- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,637
- Reaction score
- 3,553
Messerschmitt Me 264 Variants and Projects
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,637
- Reaction score
- 3,553
It would be interesting to get to know the source for the Me 364 designation. The drawing is the same, as
shown in Robert Forsyth "Messerschmitt Me 264" but neither the inscriptions on the drawing, nor that
book mention this designation or the identity of the Me 264 V6. Luft'46 gives "Me 364" as "unofficial",
the number of prototypes didn't exceed 3 aircraft and AFAIK before construction of the V4 was started, the
whole project was cancelled and not even the fifth prototype was ordered.
So, anybody knowing a reliable source for the"Me 364" ?
shown in Robert Forsyth "Messerschmitt Me 264" but neither the inscriptions on the drawing, nor that
book mention this designation or the identity of the Me 264 V6. Luft'46 gives "Me 364" as "unofficial",
the number of prototypes didn't exceed 3 aircraft and AFAIK before construction of the V4 was started, the
whole project was cancelled and not even the fifth prototype was ordered.
So, anybody knowing a reliable source for the"Me 364" ?
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,637
- Reaction score
- 3,553
Ok, but I would recommend either to mention that, or (probabl better) just to
ignore such "unofficial" designations or names.
Repitition of such "facts" again and again just is a way to hammer them out !
ignore such "unofficial" designations or names.
Repitition of such "facts" again and again just is a way to hammer them out !
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,851
- Reaction score
- 14,178
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Wiki abstruct of Me264
Development
(1) The origin of the Me 264 design came from Messerschmitt's long-range reconnaissance aircraft project, the P.1061, of the late 1930s.
(2) A variant on the P.1061 was the P.1062 of which three prototypes were built, with only two "engines" to the P.1061's four, but they were, in fact, the more powerful Daimler-Benz DB 606 "power systems", each comprising a pair of DB 601 inverted V-12 engines, successfully used in the long-range Messerschmitt Me 261, itself originating as the Messerschmitt P.1064 design of 1937.
(3) In early 1941, six P.1061 prototypes were ordered from Messerschmitt, under the designation Me 264. This was later reduced to three prototypes.
(4) The progress of these projects was initially slow, but after Germany had declared war on the United States, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) started a more serious programme in the spring of 1942 for a very long range bomber, with the result that a larger, six-engine aircraft with a greater bomb load was called for.
(5) To meet this demand, proposals were put forward for the Junkers Ju 390, Focke-Wulf Ta 400, a redesign of the unfinalized and unbuilt Heinkel He 277 design to give the Heinkel firm an entry in the Amerika Bomber program later in 1943, and a design study for a six-engine Messerschmitt Me 264B, prompted by the ongoing inability for Germany's aviation powerplant designers to create reliable powerplants of 1,500 kW (2,000 PS) and above power output levels that thwarted efforts to do the same with just four engines instead.
(6) As the Junkers Ju 390 could use components already in use for the Ju 290 this design was chosen.
(7) The Me 264 was not abandoned however as the Kriegsmarine (German navy) separately demanded a long-range maritime patrol and attack aircraft to replace the converted Fw 200 Condor in this role.
(8) This was reinforced by an opinion given by then-Generalmajor Eccard Freiherr von Gablenz of the Wehrmacht Heer (German Army) in May 1942, as von Gablenz had been recruited by Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch at the time to give his opinion on the suitability of the Me 264 for the Amerika Bomber mission, with von Gablenz echoing the Kriegsmarine's later opinion.
(9)As a result, the two pending prototypes were ordered to be completed as development prototypes for the Me 264A ultra long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
Operational history
（１）The first prototype, the Me 264 V1, was flown on 23 December 1942. It was powered at first by four Jumo 211J inline engines of 990 kW (1,340 hp) each. In late 1943, these were changed to the BMW 801G radials which delivered 1,290 kW (1,750 hp).
（２）Trials showed numerous minor faults, and handling was found to be difficult. One of the drawbacks was the very high wing loading of the Me 264 in fully loaded conditions at some 356 kg/m2 (73 lb/sq ft); comparable aircraft, such as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress at 337 kg/m2 (69 lb/sq ft) wing loading, both the redesign of the He 277 for its intended production priority to fulfill the Amerika Bomber role at 334.6 kg/m2 (68.5 lb/sq ft), and Ju 390 at 209 kg/m2 (43 lb/sq ft), had less. The high wing loading led to performance problems across the whole flight envelope, in particular bad climb performance, loss of maneuverability, and in-flight stability, and the need for high take-off and landing speeds.
（３）This first prototype was not fitted with weapons or armour, but of the following two prototypes, the Me 264 V2 had armour for the engines, crew and gun positions, although it was decided to complete the Me 264 V2 without defensive armament and vital equipment and the Me 264 V3 was to be armed and have the same mentioned armoured parts.
（４）In 1943, the Kriegsmarine withdrew their interest in the Me 264 in favour of the existing Ju 290 and the planned Ju 390, with the Luftwaffe preferring the unbuilt Ta 400 and the Heinkel He 277 as Amerika-Bomber candidates in May 1943, based on their own performance estimates,[5] stopping any further development work on the Messerschmitt bomber design.
（５） As a consequence, in October 1943, Erhard Milch ordered the cancellation of further Me 264 development to concentrate on the development and production of the Me 262 jet fighter-bomber.
（６）Late in 1943, the second prototype, Me 264 V2, was destroyed in a bombing attack.
（７）On 18 July 1944, the first prototype, which had entered service with Transportstaffel 5, was damaged during an Allied bombing raid and was not repaired.
（８）The third prototype, which had not been fully completed, was destroyed during the same raid.
(９)Following the cancellation of the competing He 277 in April 1944, on 23 September 1944, work on the Me 264 project was officially cancelled.
Development
(1) The origin of the Me 264 design came from Messerschmitt's long-range reconnaissance aircraft project, the P.1061, of the late 1930s.
(2) A variant on the P.1061 was the P.1062 of which three prototypes were built, with only two "engines" to the P.1061's four, but they were, in fact, the more powerful Daimler-Benz DB 606 "power systems", each comprising a pair of DB 601 inverted V-12 engines, successfully used in the long-range Messerschmitt Me 261, itself originating as the Messerschmitt P.1064 design of 1937.
(3) In early 1941, six P.1061 prototypes were ordered from Messerschmitt, under the designation Me 264. This was later reduced to three prototypes.
(4) The progress of these projects was initially slow, but after Germany had declared war on the United States, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) started a more serious programme in the spring of 1942 for a very long range bomber, with the result that a larger, six-engine aircraft with a greater bomb load was called for.
(5) To meet this demand, proposals were put forward for the Junkers Ju 390, Focke-Wulf Ta 400, a redesign of the unfinalized and unbuilt Heinkel He 277 design to give the Heinkel firm an entry in the Amerika Bomber program later in 1943, and a design study for a six-engine Messerschmitt Me 264B, prompted by the ongoing inability for Germany's aviation powerplant designers to create reliable powerplants of 1,500 kW (2,000 PS) and above power output levels that thwarted efforts to do the same with just four engines instead.
(6) As the Junkers Ju 390 could use components already in use for the Ju 290 this design was chosen.
(7) The Me 264 was not abandoned however as the Kriegsmarine (German navy) separately demanded a long-range maritime patrol and attack aircraft to replace the converted Fw 200 Condor in this role.
(8) This was reinforced by an opinion given by then-Generalmajor Eccard Freiherr von Gablenz of the Wehrmacht Heer (German Army) in May 1942, as von Gablenz had been recruited by Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch at the time to give his opinion on the suitability of the Me 264 for the Amerika Bomber mission, with von Gablenz echoing the Kriegsmarine's later opinion.
(9)As a result, the two pending prototypes were ordered to be completed as development prototypes for the Me 264A ultra long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
Operational history
（１）The first prototype, the Me 264 V1, was flown on 23 December 1942. It was powered at first by four Jumo 211J inline engines of 990 kW (1,340 hp) each. In late 1943, these were changed to the BMW 801G radials which delivered 1,290 kW (1,750 hp).
（２）Trials showed numerous minor faults, and handling was found to be difficult. One of the drawbacks was the very high wing loading of the Me 264 in fully loaded conditions at some 356 kg/m2 (73 lb/sq ft); comparable aircraft, such as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress at 337 kg/m2 (69 lb/sq ft) wing loading, both the redesign of the He 277 for its intended production priority to fulfill the Amerika Bomber role at 334.6 kg/m2 (68.5 lb/sq ft), and Ju 390 at 209 kg/m2 (43 lb/sq ft), had less. The high wing loading led to performance problems across the whole flight envelope, in particular bad climb performance, loss of maneuverability, and in-flight stability, and the need for high take-off and landing speeds.
（３）This first prototype was not fitted with weapons or armour, but of the following two prototypes, the Me 264 V2 had armour for the engines, crew and gun positions, although it was decided to complete the Me 264 V2 without defensive armament and vital equipment and the Me 264 V3 was to be armed and have the same mentioned armoured parts.
（４）In 1943, the Kriegsmarine withdrew their interest in the Me 264 in favour of the existing Ju 290 and the planned Ju 390, with the Luftwaffe preferring the unbuilt Ta 400 and the Heinkel He 277 as Amerika-Bomber candidates in May 1943, based on their own performance estimates,[5] stopping any further development work on the Messerschmitt bomber design.
（５） As a consequence, in October 1943, Erhard Milch ordered the cancellation of further Me 264 development to concentrate on the development and production of the Me 262 jet fighter-bomber.
（６）Late in 1943, the second prototype, Me 264 V2, was destroyed in a bombing attack.
（７）On 18 July 1944, the first prototype, which had entered service with Transportstaffel 5, was damaged during an Allied bombing raid and was not repaired.
（８）The third prototype, which had not been fully completed, was destroyed during the same raid.
(９)Following the cancellation of the competing He 277 in April 1944, on 23 September 1944, work on the Me 264 project was officially cancelled.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Auto translation :
"Me264V2 wingspan is longer, also a key part of the plane increases around 1000 kg armour. But V2 is only completed when the body until the allied air strikes. According to drawings, we can see that Me264V2 is also capable of carrying torpedoes, presumably in order to meet the Navy's anti-ship bomber requirements."
"Me264V2 wingspan is longer, also a key part of the plane increases around 1000 kg armour. But V2 is only completed when the body until the allied air strikes. According to drawings, we can see that Me264V2 is also capable of carrying torpedoes, presumably in order to meet the Navy's anti-ship bomber requirements."
Attachments
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
You are welcome my dear hesham-san. 
In this drawing, we can see another wing shape plan for pusher layout?
Nose is extended for pusher layout to adjust c.g.position? Hmmm.... :
Also we can see drop outer tire, bomb or drop tank and torpedo under the wing.
Source :
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_5574763_1.html
In this drawing, we can see another wing shape plan for pusher layout?
Nose is extended for pusher layout to adjust c.g.position? Hmmm.... :
Also we can see drop outer tire, bomb or drop tank and torpedo under the wing.
Source :
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_5574763_1.html
Attachments
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Hmmm...?????
Auto translation
"Two BMW 018 turbojet engines. Another plan is to use Ritz heat exchangers greatly increased voyage.
Perhaps the most unusual idea is that a steam turbine, output power of over 6000 horsepower and driving 5.334 meter diameter propellers. Main fuel is a mixture of coal and oil. The main advantages of the engine at any height you can provide stable power output and simple logistics and maintenance."
Auto translation
"Two BMW 018 turbojet engines. Another plan is to use Ritz heat exchangers greatly increased voyage.
Perhaps the most unusual idea is that a steam turbine, output power of over 6000 horsepower and driving 5.334 meter diameter propellers. Main fuel is a mixture of coal and oil. The main advantages of the engine at any height you can provide stable power output and simple logistics and maintenance."
Attachments
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
What is this engine???
Steam engine? I can't find water/steam line.
I can read the letter "twin drum radial flow Ritz regenerative heat ehchanger". Is it correct?
I think that it's a two stage combustion gas turbine engine with economical regenarative heat exchanger.
Middle drawing shows the system flow sheet that the first stage combustion drive power turbine which drive propeller and the second combustion drive high pressure turbine which drive compressor.（the AEG equivalent）
Bottom drawing shows the system flow sheet that the first stage combustion drive high pressure turbine which drive compressor and the second combustion drive power turbine which drive propeller.（Brown Boveri turboprop with Ritz type heat exchangers）
Perhaps we can't find steam turbine engine concept drawing for Me264 still now.
Aero steam turbine engine is like this.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18011.msg172002.html#msg172002
Of course we need closed cycle water/steam system which drive steam turbine. If we select open cycle water/steam system, we need large volume of water. So I think this drawing shows gas turbine.
Steam engine? I can't find water/steam line.
I can read the letter "twin drum radial flow Ritz regenerative heat ehchanger". Is it correct?
I think that it's a two stage combustion gas turbine engine with economical regenarative heat exchanger.
Middle drawing shows the system flow sheet that the first stage combustion drive power turbine which drive propeller and the second combustion drive high pressure turbine which drive compressor.（the AEG equivalent）
Bottom drawing shows the system flow sheet that the first stage combustion drive high pressure turbine which drive compressor and the second combustion drive power turbine which drive propeller.（Brown Boveri turboprop with Ritz type heat exchangers）
Perhaps we can't find steam turbine engine concept drawing for Me264 still now.
Aero steam turbine engine is like this.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18011.msg172002.html#msg172002
Of course we need closed cycle water/steam system which drive steam turbine. If we select open cycle water/steam system, we need large volume of water. So I think this drawing shows gas turbine.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Hi!
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/100976-watermethanol-injection/page-2
"Here are some specs of the Brown Boveri turboprop with Ritz type heat exchangers:
Power Rating @10,000m (32,800ft) and 600km/h (373mph): 5000ehp (shaft hp + residual thrust equivalent hp)
Maximum weight: 6000kg (13,230lb) including 750kg (1,654lb) for heat exchangers
ssure Ratio: 7:1
Specific Fuel consumption (10,000m/600km/h) 140.7 gm/thurst hp/h (0.3lb/thrust hp/h)
Heat Exchanger effectiveness: 90-95%
Overall Efficiency: 41-42%
Heat Exchanger section diameter: 1.40m (4ft 7 1/8in)
Deoth with underslung compressors and turbines: 19.4m (6ft 4 3/8in)
Overall unit length: 5.0m (16ft 4 3/8in)
This engine (and the AEG equivalent) was mooted for the long range Me 264 bomber (sometimes known as the Amerika bomber). The normal power for this was 4 piston engines, either BMW 801 or Jumo 211. A Diesel alternative was also given. Their expected fuel consumption under the same conditions as above was estimated to be 207.9gm/thrust hp/h for the petrol engine and 181.6gm/thrust hp/h for the Diesel.
Of course neither engine made it past the playing in the lab with the heat exchangers stage.
Data from Anthony L Kay, German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945"
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/100976-watermethanol-injection/page-2
"Here are some specs of the Brown Boveri turboprop with Ritz type heat exchangers:
Power Rating @10,000m (32,800ft) and 600km/h (373mph): 5000ehp (shaft hp + residual thrust equivalent hp)
Maximum weight: 6000kg (13,230lb) including 750kg (1,654lb) for heat exchangers
ssure Ratio: 7:1
Specific Fuel consumption (10,000m/600km/h) 140.7 gm/thurst hp/h (0.3lb/thrust hp/h)
Heat Exchanger effectiveness: 90-95%
Overall Efficiency: 41-42%
Heat Exchanger section diameter: 1.40m (4ft 7 1/8in)
Deoth with underslung compressors and turbines: 19.4m (6ft 4 3/8in)
Overall unit length: 5.0m (16ft 4 3/8in)
This engine (and the AEG equivalent) was mooted for the long range Me 264 bomber (sometimes known as the Amerika bomber). The normal power for this was 4 piston engines, either BMW 801 or Jumo 211. A Diesel alternative was also given. Their expected fuel consumption under the same conditions as above was estimated to be 207.9gm/thrust hp/h for the petrol engine and 181.6gm/thrust hp/h for the Diesel.
Of course neither engine made it past the playing in the lab with the heat exchangers stage.
Data from Anthony L Kay, German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945"
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 9,379
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Nice picture thanks!!
And beautiful artwork for Messerschmitt-264 – Me P.1075 / Me P.1085.
http://www.oxygino.com/site/?p=1039
Juft46
"Messerschmitt received an order to build six prototype Projekt 1061 aircraft, which were given the designation of Me 264. If the aircraft proved capable, a further 24 aircraft were to be built for "harassing attacks against the United States". At the same time, Messerschmitt continued to work on a six engined version of the Me 264, Projekt 1075. Since the Messerschmitt design offices were running at full capacity, part of the design work was delegated to the Fokker Works in Amsterdam. "
Interesting Me264 information here.
http://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/messerschmitt-me-264-amerika-bomber.15830/
http://modelstories.free.fr/analyses/avions/MS2002_1P/SHOB_Me264/
So there are two drawings for pure 4 pusher engine design(P.1085) radiator position.
Bottom drawing shows Me264 with DB603 engine.
And beautiful artwork for Messerschmitt-264 – Me P.1075 / Me P.1085.
http://www.oxygino.com/site/?p=1039
Juft46
"Messerschmitt received an order to build six prototype Projekt 1061 aircraft, which were given the designation of Me 264. If the aircraft proved capable, a further 24 aircraft were to be built for "harassing attacks against the United States". At the same time, Messerschmitt continued to work on a six engined version of the Me 264, Projekt 1075. Since the Messerschmitt design offices were running at full capacity, part of the design work was delegated to the Fokker Works in Amsterdam. "
Interesting Me264 information here.
http://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/messerschmitt-me-264-amerika-bomber.15830/
http://modelstories.free.fr/analyses/avions/MS2002_1P/SHOB_Me264/
So there are two drawings for pure 4 pusher engine design(P.1085) radiator position.
Bottom drawing shows Me264 with DB603 engine.
Attachments
lastdingo
Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Michel Van said:
Some things in there make no sense.
D-Stand described tailgunners, not left/right gunner positions. There could not be two D-Stände.
(A: nose, B: top, c: belly, D: tail, not sure if left and right were E and F respectively.)
Scarce C3 fuel makes no sense for such a plane either. A B4-burning engine version might have been affordable.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,651
- Reaction score
- 7,002
Amerika bombers movies.
http://www.aerocinema.com/product/amerika-bombers-part-one.html
http://www.aerocinema.com/product/amerika-bombers-part-two.html
XF-103, XF-108 and XF-109....Sorry for off topic. ;D
https://www.aerocinema.com/page/features.html
http://www.aerocinema.com/product/amerika-bombers-part-one.html
http://www.aerocinema.com/product/amerika-bombers-part-two.html
XF-103, XF-108 and XF-109....Sorry for off topic. ;D
https://www.aerocinema.com/page/features.html
Attachments
![logo[1].png](/data/attachments/123/123097-85f261659eeb4196b0d588195e9f9589.jpg)
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 436
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29902.msg283832.html#msg283832
Img 129 appears to show an Me 264 bomber on the rocket sled.
Img 129 appears to show an Me 264 bomber on the rocket sled.
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
Nick Sumner said:
It does, doesn't it! Well, in a report (dated May 12, 1942) on the aircraft designs tendered for the long-range aircraft requirement of mid-1941, Generalleutnant Eccard, Freiherr von Gablenz wrote:
"On the outbreak of war with the United States, the idea of operating against America directly without refuelling was naturally pursued as it had been previously. The first theoretical solution was proposed by Messerschmitt in the autumn of 1941 with the following design: Me 264 six-engined variant: All-up weight 70-80 tonnes, six DB 603 engines, range 15,000km, payload five tonnes, approximately four tonnes armament and armour.
The solution was theoretical because of the firm’s under-capacity. Mention must be made of the special characteristics associated with these trans-oceanic aircraft and their performance. They require long runways (on average a 2km run before take-off). On grounds of weight only about two-thirds of the fuel tanks can be protected.
The aircraft are fitted with landing gear: a jettisonable undercarriage is provided for take-off. Tactically, problems of stability and lack of manoeuvrability rule out dive-bombing. For nuisance raids against American land targets, night bombing will be in the horizontal attitude. In operations over the sea, the size of the aircraft is particularly disadvantageous."
If a long take-off run was required, along with a jettisonable undercarriage, using a rocket sled instead would certainly be one alternative. It should be mentioned that the 'these trans-oceanic aircraft' refers to all the competition entrants, not just the Me 264 - including an unknown six-engined Heinkel bomber design, the six-engined Focke-Wulf Fernkampfflugzeug (not the Ta 400) and the Ju 390.
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 9,379
about German document newsdeskdan posted
It about Long-range combat aircraftMe 364 or P.1075 finally P1085
from July 1942
i can't decipher the hand writing
its about the goal for Me 264 to night bombing of US east coast
For that the Bomber has remove part of weapons and its armor to manage 15000 km flight range
under attention of deadline was design taken under research of Me 261
this design was satisfaction and develop further under Me 264
Since the Me 264 not is optimal for this long range Bomber mission
was paraelle Design study done for best solution to this problem
of range of 15000 km with weapon bombs and armor
They had the Aircraft under designation Me 364 but replace in document by P.1085
a six engine version of Me 264 with stretch fuselage and Wings
the wings get a intermediate piece with Engine, enlarge wings from 125 to 170 square meter surface.
the fuselage get a 3,10 meter intermediate piece. (this include Defence weapons systems)
Tail unit is enlarge with additional pieces
undercarriage move from it position in wing, into wing intermediate piece, while thenose gear is strengthen.
the rest are parts of Me 264 (there allot notes and corrections in this part, but i can't decipher the hand writing)
It about Long-range combat aircraft
from July 1942
i can't decipher the hand writing
its about the goal for Me 264 to night bombing of US east coast
For that the Bomber has remove part of weapons and its armor to manage 15000 km flight range
under attention of deadline was design taken under research of Me 261
this design was satisfaction and develop further under Me 264
Since the Me 264 not is optimal for this long range Bomber mission
was paraelle Design study done for best solution to this problem
of range of 15000 km with weapon bombs and armor
They had the Aircraft under designation Me 364 but replace in document by P.1085
a six engine version of Me 264 with stretch fuselage and Wings
the wings get a intermediate piece with Engine, enlarge wings from 125 to 170 square meter surface.
the fuselage get a 3,10 meter intermediate piece. (this include Defence weapons systems)
Tail unit is enlarge with additional pieces
undercarriage move from it position in wing, into wing intermediate piece, while thenose gear is strengthen.
the rest are parts of Me 264 (there allot notes and corrections in this part, but i can't decipher the hand writing)
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
Michel Van said:
Indecipherable German WW2 handwriting is the bane of my life.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 9,379
newsdeskdan said:
you say it man, you say it !
This P.1085 document is the worst, since Arado Bomber studies and some Focker-Wulf documents in SPF
but see it from good side
Those papers with clear hand writing are mostly the Fake once...
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
Michel Van said:
The handwriting you find in period documents varies considerably, as you might expect. Some of it is perfectly legible - Lippisch's isn't bad, for example. I seem to recall that Willy Messerschmitt's is also okay. At the other end of the spectrum, I recently discovered a set of Focke-Wulf single-engine fighter project designs from 1933 which presumably led to the Fw 159. There are six or seven drawings showing a range of configurations, though in some cases quite badly faded, but the accompanying entirely handwritten text is both badly faded and in a very poor hand - making it extremely hard to decipher.
- Joined
- 8 March 2009
- Messages
- 1,019
- Reaction score
- 1,140
There was a magazine in the past year or two had some reproductions of messerschmitt drawings of 6 engine 264 derivatives. Unfortunately I cant remember which publication it is and I've looked through a few dozen at this point.
Would those have been Kurt Tank lead designs?
newsdeskdan said:
Would those have been Kurt Tank lead designs?
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
sienar said:
Tank isn't mentioned, as far as it's possible to tell.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,637
- Reaction score
- 3,553
newsdeskdan said:
Well, your father, mother or Grandparents probably never learned to write Sütterlin or
Kurrent script ? I actually even had it at school (primary school in the '60s) as calligraphy ... :
The handwritten additions in those documents mainly are just corrections, without
new information, but for what it's worth, here is my attempt to translate them.
Attachments
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 9,379
Thanks for Translation, Jemiba
- Joined
- 11 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 2,545
Jemiba said:newsdeskdan said:
Well, your father, mother or Grandparents probably never learned to write Sütterlin or
Kurrent script ? I actually even had it at school (primary school in the '60s) as calligraphy ... :
The handwritten additions in those documents mainly are just corrections, without
new information, but for what it's worth, here is my attempt to translate them.
Not as far as I know - too late to ask them now (except my dad, and he definitely didn't). Thanks for the translation - I'd never have managed it.
sgeorges4
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 8 October 2017
- Messages
- 665
- Reaction score
- 330
It seem that the luftwaffe wanted to use the me 264 for some transport or reconnaissance mission for the mittelafrikanisches Reich.
Source: Ligne de front n°41 http://www.ligne-front.com/ldf41.php
Source: Ligne de front n°41 http://www.ligne-front.com/ldf41.php
Similar threads
-
Amerika Bomber: Me-264, Ta-400 and others
- Started by ysi_maniac
- Replies: 80
-
-
Junkers EF-130 speculative drawings
- Started by Justo Miranda
- Replies: 47
-
Messerschmitt P 1107 and P 1108 long range jet bombers- Started by Stargazer
- Replies: 27
-
