The Kamikaze Nazi Rocket Plane - Lippisch P13 

Looks like I found another model railroader, lol. I love my Scale Trains GTEL “Big Blow” turbine and own 3 other variants of the turbines UP used. It would be great if someone made a detailed model of the coal turbine unit as you mentioned. I’m an SP and UP fan, dad worked for both until retirement. I had no idea about the Germans using coal powered aircraft, odd but understandable.

Ho-229: "There can only be one"

I expected to see you here:)

Looks like a Star Wars fighter. 😁

I see their effort at preserving the white race as anything but a "dark history". White genocide enthusiasts such as yourself may view it as a "dark history".

Please explain what's inefficient about the shape? Where I stand you seem to be the inefficient one.

u would not be reporting at all my boy

You couldn't report that for another 20 years, or so, because Doritos weren't invented until 1964 and they would not have become a meaningful part of the culture until the 1980s.

The Me-163 "Komet" had that effect, earlier in the war.

@@DocWolph then for nachos idk

​@@DocWolph

They needed not try and take over the world. Germany needed to stay in their lane and check themselves instead.

@@wllwll-zh7ig from Germany's point of view they were very much in their lane. First of all redressing the wrongs of the Versailles treaty and then acquiring the lebensraum or living space they thought their future required. This is why we have conflict, because what our lane is is a highly subjective idea. Looking at the whole situation what boggles my mind is Germany had several opportunities where they might have settled for half a cake but they decided not only that they wanted the whole thing but they wanted to eat it right now. So from my point of view even though the cost was immense it's probably for the best and that our favorite little Austrian extrovert wasn't much of a strategist. Imagine what would have happened it had Germany not declared war on the United States in 1941 or if Hitler had had a brain wave and accepted Stalin's offer to join the Axis in 1940. He might also have simply not invaded the Soviet Union letting him concentrate elsewhere or the UK might have gotten a clue and come to terms in 1940 when everything seemed against them. On such things hinge the fate of Nations

Despite the several things they had going for them Germany did not have a huge "military potential" as it happened they ended up punching way above their weight class but as you said their ability to staff and supply their military was exhausted and ultimately that's why they lost.

Watch Red Dawn. If it comes down to it, kids will be the military force.

Are we still talking about Nazi Germany or 2022 Russia 😂😂😂

Rudolf Diesel's 1892 paper proposing the engine that bears his name suggested coal dust as a possible fuel.

A couple of videos of a coal powder burner: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n_g7Vpffq2k.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sxHRNiRqDy0.html

@@DeliveryMcGee The first diesels were low speed diesels and worked by injecting the fuel with highly pressurized air. It certainly could have been possible to inject dose in pulverized coal to a chamber and inject it. The issue would have been the effect of erosion on the pistons. High speed diesels only became possible due to Robert Bosch's direct injection patents. -Today there are a number of "clean coal" programs which would purify and clean the coal first and then burn it in a closed brayton cycle gas turbines. These transfer the heat into the working fluid by walls and the coal never touches the turbine. ABB operated such turbines for power generation in the 1950s and 60s. They worked very well. The idea of 'clean coal' is to collect the CO2 and sequester it underground (depleted oil wells, aquifers)

not really. The problem is delivery of the coal dust.

No one, not even the desperate nation states, has ever tried a coal powered jet engine. I have no idea how long a development time it would take to work out all the bugs in such a design or if it is even possible for such a use in such a small airframe. This dose reek of being a project to keep engineers out of combat and that is the only way this engine actually works.

Guy was also covering his own ass by doing so, so I would hesistate in praising him. Lets not forget guy was active contributor to German war machine prior to that.

@@B1SCOOP im not sure you can blame anyone for that, refusing your ("civilian") duties would mean prison at best and more likely a work camp. being german didnt exclude you from consequences, at all.

​@@LOL60345 blaming? I'm not. But assuming guy was another Schindler is as much naive, especially when he "protected" his own "tribe". That was nothing more than weaseling his way out of combat service. Plain act of survival, not resistance in any chance, even passive. If he was a forced worker, he would be taken without questions and immediately sent on the front.

@@B1SCOOP i will agree with you, after the 1941 pardon the punishment for germans was often frontline combat.

*blohm & voss concepts laughs in the background*

-Pulverized coal when blown into a power station boiler or a locomotive boiler looks like a fame thrower or blow torch. Having seen it and seen it be controlled its entirely plausible. -Antony Kay's "German Jet Engines and Gas Turbines" talks of the constant volume Holzworth gas turbines that were operated by the German railways as peak load generators in the 1930s which used coal. In this type of gas turbine compressed air is admired into a combustion chamber via a poppet valve and then the valve closed and ignited. The hot air is exhausted over an exhaust poppet valve to drive a turbine. There are usually two chambers to ensure constant flow. It worked well on oil but on coal the water cooled turbine eroded. -So called closed bray ton cycle gas turbine engines ran for years in Switzerland of coal and may make a come back as part of the clean coal programs around the world.

Exactly, as a coal pellet powered ramjet, turbojet or turbofan engine is possible. However, there were issues. With the Lorin ramjet, there were three main issues: The rotating basket would need to be replaced every flight, liquid fuel made from coal had a better power to thrust ratio, and the weight of the fuel to range of a liquid fuel made from coal was better than the Lorin ramjet... The same holds true for a turbo jet or turbofan engine made from coal, but that also has the major issue of damaging the turbine blades due to the coal deposits making them out of balance... Of course using coal to make a solid fuel rocket engine would likely be a better idea, as solid fueled engines have been made using synthetic rubber and aluminum oxide. Fortunately, the Nazi's didn't have the aluminum to waste as part of the oxidizer...

@@davidhollenshead4892 Hey Dave, I thought the modern day SRBs used perchlorate for oxidizer...I am aware that powered aluminium is used in the recipe tho. The exact recipe for the shuttle SRBs is disclosed in Wikipedia. My buddy used to work for Branson ... I think they used hydrogen peroxcide to burn (oxidize) what ever it was they were using as their solid...a polymer of sorts (I think.) Ciao! Kevin

@@davidhollenshead4892 The problem with generating liquid fuel from coal is the capital equipment. The steal required was equal to 1/4 the US Navy and the Panzers and U-boats that could have been built enormous. The Bergious Hydrogenation process at the time was about 55% 60% efficient so you loose 40% of the heating value of the coal. The more compact Fischer-Tropsch plants was even less efficient (40%). The real problem was that the Plants could easily be bombed and were. The Geilen plan at the end of the war planed for 1 massive underground Bergius Hydrogenation Plant and 6 dispersed hardened hidden Fischer Tropsch plants plus dozens of mini plants. -In reality the German synthetic coal to fuel plants had 90% of the output destroyed and were repeated bombing targets. Hence the value of a coal powered aircraft. -The Germans developed new fluidised bed coal gasifiers and fluidsed bed reactors that along with new catalysts would have significantly increase efficency and reduced the plant size but these came too late to implement.

@@williamzk9083 the problem is still getting the right size, and the management of the injector. in the power station injector it is blown by air. yet mixing the power and the air still has to be done.

Here is the thing, the dosage levels the Germans occasionally used to stay awake in combat during long battles was 1/50th of the amount junkies use to get a high about 0.1mg versus 5mg. Taken at this level on occasion the drug does no harm. In fact it is a very good drug against ADD. Both the US and UK used methamphetamine as well and soldiers in the west including the USAF continue to use it. The drug was available to the public over the counter Pervitin. The whole "Nazis high on meth" things is pure click bait sensationalism and extreme exaggeration. "Nazis and meth" irresistible clic bait. The recent books are also sensationalism. Most soldiers obtained it by mail from their family. It was not issued to soldiers.

I recommend blitzed the story of drugs in the third reich

@@harryhanz1690 - The Nazis invented meth.

@@marcraygun6290 It's gross exaggeration and speculation presented as facts.

@C D SMACK!! "Cold blooded..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It has through modern investigation been virtually proved it was the explosion of coal dust in empty holds that was the secondary cause of the loss of the Lusitania after torpedoing.

@@glynluff2595 Some said the 'Lusitania' carried a load of explosives to supply the ennemies of Germany in WW I.

@@josega6338 Hello, yes that was true in a supposedly minor activity. An interviewed historian on the TV many years ago claimed there were some boxes of grenades on board apparently for test purposes. Grenades were a developing format of ammunition at that time and these were an American version of interest to the British. The explosive ability of some dusty atmospheres is well known especially coal and flour. It is the amount of flour in functioning windmills which caused fire in many lightening strikes with the wooden mechanisms adding more solid fuel. If the holds were empty in the ship towards the end of the voyage the shaken coal dust from impact surrounding the area of strike would have hugely magnified the explosion and apparently more recent investigation has indicated the strike was the in the area of empty coal storage. The explosive munitions theory was raised almost immediately as a defence against sinking a passenger vessel with substantial loss of life though it was unlikely at the time anyone had a full knowledge of the manifest. Lots of politics in the cradle of war!

@@josega6338 The Lusitania was a British ship. It carried artillery shell casings and cartridges. These were not considered munitions by the British because they had not yet been filled with propellants and explosives. it was obvious they would be used against Germany. The Lusitania was also carrying large amounts of 303 rifle ammunition described as hunting ammunition. -If anyone wanted to travel safely between the US and Britain they could do so safely on an American Ocean Liner as Germany did not attack US flagged ships. -Since the British Navy was arming its merchant ships and had been using q-ships (armed ships disguised as innocent trawlers or neutrals) the German submarines had stopped stopping and searching when in British waters in and exclusion zone. Hence Lusitania was attacked by one torpedo. She was hit because her captain had not maintain high speed and she sank because her captain then ran her at full speed to shore which scooped in water. She was used for depth charge practice which destroyed must evidence of munitions though we have her manifest and some evidence found.

@@williamzk9083 This makes me remember the case of Stampa Bay, where German fleet was confined an sunk when they lost WW I. Some britons shot at unarmed German sailors. I never had any interest in WW I, my attention in WW II is focused only in Airplanes and other technology issues. But there is people who would like making same as Simon Wiesenthal, hunting nazis, when nsdap dissapeared, with no continuers, in May 1945. 'Insane at any age'

Thanks so much!

It will be great to see some more air fight with it or even same from othere perspectives .... Its crazy great awsome especialy camera from back and fires shoots from engine like in "kill vehicle" that intercept nuclear warheads. When its shoot at aproatching bomber .....wow its creazy soo cool! :D

@@FoundAndExplained need to force city officials to cut own wealth to support daca+ lower taxes permanently by big amount for all those making below 150k per year to prove daca worth it since for ages DC never lower living cost only print dollars to do more refugee crisis Nuland Hillary McCain podesta deeply involved start ukraine crisis strike first blood but use woman that put severed finger in wendy chili 2.0 shameless blame russia, recall pbs putin file podesta when muller charge manafort for things nothing to do with russia hack but let podesta go for same reason =blackmail dc/Britain(thank Blair Iraq france stolen libya gold) to support blame russia to cover up fact 2 party system failed since mccain-hillary all did united fruit company scandal 2.0 but remain rich recall fbi never look at physical evidence just crowdstrike/hillary words, cia break glass 2017 inauguration with media claim russia stolen election left wing media give protest t-shirts to san quan mayor for lying about never receive maria supplies ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qYmCtYLE9k0.html george bush 14y ago said add ukraine to nato foreshadow nuland f eu coup 2014 support = 1. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nTQ3D1a-j20.html 2001 pentagon memo kill occupy iraq to syria ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_mrJRHwbVG8.html current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like did in syria earlier arming rebels telling russia not to interfere while zelensky ethnic cleanse donbass region 7y= 2. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ta9dWRcDUPA.html 3. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IBeRB7rWk_8.html dnc establishment kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip, crash car in to wisconsin parade thanks to nbc follow jury bus smearing ritten house too ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UxoL8tHSa7g.html ray epps-fake sole survivor from ritten house case 2.0/podesta 2.0 when you look at left wing msm collaborate ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OnVHhn-vgUw.html dnc smear looking into treat covid symptoms/travel bans but permit parades/riots, recall snitches get rewards? a. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-06Fyg4maLWg.html b. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P1FUMdHU29c.html

coal powered no less

Or Cool Ranch dust powered 😮

The world didn’t know what a Dorito was until 1966. Funny moniker though 🤣🤣🤣

@@manuwilson4695 Yes.

@@manuwilson4695 Man, ever since I was a kid, I've just always liked the way it looks. I didn't say it was the best or anything, just that it's my favorite.

Not sure what you're getting upset over, my dude.

@@manuwilson4695 I don't know what to tell you, man. I like lots of planes, the Hustler included, but ever since I read about the 106 in a book back when I was like 5, it's always just activated my neurons. So does the Avro Arrow, by the way, and I will never forgive Canada for cancelling it. I guess I just enjoy outdated delta-wing interceptors.

@@manuwilson4695 I want to respond to you, but I have absolutely no idea what to say. Keep questioning, I guess, always ask questions, but don’t be disrespectful about it…That’s all I have to say.

Well thats more for the comfort of the pilot. Being real how would the plane survive making such a high speed contact. I mean even if it did the pilot could just aswell end up being knocked out or having some broken bones, or worse. I would believe unless this is a job for heavily indoctrinated SS men that most pilots trying to fly this thing would fire 5 rounds, realize how retarded and flimsy the thing is and how unlikely it even is the machinegun is gonna do any damage at all, spot the tailgunner of the bomber already getting him on his sigths and just ditch the plan and eject as soon as possible. With the japanese Kamikaze pilots you atleast had a chance because you were kinda setting them up to drown in heavy military gear anyway if they didnt pull the plan through.

Ramming into bomber's wings ort tail was not in the design features of L-13/ DM-1; simply, fom the swept of leading edge, it will slip. This aim was in other machines that never flew, as Zeppelin Rammer. An smart approach to sending bombers down was a photoelectric cell [A Einstein got his Nobel price from this, after attending lectures on the subject in a German University, his Croatia-born (as Nikola Tesla) first wife, Maliç, who transposed his ideas into mathematics, made him give her the money from Nobel price when splitting], the fighter passed below bombers; when photoelectric cell detected one above, it automatically fired a battery of rockets or cannons, angled 45º upwards.

Indeed. The Luftwaffe used steel props and late in the war determined the survivability of a pilot using his plane as a weed eater was actually high. He would bail and hopefully return to do it again 😂.

@@billcat1840 Japanese were reported assessing pilot losses in suicide actions won't be higher than in combats were a chance of survival supposedly existed. No interest in this subject.

DM-1, Lippisch L-13 was tested, resulted stable above Mach 2

They may have invented "A" way to turn coal into oil, but they definitely weren't the first. That was first invented in Scotland in the mid 1800's.

Wenn du genauer hinguckst ist fast alles in Star Wars und Captain America von deutschen Flugzeugdesigns aus dem 2.Weltkrieg beeinflusst! Damalige Ingenieure und technische Zeichner waren ihrer Zeit weit voraus und sehr Experimentierfreudig! Ob diese Designs auch wirklich Flugtauglich gewesen wären, wage ich allerdings zu bezweifeln... Die meisten Projekte waren immer auf die selben damals verfügbaren Triebwerke beschränkt, die fernab von Zuverlässig waren...

Yes, Even Coal powered explosives.

Industrial Revolution 2: Electric Boogaloo

lippisch. but lipzpiritzschisitziszcht was apparently easier to pronounce

Not sure what you mean by "first delta plane". If you mean Lippisch invented the delta wing; no he didn't, that's a common misconception, it was around long before him.

@@mikearmstrong8483 Lippisch invented a delta wing that worked and worked well at transonic and supersonic speeds. Triangular fins on 16th century gunpowder rockets don't count.

@@williamzk9083 Who said anything about fins on a rocket? The concept of a delta wing aircraft goes back to the mid 19th century, and there were delta wing aircraft flying before his ideas took shape. It's not hard to do research, instead of just parroting what everyone else says.

Gas lights in houses and streetlights before the advent of electricity burned CO and hydrogen obtained by distilling coal with steam. Probably why there were so many ghosts in Victorian times, the lamps were running rich, causing hallucinations from CO poisoning.

Cheers!

Doesnt exist aside from a handful. Cope, wheraboo

Same here! How did this one get past me? You never stop learning!

Well, a few Luftwaffe pilots were told to ram bombers to knock them out.

@@WolfeSaber9933 At one point Stormbok pilots, specially modified Fw 190s with much extra Armour and bullet proof glass as well as two 30mm canon which could destroy a allied bomber with only 3 hits were ordered to ram the bomber if they failed to destroy it. This only happened if the guns jammed. The order was resented by the pilots and rescinded quickly as the Stormbok pilots were already highly motivated volunteers that were inclined to ram anyway. The survival rate was surprisingly high, in excess of 50%. It should be noted that it wasn't a 'self sacrifice' mission as the 50% survival rate didn't make it so. Kamikaze were bolted into their aircraft so that they would relax into their fate. Oscar Bosch, an Stormbok pilot, remembers visiting family in Hamlin and the terror they experienced when the town was bombed. He volunteered after that, determined to protect the people below.

@JZ's BFF That make sense.

@JZ's BFF interesting

Lipische's other aircraft such as the Me 163 all had excellent handling though the landing speeds tended to be high. The Me 163 when the tanks were half empty couldn't even be stalled, it just mushed forward.

There is a model of this for X-plane if you want to try flying it.

I want an EDF powered model. There's good video or a modern day glider of the Me-163.

Ah yes - another "Mad Hitler" take... this BS again. Is this why we don't see any of these planes even reach the prototype stage?

​@@manuwilson4695 Hi Wilson. I am engineer. I have also a patent in a turbine engine, 2012 (Switzerland). I also know that besides the fuels for aircraft, there exists various types of moderators for fuels that are not the best for the environment and no one speaks about them. In relation to the fuels that exists for aircraft, carbon could have been a much more better option. I leave the climate debate to your generation, that are sufficiently clever to measure the environmental impact of carbon based fuels and lithium refinement. Good luck with this thinking.

They didn't have suitable electronics.

Try!

The Me 163 used wing sweep, leading edge slots and a small amount of reflex for stability. The Horton X and Ho 229 used reflexed autostable airfoil in the thickened bat like center section but a combination of 2 degrees twist and wing sweep for the remainder of the wing. Northrop used wing sweep a huge amount of twist (4 degrees) and slats. Slats and slots produce a slight pitch forward when they act.

@@williamzk9083 Yes, the Me 163 used reflex to solve for pitch stability, but used a fin & rudder to solve adverse yaw, relying on the pilot. The Horton wings all used the Prandtl wing or a close approximation to it. They tended to have a long root chord extending far back. This area of the wing had the highest Cl & therefore highest camber. In the interests of putting reflex as far rearward as possible, the root chord is where that would be most noticeable. The tips were meant to be at zero Cl, therefore pretty near zero camber, consequently reflex there would be hard to pick, depending how the reflex was generated. Not sure which Northrop design you refer too. Accounts I read indicate they were rather difficult to fly requiring a lot of the pilot. The huge amount of twist is similar to the Prandtl's solution, unloading the tip to zero Cl. I didn't think Northrop was aware of Prandtl's solution, though on reflection, the wings were mostly post war. NASA didn't seem to publish anything on the Prandtl wing till the 80s, and their early reports indicated that Prandtl's paper had been overlooked. Perhaps it was a national secret shared with Northrop. A feature of the Prandtl wing is that the wing should twist to zero Cl at the tips. The geometric twist, would depend on the aircrafts mean operational Cl. If the wing is to fly fast, then you would have a low amount of camber and low operational Cl, therefore the geometric twist would be smaller than for, a slower wing with a high mean operational Cl. So we can't really draw conclusion from geometric twist alone. Sweep, there are at least a couple of considerations. Aircraft designed for speeds approaching and above supersonic speeds will have a swept leading edge for shock wave reasons, but supersonics is not my area. It is possible to build a straight plank wing that is stable, just relying on reflex alone. However, that can be rather twitchy fast in response to trim (which effectively alters reflex). Wing sweep mostly has a damping effect on flying wing pitch control, making things somewhat "less exciting", but can also reduce the area devoted to reflex, improving efficiency.

"Flying wing" is a media-hype term. It can mean anything that either uses the wing as the major connective structural element holding things together instead of a static-drag tubular fuselage, or which houses most/all internal volume in a wing or lifting surface (see Burnelli aircraft. The CBY-3 is restored in a museum today, and some media talking heads called it a "flying wing", though it had wings and tail) See the "flying heel-lift" youtube on the Arup S-2 from Indiana in the '30s, which was called that, though it had a fin and at least as much fuselage to house the engine and crew. The basis for the Vought V-173, it was 780lb, 37hp, 85 kts with 18kts landing speed, stall-spin proof. Many designers tried completely tail-less, then moved on to wing-tip fins which were a little less terrible. Those that put a big fin aft behind a prop, worked well. Various iterations of sweep on leading and/or trailing edge worked, all with no separate horizontal stabilizer, though some added a little elevator (Payen/Aubrun AP-10. Cheranovsky BICh-3, BICh-7a, BICh-20. Fauvel AV-10, AV-60. By the purist's definition of a "flying wing", which means no fins, the Northrop XB-35 nor the YB-49 counted, since they had vertical fins. See the 1960 Horten I.Ae-38, which doesn't qualify according to many, because of sort of a fuselage and wing-tip fins. Agreement about the purist's definition without a fin having never produced a stable flyable workable plane. (B-2, many hang-gliders and drones and such included.) BTW, see the Russian pre-war Kharkiv KhAI-3. After trim and control issues were worked out, it gained civil airworthiness certification and served for a few years as a general utility transport. 2.2 tonne, 1 tonne payload, 100 hp engine, speeds from 32-78 kts.

@@JFrazer4303 Yes, I tend to agree that the term has no formal definition. I don't disagree with including fins within a flying wing design, it's just that I see the goal as efficiency and fins & rudders are drag surfaces. For that reason, while they are a solution, they are not the ultimate efficient goal IMO. Prandtl's wing appears to offer a path is that direction, though I am aware that it can be a knife edge as with the Ho229 on loosing one engine. A fin & rudder may well have prevented the spiral dive crash. Here is an 8 foot 2ch RC flying wing I designed back in about 1978 or so, as you see it has a fin & body & I still call it a flying wing. I didn't know much aero theory back then but did a series of smaller free flight models to get that far with minimising reflex & determining CG. As you see, it had a sub fin & body, it was meant for an arts course, to resemble a bird & I thought a fin necessary according to things I had read that that time. Solar film covering was a fail but all I could find available to me at the time unfortunately. drive.google.com/file/d/1269Ckcpf4vkWNOuWdSc28lf2vaST8vEi/view?usp=sharing