Looking For Information About A V1 That Came Down In Trees In Surrey.

If the V1 suffered an engine problem, loss of power, wouldn’t it just crash land as if landing in a shallow descent?

I for one don’t have a problem with this thread drifting off topic. I’m surprised both by how heated it got (in a good way!) and that my Grandmother’s scant recollections have lead to so much material being dredged up and shared around.

The Anson does look good, it looks even better inside – one last photo before we get into trouble for going off topic!

Don the 😉 was not directed at you!

Just wish I could understand the figures – metric units might help! 😀

Here’s a view of the ‘vessel’ – not an armaments expert I’m afraid! 😉

Aeronut
The RAE reported power off glideslope angle of 5 degrees. Just to give readers a point of reference;- the approach into London City Airport requires a glideslope of 5.5 degrees, giving a vertical descent velocity of 17.8 ft/sec (1068 feet/minute) at Vref in an A318 (wing loading of about 90-95lbs/sq foot). So a V1 in stable glide will be 15-20% lower descent velocity.

A normal approach glideslope for everything from GA to an A380 is 3 degrees giving a vertical descent velocity of 10 feet per second (600 fpm)at Vref (approach speed).

I photographed the V1 remains at Newark yesterday; the vessel behind is part of the recovered items; the tail section is the new build!

The RAE report addressed three situations, the engine off was just one, and the only one that didn’t result in in a steep dive.
As I reported the auto pilot traded height for speed but what I didn’t say in my précis of the RAE report was the fact that the first action of the auto pilot was to counteract the loss of a the high thrust line by making the missile climb. In addition the speed decay wouldn’t be instant and the 180 mph is the terminal speed not the average.
Given a little bit of luck ie a large downward slopping field the distance reported flown and the damage seen is perfectly possible.
BTW the numbers aren’t mine I’m just repeating those written by the Farnborough Boffins in June and July 1944.

#34

There is some slight inconsistency here. A still air speed of 180mph equates to 3 miles per minute. In the three minutes mentioned after engine stoppage the a/c would have travelled 9 miles not the nearly 13 miles mentioned which would indicate a steeper still air angle of descent.

There is existing a good volume of photographic evidence, all showing V1s in a vertical dive. None that I have seen shows any in a gentle glide – 5 degree or otherwise.

I fly an a/c with a wing loading of about 11lbs/per sq.ft. The POH tells me that the still air guide ratio is reckoned to be 12 – 1. One mile high will enable the a/c to still air glide 12 miles. This, in an a/c weighing about one quarter the max. all up weight of the V1.

I make this comment purely for the sake of comparison leaving you to make your own interpretation.

#33

You publish less than a handful of photos of V1s more or less intact. About 10,000 more or less were lobbed at GB from mid 1944 onwards.

If my claim of ‘one or two’ was ludicrously understated then the inference that many more glided gently to terra firma is equally ludicrous. I guess (the correct figure must be somewhere) that no more than one quarter to one half of one percent were recovered more or less intact and that is a generous estimate.

Only by a liberal application of imagination, am I able to understand how it is that a handful or more of these machines made it down to the ground in one piece.

#32

On one thing we can agree; your nonsense is superior to my nonsense any day. Let me offer a correction: the empty fuel weight gives a wing loading of closer to 60lbs/sq.ft. rather than the 45 you claim. Let us not forget that low static thrust and high wing loading required the use of a powered launch, rather underscoring my claim that it flew like a ‘brick’.

You enter the realm of fantasy with your claim of a ‘stable glide would have a descending velocity of about 14ft/per second’. This quote equals a descent rate of about 800-900ft per minute from a height of anywhere between 2 – 3,000 ft. Nothing ‘stable glide’ about that ! ‘Ground effect’ ? No assistance whatsoever.

The 11th report written by the RAE about the V1 published in August 44 covered the Autopilot.
One case considered was of a typical V1 flying at 2000 ft and a speed of 390 mph.
It was calculated that if the engine stopped there was sufficient air supply to power the auto pilot for 4 to 5 minutes. The auto pilot would trade speed for height resulting in an airspeed of 180 mph (stall speed 150 mph) and a glide angle of 5 degrees and a distance of 12.6 miles from engine cut to ground impact just 3 minutes after engine cut.
The report assumed that the engine cut would be caused by a fault or fuel starvation independent of the air log
It interesting to note that in two of the photos above of the crash landed V1 they are on a downward slope which would have reduced the 5 degree descent to something survivable.

As per any glider in stable flight it flys with a combination of both forwards and descending velocities. Your claim that without power it cannot fly in anything other than a downward direction is utter tosh.

At take off its wing loading is 80lbs/foot but at zero fuel it’s closer to 45lbs/foot. A quick calculation shows that assuming a stalling speed of about 140 knots (as reported by the manned flights, which were ballasted to represent similar wing loading of the operational missile) a stable glide would have a descending velocity of about 14fts/sec. Ground effect could easily half this. Also remember the manned test flights were landed power off in a ground slide.

It only needs one auto pilot to achieve this and is all within the laws of physics.

My last post against any further nonsense claims by John Green

There is nothing with which I’m familiar that would allow an aircraft with a wing loading of approximately 80lb per sq. ft. to enter a ‘gentle descent’. Once power/thrust stops, this a/c cannot fly except in a downwards direction. Ten autopilots and twenty gyros would not prevent this machine from ignoring Sir Issac’s findings.

In one or two cases it might be that by some means, sufficient intermittent power was available from the engine to sufficiently arrest and cushion ground contact.

The claim of the engine stopping causing nose pitch down is utter nonsense;- the final dive was triggered by an explosive bolt disconnecting the elevator triggered by an counter turned by a small prop on the nose. Disconnected, the elevator overbalanced to deflect downwards pitching the nose forward.

If the fuel ran out before the prop had reached the pre set number of rotation (or the unit failed) the auto pilot would keep the thing level and therefore at best L/D for the remainder of the flight albeit in a relatively gentle descent. Finally a bit of ground effect and bump, its down. Simples…….as long as nothing gets in its way you have what’s in the photo’s

And despite the claim to the contrary;- the V1 had an auto pilot employing a dampened pendulum and gyrocompass.

Some of the revenge weapons did not have a warhead filled with explosives,instead they contained propaganda materials including copies of Signal magazine.Also some weapons were sabotaged . This could be the cause of level landings.

Another ruse was deliberate mis reporting of landing locations with hints in the press and reports by the turned German spies in the UK. This resulted in more weapons falling in countryside. Sources for this info After the Battle magazine and several books on the subject.

aeronaut 2008

That’s interesting. Did the RAE report specifically mention that damage to the V1 was consistent with a landing from a flat spin ?

I’m troubled by trying to make sense of a flat spin arrival reconciled with loss of thrust, high wing loading, loss of gyro imputs, a transferable C of G and almost a ton of weight up front !

Unless my memory is faulty, which is highly likely, wasn’t the theory about it diving after it runs out of fuel a myth?
I’m sure I read that it had a timer with a fuel cut off and also flicked the elevator to ‘Down’, hence the dive?
Presumably if this went wrong or the fuel ran out first the stability mechanism which kept it flying would have continued until it reached the ground, presumably in a flattish flight path?

Prepared to be shot down.

John

The photos in the RAE report show damage consistent with a flat spin, which isn’t surprising as there was nothing left of the fuselage forward of the wing. However, there was sufficient left to create a wind tunnel model to get performance data and the Pulse Jet was able to be run although damage to the inlet vanes meant that its full power wasn’t achieved.

My problem is understanding how that could happen. Could you please explain that to me in aerodynamic terms ? A pilotless aircraft with a high wing loading with almost one ton of explosive ballast in the nose runs out of thrust converting it into a glider with, I suspect, the glide ratio of a house brick hurtling to the ground at a hefty rate of knots.

At some stage during this process, It then assumes a beneficial glide angle; or a flat spin; or simply ‘mushes’ down, to gracefully land awaiting examination. With a ton of weight in the nose how does it do that ? That is my question.

At no point have I said that it is impossible; weird things do happen. It is tho’ highly improbable.