Talk:Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Refs

Without any reference this article is a PoS. Pure nonsense.

(This comment was added 09:19, 20 March 2004 by 80.133.114.116. Sig note from DBaK (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Documentary

There's a German documentary now film on Arte yet "Les Kamikazes d'Hitler". It seems that the use of Kamikaze by Nazi Germany was more extensive than I believed : - They were used against allied bombers; - They were also used aginst Russians to destroy bridge on the Oder. Ericd 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pulsjet vs pilot

Well, they could have turned the engine of befor bailing out.

(This comment was added 15:22, 15 January 2007 by Xigan. Sig note from DBaK (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Heinz Kensche died on 5 March 1945

That's not true. After WW II Heinz Kensche, still alive, developed several gliders,the HKS-Series together with E.G. Haase, and, with Wolfgang Huetter, the H 30 TS, a jet-powered Glider and precursor of the "Libelle". With the Allgaier Company in Uhingen (Southern Germany), both, Heinz Kensche and Wolfgang Huetter, developed one of the first modern wind generators built in Germany. Between 1960 and 1962 at the Stoetten Testfield, near the Donzdorf Airfield (EDRM), i helped to repair a broken glass fiber sail of this generator. In the nineteen sixties Heinz Kensche was one of my gliding instructors at the Segelfliegergruppe Goeppingen. He died in the earlier nineteen seventies in Uhingen.

Rolf Braun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.24.225 (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Survivability

If it was calculated that there was a less than 1% survival rate on bailing out, how were the several test flights conducted?JohnC (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The test craft were fitted with landing skids which were themselves pretty dangerous, in fact the first two pilots were seriously injured. I doubt that any kind of bailout test was ever tried, on the grounds that it was just too risky. Salmanazar (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Engine performance.

The article Argus As 014 had an unreferenced claim for engine thrust. I found

• Swopes, Bryan R. (2019-06-13). "13 June 1944". This day in aviation. Retrieved 2019-08-08. Powered by an Argus Motoren Werke GmbH As 014 pulse jet engine which produced a maximum thrust of 3,530 newtons (794 pounds of thrust) at 750 kilometers per hour (460 miles per hour) at Sea Level.

and used that as the source for the thrust figure on that page. However, it is apparently contradicted by the source referenced on this page - 660 pounds-force (2.9 kN)

Then I found this source:

• Simpson, Bruce (2003-01-11). "The Argus V1 Pulsejet". My Jet Engine Projects. Bruce Simpson. Retrieved 2019-08-08. Static thrust: 500lbs; Max thrust: 800lbs

which is consistent with both the book referenced on this page and the other web source I found.

What to do? Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd got with 800 as the round number. Over-precision is always a ridiculous problem with such figures, particularly for V-weapons. It's known that they were highly variable between examples, owing to their increasingly poor build quality. Also there were several simplifications during production which probably reduced thrust – certainly the static thrust dropped considerably, as it was found easier to use more catapult thrust and increase the launch speed than the difficult task of making a pulsejet run reliably when static, and without melting its shutter. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That all makes sense. I'm sure all the numbers here have to be taken with a big pinch of salt, if only because the German-so-we-work-in-metric engine developers certainly did not come up with an engine that delivered a thrust which came out as a nice round number when expressed in pounds force.

Thing is, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to ignore specs from (one assumes) a reasonably well researched proper paper book. On the other hand, a report from someone who actually makes his own pulse jets and seems to have researched the matter properly himself is also something not to be ignored.

So I've had a bash at including all three thrust figures. Any good?

I'd like to have an actual citation marker for the 2.9 kN (660lbf) thrust figure on the powerplant line, but I can't work out how to do that.Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There's often a problem – particularly from the 1970s – in that the older books are much less accurate. Except for the few bits of coverage which were published in the late 1940s – 1950s, or for anything by Ian V. Hogg (who seems to be the only one of the early commentators who really did get stuff right, first time). In particular, R.V. Jones is celebrated to this day for being the first person to publish on everything (often he wasn't) and yet when you get away from his own personal work and the 'Battle of the Beams' early on, his accuracy flies out of the window. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)