Luftwaffe: Secret Wings of the Third Reich

[newsdeskdan]

In Ingolf Meyer - Luftwaffe advanced aircraft project to 1945 v.1 there are two versions.

P.212.03 Color images with two fins, 3view vith only upper fin
P.212.04 (?) no fins, but different shape

Do you have the book handy? I believe there's a disclaimer in it from Meyer himself about the source material he used for his drawings. I wouldn't rely on them too heavily.

 

[Zizi6785]

Yes, these books are full of fantasy

 

[newsdeskdan]

Yes, these books are full of fantasy

There are certainly provable instances of inaccuracy in some books. Many re-draws seem to have been based on earlier re-draws, artists' impressions or even postwar or 'speculative' designs without any specific labelling to clearly identify what is based on a genuine original drawing and what isn't. However, I don't want to be too pessimistic about Blohm & Voss. I recently discovered a good account of British forces' capture of the company's Finkenwerder premises (numerous accounts exist - some posted elsewhere on this forum, but this one is particularly convincing) and it's clear that Richard Vogt's project office was captured completely intact and undamaged. All drawings and documents were carefully packaged up and sent to London for assessment. The British didn't destroy anything so it's entirely possible that more previously unknown B&V designs are still out there, waiting to be rediscovered.
But these days nothing short of an original drawing will do in terms of demonstrating authenticity - thanks to the proliferation of 'speculative' drawings.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Ingolf "sources" here

 

[newsdeskdan]

On page 175 of Volume 2, English edition, Meyer says in his epilogue, describing the scope of his books: "Where unproven, questionable, as well as unbelieveable projects are scattered in diverse publications, all will be included, even if it should turn out later on that one or other is a complete fantasy, or due to lack of concrete documentation, has been reconstructed ... for the sake of a few 'fakes', the many genuine projects should not be under-evaluated or even become questionable, and it may well turn out that in the course of time, one or other curiosity will become exposed as a falsity ... the aim of these volumes is to encourage the aviation historian to conduct ever more and careful research."

So, Ingolf Meyer accepts that some of his drawings are most likely based on 'fakes' or even complete fantasies.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I agree

 

[newsdeskdan]

So I would discount Meyer as a reliable source for those Blohm & Voss designs. The jury's still out on Pawlas though.

 

[steelpillow]

The British didn't destroy anything so it's entirely possible that more previously unknown B&V designs are still out there, waiting to be rediscovered.

I can understand if you want to keep their whereabouts to yourself until you have milked them dry, but would you be willing to tell us where they are all held? The National Archives at Kew is one obvious bet.

As for Pawlas, he seems to be as reliable as any copyist ever is. It all cross-checks reasonably well with later books by Amtmann and especially Pohlmann, as well as your own findings. That goes for his study of the P 208 in Luftfahrt 15 as well. It includes photos of wind tunnel model with three different and interchangeable wing tip designs. A lot of B&V projects went through a lot of design revisions and alternative comparisons, and it appears to me that many never received unique version numbers, the P 208 wing tips being a case in point. The status of any B&V drawing needs a lot of careful contextual research.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Excelent Book!

 

[newsdeskdan]

Excelent Book!

Amtmann was Vogt's right hand man, by his own account, and was Blohm & Voss's sole representative at (what appears to have been) the first 1-TL-Jager design conference on September 8-10, 1944. His name is in the minutes, alongside the fact that Blohm & Voss did not present a design at that point. However, his book (as I recall) makes no mention of Blohm & Voss's jet fighter designs. In this context, it's useless. Vogt's own book, Weltumspannende Memoiren eines Flugzeugkonstrukteurs, isn't much better.

 

[newsdeskdan]

As for Pawlas, he seems to be as reliable as any copyist ever is. It all cross-checks reasonably well with later books by Amtmann and especially Pohlmann, as well as your own findings. That goes for his study of the P 208 in Luftfahrt 15 as well. It includes photos of wind tunnel model with three different and interchangeable wing tip designs. A lot of B&V projects went through a lot of design revisions and alternative comparisons, and it appears to me that many never received unique version numbers, the P 208 wing tips being a case in point. The status of any B&V drawing needs a lot of careful contextual research.

Pawlas did a great job in publishing straight copies of original material - I've yet to find anything he published as a direct reproduction which differs when set against the original (apart from minor distortions evidently arising from whatever copying equipment/processes he used - I'm told his P 215 drawings don't quite match up with the originals, for example). However, where re-drawings are concerned, I can't shake the feeling that artistic licence may have come into play. The Messerschmitt 'animal names' designs ('Wespe', 'Wildgans' etc.) appear alongside drawings from the same source purporting to show the Messerschmitt P 1106 and P 1108. When these designs are set against the originals, while they are superficially similar, it is clear that there are substantial anomalies. For example, the undercarriage arrangement of the P 1106 Pawlas shows is wrong, as is the cockpit of the P 1108.
So where I would be inclined to trust Pawlas if he is presenting a straight copy, I am less certain where re-drawings are concerned. Why did he not simply present the original, or a tidied up version of the original, as he did elsewhere?
I'm sure you are right about Blohm & Voss's wind tunnel testing process. It does appear that they went in with a selection of different bits and swapped them about to try and find the best configuration - just as Junkers did with the EF 116, EF 122 etc. and Messerschmitt did with the P 01, Me 209 etc. The fact that the P 209.02's nose appears on the P 212.01, for example, would appear to be further evidence of this.

 

[steelpillow]

When these designs are set against the originals,

Personally, with this kind of back office work I am wary of dismissing a drawing simply because it differs from some original drawing. There could well be other original drawings or similar evidence showing other variants studied, with minor or major differences. One must always ask, "which originals?" and keep an open mind. The Ae 607 is a good example of that. Then again, when a copyist lacks information they may embellish simply to create a publishable drawing - the Ae 607 seems to be an example of that as well.

 

[newsdeskdan]

When these designs are set against the originals,

Personally, with this kind of back office work I am wary of dismissing a drawing simply because it differs from some original drawing. There could well be other original drawings or similar evidence showing other variants studied, with minor or major differences. One must always ask, "which originals?" and keep an open mind. The Ae 607 is a good example of that. Then again, when a copyist lacks information they may embellish simply to create a publishable drawing - the Ae 607 seems to be an example of that as well.

Certainly, the existence of otherwise unknown drawings can never be ruled out. I have quite a number of different P 1106 and P 1108 designs (all of the latter published in Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers) and none of them really resembles the Pawlas-published design in detail. Ditto the P 1106 designs, a number but not all of which have been published in my bookazines. When you see the evolution of a design through numerous iterations, all drawn in the same style, line thickness etc. then you see something which deviates substantially from that, you tend to draw the conclusion that the significantly different design probably does not belong to the same set.
The Ae 607 is an interesting case. I was skeptical at first (and said so in Luftwaffe: Secret Jets), then I noticed a note in the second volume of a Manfred Griehl book series stating that he too had been skeptical about it in the first volume, but that the original discoverer and publisher of the design had been in touch with him to say that it was, in fact, real, and had provided him with convincing evidence of this authenticity.
I tracked down the same original discoverer/publisher and asked him if I could see the same evidence. He told me that he no longer had it, having given it away to an enthusiast. But he was able to provide me with both his own published version of the drawing and information which enabled me to track down the original. He had obviously had the original, yet his published version of it differed in several minor ways - addition of guns, detailed canopy, fin changes etc. Why he had embellished the original I have no idea - he failed to answer subsequent emails in which I asked that question.

 

[steelpillow]

Thanks, Dan. Yes, that's exactly the kind of provenance trail one has to flog through to get to the truth.

In the world of J W Dunne, a secret wing designer whom Germany/Austria-Hungary tried very hard to poach around 1913-14, his own 20,000-plus document archive is making mincemeat of the current published mythology. And had they succeeded, your bookazine would have looked very different!

 

[newsdeskdan]

Thanks, Dan. Yes, that's exactly the kind of provenance trail one has to flog through to get to the truth.

In the world of J W Dunne, a secret wing designer whom Germany/Austria-Hungary tried very hard to poach around 1913-14, his own 20,000-plus document archive is making mincemeat of the current published mythology. And had they succeeded, your bookazine would have looked very different!

The whole point of my researching German projects has been to get to the truth, one way or another. The two Luftwaffe Advanced Aircraft Projects to 1945 books by Ingolf Meyer, including his rather startling epilogue, epitomise for me the way in which historical fact in this field has been eroded over the years. I was curious to learn the real history of designs which I felt were in danger of disappearing into a morass of 'speculation' - if they had a real history. Luftwaffe: Secret Jets/Bombers/Wings is the result.
I know very little about the world of J W Dunne, other than what I have gleaned in passing from the various discussions arising on this site. I hope you intend to publish your findings. If you do, I will buy a copy and read it with interest.

 

[steelpillow]

I know very little about the world of J W Dunne, ... I hope you intend to publish your findings.

170,000 words and counting. Currently on my second pass through his aviation correspondence, now the first pass has taught me what to look for. I have posted some highlights at http://www.steelpillow.com/blocki/dunne/Dunne-aero.html

 

[newsdeskdan]

I know very little about the world of J W Dunne, ... I hope you intend to publish your findings.

170,000 words and counting. Currently on my second pass through his aviation correspondence, now the first pass has taught me what to look for. I have posted some highlights at http://www.steelpillow.com/blocki/dunne/Dunne-aero.html

It would be interesting to see exactly what it was that Dunne wrote to Masefield concerning Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf at the end of 1941 - the actual wording that he used. As I've said, I will buy the book.

 

[steelpillow]

It would be interesting to see exactly what it was that Dunne wrote to Masefield concerning Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf at the end of 1941 - the actual wording that he used. As I've said, I will buy the book.

He may not have mentioned them as such, but he kept a good many press and journal clippings and they were reported on or I would not have mentioned them. Quite how British journalists got hold of such secrets once war had broken out, I do not know.

 

[newsdeskdan]

It would be interesting to see exactly what it was that Dunne wrote to Masefield concerning Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf at the end of 1941 - the actual wording that he used. As I've said, I will buy the book.

He may not have mentioned them as such, but he kept a good many press and journal clippings and they were reported on or I would not have mentioned them. Quite how British journalists got hold of such secrets once war had broken out, I do not know.

Ministry of Information. And the Ministry of Information got its information from PoWs. And spies. And possibly deserters.

 

[Zizi6785]

One more question:
We know 2 versions of BV P.212.01. The first one is a real project? (From Luft'46 site)

 

[newsdeskdan]

One more question:
We know 2 versions of BV P.212.01. The first one is a real project? (From Luft'46 site)

The drawing number on the P 212.01-01 I published is clearly visible. There's no ambiguity - that is the P 212.01-01. The one pictured on Luft46 looks to me like a short-fuselage version of the P 212.02-01. Perhaps it's just been mislabelled (i.e. it might actually be the P 212.01-02). I have never seen an original drawing of that design, and I have seen a lot of original B&V drawings, but it could certainly be real.

NB: It would be interesting to see an analysis of the fuselage lengths of these designs. The length dimension given on the original P 212.01-01 and P 212.02-01 drawings is 7.56m (7.2m for the P 212.03-01), but that's from nose to wingtips, rather than from nose to tail-end. If accurate fuselage lengths could be determined, it might be possible to see whether the Luft46 P 212.01 design consists of a P 212.02-01 nose stuck onto the (to my eye at least) shorter fuselage of the P 212.01-01.

 

[Zizi6785]

Thanks, I thought it would be so...

 

[steelpillow]

According to Pohlmann, the P.212 was conceived as the P.209.02 forward-swept fuselage mated to the P.208 back-swept wing. But the major repositioning of the wing root forced a significant redesign. The P.209.02 fuselage depicted by masters was quite short but had a noticeably longer nose than the Luft46 drawing. On the other hand, he depicts the P.209.01 as having a fuselage very close to the Luft46 one but with the turned-down tips of the P.208. So I suspect that the Luft46 drawing is either an exploratory drawing working up to the P.212.01 or is a bit of artistic license. Without hard evidence either way, one must assume caution.

 

[newsdeskdan]

According to Pohlmann, the P.212 was conceived as the P.209.02 forward-swept fuselage mated to the P.208 back-swept wing. But the major repositioning of the wing root forced a significant redesign. The P.209.02 fuselage depicted by masters was quite short but had a noticeably longer nose than the Luft46 drawing. On the other hand, he depicts the P.209.01 as having a fuselage very close to the Luft46 one but with the turned-down tips of the P.208. So I suspect that the Luft46 drawing is either an exploratory drawing working up to the P.212.01 or is a bit of artistic license. Without hard evidence either way, one must assume caution.

I did think, originally, that the Luft46 P 212.01 was probably just a backwards extrapolation of the P 212.02-01 and P 212.03-01, taking elements from each to come up with a speculative 'P 212.01'. But the idea of a P 212.02-01 front end married to the short fuselage of the P 212.01-01 seems possible, given Blohm & Voss's process of swapping bits around.
Either way, it matters little since there doesn't appear to have been a full brochure drafted for the P 212.01. The first P 212 presented for consideration was the P 212.02-01 (although the drawing in the brochure was edited to present it simply as the 'P 212.02'). The P 209.02 and P 212 seem to have been developed in parallel and they were presented together at the December 19-21, 1944, 1-TL-Jager meeting (brochure covers for both and p25 from the DVL comparison report arising from the meeting appended - showing each of the contenders. Further details of these designs are in the bookazine).

 

[newsdeskdan]

In case anyone was wondering about the P 212.02-01 (seen on Luftwaffe: Secret Wings p72 with just 'P 212.02' printed on it), here are the original drawing, the version edited for the brochure and the version as it appears in the DVL report alongside the P 209.02, early EF 128, early P 1106, early Focke-Wulf Baubeschreibung Nr. 279 design and He 162 development (drawing missing but referred to as such in the text). Evidently the original info panel was just blanked over to create the brochure version.

 

[Zizi6785]

What about P.210.01 and 02?

 

[newsdeskdan]

What about P.210.01 and 02?

The only P 210 I'm aware of as entirely genuine and based on a verified original drawing is the top one, labelled P 210.01. It's in German Aircraft: New and Projected Types. From what I can tell, the P 210 was very quickly dismissed in favour of the more conventional P 211 - however, the matter of the P 210 is an ongoing investigation and I am hopeful of turning up more info on it soon.

 

[Zizi6785]

Oh, how much discredited drawing...

 

[newsdeskdan]

Oh, how much discredited drawing...

I think there was a feeling at the time, which strongly persists today, that readers were not that bothered about seeing the original drawings, particularly if they looked tatty or in any way unclear. Re-drawing made the designs clear and allowed for uniformity throughout a book where otherwise the drawings might have varied widely in quality and execution. These re-drawings were seldom, if ever, presented as re-drawings, they were just 'the drawings'.
The problem has been one of timescale. Over the course of the last 72 years or so, designs have been re-drawn, then later artists unable to find or access the originals, or not realising the true nature of the drawings appearing in books, or simply not caring either way have re-drawn those re-drawings. Details such as panel lines that were not in the originals were added. Where the originals existed only as 'concepts' without features such as radiators, undercarriage detail, cannon, bomb racks etc. these details were filled in based on a 'best guess'.
Then the re-drawings were re-drawn again and speculative designs (often based on nothing more than text descriptions) also entered the mix. So now it has become very difficult to tell what's 'real', what's 'speculative' and what's mere fantasy. I have no doubt that sooner or later someone will present the Horten Ho 347 Fledermaus from Paolo Parente's Dust as a 'real' project.
So over nearly three-quarters of a century it would appear that some popular designs have moved further and further away from what their original creators intended. To some, perhaps many or even most, this doesn't really matter. It's just an interesting period of history upon which to cast a glance. I was curious, however, to see which designs had genuine historical provenance.

 

[steelpillow]

David Masters in German Jet Genesis describes the P.201.02 as having a constant-chord straight wing and conventional tail. It's sheer mundane quality makes it more believable than the average fantasy elaboration, but as he doesn't give his sources, who knows.

 

[newsdeskdan]

David Masters in German Jet Genesis describes the P.201.02 as having a constant-chord straight wing and conventional tail. It's sheer mundane quality makes it more believable than the average fantasy elaboration, but as he doesn't give his sources, who knows.

Is that a description of the P 211.02? Also, what do you know about David Masters?

NB. After you mentioned Pohlmann above, I was inspired to revisit my copy - and the drawings within certainly served to illustrate the point I was making with regard to inaccurate/elaborated re-draws.

 

[steelpillow]

David Masters in German Jet Genesis describes the P.201.02 as having a constant-chord straight wing and conventional tail. It's sheer mundane quality makes it more believable than the average fantasy elaboration, but as he doesn't give his sources, who knows.

Is that a description of the P 211.02?

Sorry. my mistake, it is the P.210.02. He offers no drawing of the P.201 and only the one low-set swept wing and tail for the P.211.

NB. After you mentioned Pohlmann above, I was inspired to revisit my copy - and the drawings within certainly served to illustrate the point I was making with regard to inaccurate/elaborated re-draws.

Pohlmann's drawings appear to have been prepared by one Rolf Struve, mostly from MBB/HFB company archive material. Without seeing those archives, I'd hate to be dogmatic.

Almost all these projects were constantly being revised and refined, and any given drawing is just a snapshot of that moment's progress. It think that sometimes, we seek more hard details than were ever really there.

 

[newsdeskdan]

David Masters in German Jet Genesis describes the P.201.02 as having a constant-chord straight wing and conventional tail. It's sheer mundane quality makes it more believable than the average fantasy elaboration, but as he doesn't give his sources, who knows.

Is that a description of the P 211.02?

Sorry. my mistake, it is the P.210.02. He offers no drawing of the P.201 and only the one low-set swept wing and tail for the P.211.

NB. After you mentioned Pohlmann above, I was inspired to revisit my copy - and the drawings within certainly served to illustrate the point I was making with regard to inaccurate/elaborated re-draws.

Pohlmann's drawings appear to have been prepared by one Rolf Struve, mostly from MBB/HFB company archive material. Without seeing those archives, I'd hate to be dogmatic.

Almost all these projects were constantly being revised and refined, and any given drawing is just a snapshot of that moment's progress. It think that sometimes, we seek more hard details than were ever really there.

Sorry, I believe the drawings in Pohlmann are indefensible. I am happy to be proven wrong. Be that as it may, I modified my earlier response to enquire after your knowledge of David Masters. I do not have his (1983 1982, apparently) book. Do you know anything about him as an author? I only ask because internet searches for 'author David Masters' turn up some interesting results.

 

[steelpillow]

Be that as it may, I modified my earlier response to enquire after your knowledge of David Masters. I do not have his (1983, apparently) book. Do you know anything about him as an author? I only ask because internet searches for 'author David Masters' turn up some interesting results.

Library Thing reckons those are not the David Masters you are looking for: https://www.librarything.com/author/mastersdavid

His book is published by Jane's, which ought to lend some credibility, and at the back he does give some clues as to his sources; "The contents of this book have been complied over a number of years from a vast number of major and minor references." He then lists some nine major documents, including books by the likes of Green or Novarra, and miscellaneous stuff such as A.I.2(G) Report No. 2383 to the Air Reserve Gazette. All in all, he does not appear to have been particularly selective - he gives credence to several flying saucer tall tales with no more qualification than the "multiple sources say" variety - so in this respect I treat it as a source book of stories to bear in mind until one can check them out, nothing more. I also find it a very useful quick-finder, having all the projects illustrated and listed by manufacturer.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Be that as it may, I modified my earlier response to enquire after your knowledge of David Masters. I do not have his (1983, apparently) book. Do you know anything about him as an author? I only ask because internet searches for 'author David Masters' turn up some interesting results.

Library Thing reckons those are not the David Masters you are looking for: https://www.librarything.com/author/mastersdavid

His book is published by Jane's, which ought to lend some credibility, and at the back he does give some clues as to his sources; "The contents of this book have been complied over a number of years from a vast number of major and minor references." He then lists some nine major documents, including books by the likes of Green or Novarra, and miscellaneous stuff such as A.I.2(G) Report No. 2383 to the Air Reserve Gazette. All in all, he does not appear to have been particularly selective - he gives credence to several flying saucer tall tales with no more qualification than the "multiple sources say" variety - so in this respect I treat it as a source book of stories to bear in mind until one can check them out, nothing more. I also find it a very useful quick-finder, having all the projects illustrated and listed by manufacturer.

Mmm. The 'first' David Masters appears to have been a pen-name associated with boys' own type titles. What do you suppose the chances are that David Masters II is also a pen-name...?

 

[steelpillow]

What do you suppose the chances are that David Masters II is also a pen-name...?

Fairly small. Authors of serious publications seldom use pen-names. You would be more likely to find some pulp fiction peddler called Topman Wellbeloved or whatever to be a pen-name of our David Masters.
Oh....

(subtle etymological joke there, sorry)

 

[newsdeskdan]

What do you suppose the chances are that David Masters II is also a pen-name...?

Fairly small. Authors of serious publications seldom use pen-names. You would be more likely to find some pulp fiction peddler called Topman Wellbeloved or whatever to be a pen-name of our David Masters.
Oh....

(subtle etymological joke there, sorry)

Odd how David Masters II never wrote anything else and next to nothing is known about him - even in association with Jane's. I would be tempted to place him in the same category as the anonymous author of another 'catch-all' projects tome - Secret German Aircraft Projects of 1945: Based on British Air Intelligence Reports, 1945-46 from Toros Publishing. Or Galapagos Publishing, depending on which version you get.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[newsdeskdan]

Hi

Masters, whoever he is/was, got it wrong. That's the P 211.02, rather than the P 210.02. The P 210 was tailless, the P 211.01-01 was swept wings and conventional tail, the P 211.01-02 was constant chord wings but a twin tail, then the P 211.02 was constant chord wings and a conventional tail fin. The B&V Volksjager project seems to have got simpler and simpler from the radical layout P 210 to the very straightforward P 211.02.

NB. Looking back at the hard copy original P 211 brochure of September 29, 1944, the design presented is the P 211.01-02, not the P 211.02. Unusually there are no drawings in the brochure itself but the text makes reference to the P 211.01-02. Furthermore, looking at the original Blohm & Voss project list, there is no mention of a P 211.02, only a P 211.01-01 and P 211.01-02. The drawing I have of the P 211.01-02 (from a third source - i.e. not from the brochure or the project list) shows the constant chord wing, twin tail arrangement. Another drawing from the same source is labelled P 211.00-10.1 and shows what appears to be the constant chord wing, single fin tail arrangement. I say 'appears to be' because it is a sectional side view only and the upper part of the tail fin is not pictured.
The conclusion I am tempted to draw from all this is that there was no P 211.02, and that what's commonly referred to as the P 211.02 is in fact the P 211.01-02. Still no evidence of a second P 210 however, although investigations are ongoing.

 

[sienar]

I have to say your are doing an excellent job with the past few books you've released. Good content with proper context, unlike most of the late war books on the market. Reproductions of original plans is much appreciated as well.

Also is that a bit of a 309 sideview on the intro page on the border of drawings? Any plans on covering the wartime piston projects?