Messerschmitt P.1090

[Flitzer]

Hi all.
Me P1090. Dan's Luft 46 site.

Any more info on this one please?

The fuselage (variants are clear to see) but what of the wings?
And does anyone have dimensions etc?

Again many thanks
Peter

 

[Justo Miranda]

Estimate wingspan 9,74 m. ,structure of the P.1095/2
estimate fuselage lenght 9 m ,structure of the P.1092/2.0

 

[Flitzer]

Again many thanks Justo.

Peter
;D

 

[Flitzer]

Hi again

Any idea how the engines would have been mounted?
Underwing aka me262, or in a more modular fashion?

Many thanks.
p

 

[Justo Miranda]

Probably one Jumo 004 back mounted Salamander style... :-\

 

[Jemiba]

It is said in the drawing "Innenflügel trägt die Triebwerke" (inner wing carries the engines),
so, if this source is authentic, it would have been at least two engines and so probably not
in the He 162 style.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Similar stuff here...

 

[Wurger]

I don`t have my sources with me, but I recall that not just jets were intended, but also piston engines. There would be jet and piston engined versions.

 

[Jemiba]

Using the clues the drawing gives us and following Justos estimationswith regards to the
dimensions and propulsion by Jumo 004, it COULD be something like that.
I just want to point out, that the drawing quite probably has no relation to an original
document, although the artist tried to use something like "Normschrift". There are errors in
diction and grammar, that todays teachers may let the pupils get away with, but surely
no draftsman in those times would have written that.
(Engines in red, as I have no clue to their actual position)

 

[Zizi6785]

My reconstruction without engines:

 

[Jemiba]

Much better, you're right, I think. The lower edge of the canopy should
be a straight line. A point I'm still not sure about is the tail. The tip of the tail cone
looks like exactly on the middle axis of the fuselage. Not impossible, of course, but
not standard, as usually the tail sits above this axis. Maybe a detail to reduce
production costs ?
Strange detail in the "source drawing" is the perspective the wings are shown, which
doesn't match that of the other parts. Or maybe the wings would have been F-104 sized ?

 

[Flitzer]

Once again a fantastic response.
Many thanks.

I'm interested in the P1090 because of the huge number of variations possible.
Whether it's a genuine WW2 design concept proposal or a child of the 'Propoganda factory' remains to be seen.

It states depending on version it would have a crew of 1 or 2. If 1 would the canopy remain the same as illustrated or would it be a smaller affar?

Many thanks
p

 

[Zizi6785]

It states depending on version it would have a crew of 1 or 2. If 1 would the canopy remain the same as illustrated or would it be a smaller affar?

Maybe smaller (only my idea!):

 

[Jemiba]

..or not protruding over the fuselage at all ? As the second crew member was facing
rearwards, the reason for a raised canopy could have been the view for aiming a
defensiv weapon (as in the Me P.1099 B-1). For a single seater this need would have
disappeared, leaving a cockpit á la Ar-234, sacrificing rear view for drag, of course.

 

[toura]

Hi all.
I'm interesting by the p 1090...but...
As I'm looking to the Justo Miranda's P 1100 family board.
I see the p 1100/XVIII-108.
Is this study different or the same than the P 1109 we could
see on "wwww.luft 46.com" ? The wings seems to be longer
and not variable !!!
THANKS

 

[Chicken kana]

My reconstruction without engines:

Mmm. Maybe it had Glider ;D

 

[Chicken kana]

And my plane whit Walter HWK 109-509B-1.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Similar stuff here...

 

[Flitzer]

I know this is quite 'what-if' but...
Having read again what there is to read on Dan's Luft 46 site, I'm more intrigued by this aircraft than ever.

Bare info:
Design dated as early 1943.

Planned variants:
Single seat heavy fighter.
Two seat heavy fighter.
Strike fighter.
Hi-altitude fighter.
Night fighter.
Hi-speed bomber.
Dive bomber.
Torpedo bomber.
Recon.

2 possible power plant pairings:
Either props via 2 x DB603Gs or Jets, 2 x Jumo 004s.

However
It states the prop version would have had a tailwheel arrangement whilst the jet powered version would have a nose wheel tricycle type undercarriage.
And on both prop and jet versions the main undercarriage would retract into the engine nacelles.
I ask if designing a nose wheel tricycle arrangement wouldn't this have been utilised for both engine types?
But while the prop type could accommodate the main undercarriage in the nacelles (e.g. He Uhu) I can't see how this would work on the jet version.
Would this not have followed a similar arrangement as found on the Me262?
And therefore wouldn't this have been better for both prop and jet types?
Any views or comments?

Also I'm trying to work out which role version would have 1 or 2 seats and which method of propulsion.
Help would be appreciated.

Many thanks
P

 

[Flitzer]

A little sorting out.

3 side views.
The prop nacelle is adapted from a Me 410.

I was also thinking that another power plant candidate may have been the BB.021 Turboprop.(?).

Many thanks
Peter

 

[Flitzer]

Turboprop version.

Question please.
In your view which power plant(s) would best match the intended roles?

Thanks
P

 

[Jemiba]

Assuming that at the time the P.1090 would have become operational, german jet
engines would have been reasonably reliable and a little bit less fuel thirsty, I can't
see the need to fit piston engines for any of the mentioned roles. Maybe a dive bomber
may have benefitted from the props acting as airbrakes, but a shallower angle would
have done the same (and the Hs.132 was a jet dive bomber, too). The reason for a
tail wheel and a nose wheel landing gear surely was the need for ground clearance of the
props, probably resulting in quite different wing constructions to place the main gear in front
and behind CG.
You're right, to stow the landing gear in the nacelle for a single jet engine isn't a good idea, so
a configuration à la Me 262 seems more plausible, but if the piston engined types would really
retract their gear into the nacelle, commonality again would be chucked away, not really good for
a "modular design", I think.
Seems, that Willy Messerschmitt was trying to bowl out most other companies with this design, or
to degrade them to suppliers and subcontractors for modules !
More seriously, during 1943 Messerschmitt himself wasn't convinced of the jet engine and still tried
to bring the Me 209 into production. Maybe this was the reason for the alternative piston engine
version ?

 

[Flitzer]

Assuming that at the time the P.1090 would have become operational, german jet
engines would have been reasonably reliable and a little bit less fuel thirsty, I can't
see the need to fit piston engines for any of the mentioned roles. Maybe a dive bomber
may have benefitted from the props acting as airbrakes, but a shallower angle would
have done the same (and the Hs.132 was a jet dive bomber, too). The reason for a
tail wheel and a nose wheel landing gear surely was the need for ground clearance of the
props, probably resulting in quite different wing constructions to place the main gear in front
and behind CG.
You're right, to stow the landing gear in the nacelle for a single jet engine isn't a good idea, so
a configuration à la Me 262 seems more plausible, but if the piston engined types would really
retract their gear into the nacelle, commonality again would be chucked away, not really good for
a "modular design", I think.
Seems, that Willy Messerschmitt was trying to bowl out most other companies with this design, or
to degrade them to suppliers and subcontractors for modules !
More seriously, during 1943 Messerschmitt himself wasn't convinced of the jet engine and still tried
to bring the Me 209 into production. Maybe this was the reason for the alternative piston engine
version ?

I was thinking along similar lines.
The only thing I thought for a piston engine version with a nose wheel undercarriage arrangement would be nacelles similar to those on the He 219 Uhu.
I asked because I to couldn't think of any advantage over the jet engines.

Thanks Jemiba.
I'll go with the jets. Maybe do an odd one or two with the Turbojets.
Peter

 

[Flitzer]

Hi
I've started with the single seat, jet engined heavy fighter version first and seems to be coming along.
I plan to do the nightfighter version with the turbo-props and 2 seats

Ideas, comments on accuracy etc very welcome.

Many thanks
Peter

 

[borovik]

According to the L. Antseliovich "Unknown Messerschmitt” in Messerschmitt projectbyuro there was a draft of interceptor and high-speed bomber P.1090 (1943) performed by Hans Horning.
Structurally the aircraft is similar to P. 13 (1942) by A. Lippisch and P. 231 (Do 335) by Dornier company, also provided in the fuselage compartment, calculated on a bomb of 500 kg.. In the wings - two 30mm cannons .
Estimated max. speed at an altitude of with two engines DB 603G equal 820km / h.

Very similar aircraft)) has already been discussed in our forum: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10370.0
Probably (fake/commercial) designation Me 335 comes from: http://www.unicraft.biz/fut/futgerm/futgerm.htm
Other variants project P.1090 with jet engines in the book is not mentioned.

 

[edwest4]

"Twin engine multi-purpose aircraft (modular system, 1942/1943) with 2x DB 603 or BMW 801D or 2x turbojet engines. Easily converted for a variety of roles. Variable wing area from 28m squared to 36m squared by swapping out wing sections. Takeoff weight 9.7 to 11 t."



Source: The History of German Aviation
Willy Messerschmitt:
Pioneer of Aviation Design
by Hans J. Ebert, Johann B. Kaiser and Klaus Peters.

Published by Schiffer

 

[Flitzer]

Messerschmitt have had different concepts using one project number before. (Recycling?)

For example the P1101 was a small jet fighter concept but also a series of 2 and 4 jet engine bomber designs.

Confusing isn't it?

Cheers
P

 

[Rickshaw]

Messerschmitt have had different concepts using one project number before. (Recycling?)

More likely to have been political - a means to hide from the Ministry what they were tinkering with.

 

[hesham]

According to the L. Antseliovich "Unknown Messerschmitt” in Messerschmitt projectbyuro there was a draft of interceptor and high-speed bomber P.1090 (1943) performed by Hans Horning.
Structurally the aircraft is similar to P. 13 (1942) by A. Lippisch and P. 231 (Do 335) by Dornier company, also provided in the fuselage compartment, calculated on a bomb of 500 kg.. In the wings - two 30mm cannons .
Estimated max. speed at an altitude of with two engines DB 603G equal 820km / h.

Very similar aircraft)) has already been discussed in our forum: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10370.0
Probably (fake/commercial) designation Me 335 comes from: http://www.unicraft.biz/fut/futgerm/futgerm.htm
Other variants project P.1090 with jet engines in the book is not mentioned.

This Project was mentioned in the book;


неизвестный мессершмитт

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi
I've started with the single seat, jet engined heavy fighter version first and seems to be coming along.
I plan to do the nightfighter version with the turbo-props and 2 seats

Ideas, comments on accuracy etc very welcome.

Many thanks
Peter





2 x He S 011 turbojets

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks.
Again found in recent files:




Peter