X-1 as an Allied Komet

[PanzerWulff]

Well i was going to try something with my 1/32 X-1 but due to some damage and wanting to do that kit real world I have a 1/72 Tamiya offering for this project.It's not well known,but the X-1 was launched from the ground sucessfully on several ocassions.I figured with a little less fuel to makr room for the armament the X-1 might make a good american built version of the Me-163 Komet.but a couple questions come to mind,(1) Range,I figure it could be rather short range even though it would not burn the fuel quite as fast as for a sound barrier busting run.a mach 1 flight used all 4 of the rocket engines while getting to mach .85 only required 2. (2) Armament, I was thinking of wedgeing a pair of .50Cal MGs on one side running below the cockpit hatch rim and a 37mm like the one on a P-39 running through the opposite side of the hatch I figure that would be enough to knock down any Amerika bombers or pesky sub launched V-1s or would a pair of 20mm oerlikons do the job? (3) would we be able to make landing strips long enough for the beast on the east coast near major target areas (take off would not be a prob as yeager wrote in his biography after he lit the first engine the thing virtualy Leapt into the air after a very short take off run) I was thinking near New York ( Herr Hitler wanted that city BAD ) Washington,Boston,Charlestown & Norfolk would all be big targets. and last but not least (ESP for the Pilot) (4) ESCAPE OPTIONS Squeezing out that hatch would be a nightmare if you were going down I was thinking of some sort of early "Bang seat" probably Co2 or Nitrogen powered (Preferably Nitrogen higher compression without the gas turning to liquid esp at cold tempratures)
Well theres my concept any Ideas are welcomed and encouraged 
"Panzer"

[Maverick]

You could always go with jettisonable RATO bottles like the Natter, that would help somewhat & maybe pitch it up for a VTOL like the Ba-349 as well.  As for armament, it's going to get crowded awful quick and that kinda makes pilot egression 'difficult' without a bang seat, although the Do-335 supposedly flew with one.

Regards,

Mav

[Shasper]

I had a similar idea (although still dependent to some extent on air-launching) with either 6 .50cal or 4 20mm guns (or some combo thereof.

Shas

[dy031101]

I've always figured that X-2 would've been closer to an Allied Komet if armaments were possible......

[jcf]

The X-1 made exactly one ground takeoff flight, it was on January 5, 1949.

Armament mock-ups were done on the never completed X-1C.

Page 129 of the new Landis and Jenkins book, "Experimental and Prototype U.S. Air force Jet Fighters" talks about Bell proposals for a tactical version of the XS-1 armed with four .50 MG. Several pages from a Bell brochure touting the concept are reproduced in small size, including ground-to-air, air-to-air and parasite fighter mission profiles.

Ground take-off: fuel exhaustion at 50,000 feet and 20 miles from base, glide another 20 miles to engage in one minute of combat at Mach 1.2, glide home at 600 mph.
Air launch would increase range to 100 miles.

Jon

[PanzerWulff]

Ground take-off: fuel exhaustion at 50,000 feet and 20 miles from base, glide another 20 miles to engage in one minute of combat at Mach 1.2, glide home at 600 mph.
Air launch would increase range to 100 miles.
Jon

I was thinking of a high subsonic speed for the majority of intercepts,and possibly go with Mav's RATO launch to conserve fuel.you wouldn't need full mach 1+ to catch a bomber but maybe to catch a U boat launched V-1 you would
"Panzer"

[Gary]

Why guns? You sort of have a one pass kind of aircraft here due to the range, as I understand it. Put a couple of wing tip bullet fairings and fill them with 20 or so unguided rockets, similar to the CF-100 or Scorpian. No plumbing required. Fire away and the fairings drop away in the slipstream.

[Shasper]

You would have to strengthen the wings significantly for any sort of external stores carriage.

Shas

[PanzerWulff]

the F-104's wings were thinner but they still were able to hang droptanks under them but I was thinking of a 1946-47 timeline as a counter Luft 46 aircraft so I wanted to stay with guns instead of rockets for weaponry but a pair of droptanks would give it better range
"Panzer"

[jcf]

the F-104's wings were thinner but they still were able to hang droptanks under them but I was thinking of a 1946-47 timeline as a counter Luft 46 aircraft so I wanted to stay with guns instead of rockets for weaponry but a pair of droptanks would give it better range
"Panzer"

The F-104 wings were indeed thinner they were also manufactured/constructed in an entirely different manner.

Drop-tanks would only work for the X-1's dilute ethyl-alcohol fuel and the hydrogen peroxide for the turbo-pump equipped aircraft,
drop tanks would not work for the liquid oxygen.
So while you've increased your fuel load with the external tanks, how do you increase your oxidizer load?
The only way is to increase the amount of internal LOX tankage, but to do that you have to reduce the size of the alcohol tank. Its a vicious circle.

X-1 46-064 had the largest fuel capacity of 437 gals LOX, 498 gals of ethyl-alcohol and 31 gals of hydrogen peroxide.

Better to figure out some sort of rocket or jet-propelled launching sled or ramp launch using solid fuel boosters.

The basic lesson of the pure rocket fighters was that they are, in practical terms, tactically useless.
Over 300 Me 163 were built and yet the Luftwaffe only recorded nine kills, including two probables,
little return after all that effort, money and time.

Jon

[dy031101]

Armament mock-ups were done on the never completed X-1C.

I tried googling for X-1C.  In each return only a couple of sentences are devoted for X-1C.  Do you have any illustration or a photo of the mockup?

[jcf]

Armament mock-ups were done on the never completed X-1C.

I tried googling for X-1C.  In each return only a couple of sentences are devoted for X-1C.  Do you have any illustration or a photo of the mockup?

The only pic I've seen.

Note that the never completed X-1C was in the second series of X-1 aircraft, the X-1A, B and D were completed and flown.
The second series aircraft had a longer fuselage and thinner wings than the X-1, along with a bubble canopy and rearranged
cockpit.

Jon

[Archibald]

Ground take-off: fuel exhaustion at 50,000 feet and 20 miles from base, glide another 20 miles to engage in one minute of combat at Mach 1.2, glide home at 600 mph.
Air launch would increase range to 100 miles.

Jon

Maybe we could try using a V-1 catapult or, even crazier, a downrated V-2 engine ?

[GTX]

Ground take-off: fuel exhaustion at 50,000 feet and 20 miles from base, glide another 20 miles to engage in one minute of combat at Mach 1.2, glide home at 600 mph.
Air launch would increase range to 100 miles.

Jon

Maybe we could try using a V-1 catapult or, even crazier, a downrated V-2 engine ?

Basically like the Von Braun Interceptor(see here: http://www.luft46.com/misc/vbi.html)




Regards,

Greg

[PanzerWulff]

thanks for the info guys esp the armament mockup pics and the idea of booster rockets for liftoff,oh btw just an odd thought what other aircraft of WWII origin could have been used as a mothership? I was thinking the Lancaster maybe it was capable of lifting the Tallboy & Blockbuster bombs any others possibly could fit the bill?
"Panzer"