of failures was reduced, but the principal problem wasn't solved. That's from my memory, what I read,
but I'll try to get this book again.
Nevertheless, the most interesting point for me wasn't what the V2 or its successors achieved, or could have achieved, but what
the German military industry could have achieved without it. Although a much smaller project, than the US Manhattan Project,
it nevertheless was a constant drain of resources of a scale, that brought severe limitations for all other services. So, in a certain
sense maybe, it could be called an allied wonderweapon !

 

[Grzesio]

There were problems with the winged A 4 b - wind tunnel tests revealed, the swept wing variant, we know, became unstable around Mach 0.85 and so a straight wing was proposed for the later prototypes in the end of 1944.
I have no idea if much could be done in the flight system to avoid Luftzerlegern in a purely ballistic missile. LZs were occurring very low, very few kilometres above the ground (even 1-1.5 km according to Wegener), and it seems that structural improvements to the tank and steering sections cured the problem pretty effectively (if not completely). Could a different flight profile alone eliminate LZs?