Jump to content

Bachem Natter


Recommended Posts

I have the same book, it is good for pictures and a little of the story.

I have other books which also deal with the Natter story.

Yet at the end of the day, you can guess it only part of the story. An example is that it is known that there were a number of Bachems captured, on their launch poles, apparently fuelled, and ready to go. It would appear that no credible story is available. It is assumed that there were at least 6 pilots (from memory) must have been allocated to the airframes, what of the ground crew. For the aircraft to be useful, you would expect that the site would be connected to the control system for the region, I do not think there is any evidence to that effect. Or were they just wait until the weather was good and a bomber stream came over the site and could be seen?

Then there is a known Bachem launch site by the side of one of the Bavarian motorways.

You would have thought that some of these groups activities would have either been recorded or people involved come forward.

The best known bits involve the initial development work and persons.

Some allied pilot have claimed in their biographies to have seen them in flight. Seems unlikely, but possible.

In essence it was a point of defence aircraft, an extreme EE Lightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I have just cottoned onto the Victor bit.

That is interesting, in that the constant mach wing was under construction for the Arado AR234 V (Versuch) 16 by Dip Eng Dr Kosin. I am assuming that this work came into the hands of HP, post war.

I understood that the problem with the Victor was the fatigue life of the wing, and that constant low level work would quickly exceed the cycle life.

One of the problems with these comparisons is that what we know or think we know often has political as well national security aspects. Although I have an impression that the Victor was a more viable at the top end of the speed range. I once spoke to a B58 Hustler pilot, and it was apparent that this supersonic bomber, only flew part of a mission at top speed. On that basis speed it is not necessarily everything, I guess effective operational height, range and a few other aspects influence the best aircraft for a particular duty.

They were rebuilt at AV Roes at Woodford as tankers, now sold for a reputed £100m, shows how much these sites are worth now Re NFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

This model has been in my model room for a long time now. No progress has been made at all. I have thought about how the model could be made viable as a flying device.

I do remember that Simons model, was very lightly built, which suggests that not as much thrust would be required to achieve a flying speed due to lower wing loading. I have assumed that probably the motor/propeller combination generated very little torque, relative to how much my model would generate, to be able to fly. Plus conceiving of a drive train that was not weighty in itself, seems beyond my abilities or knowledge.

I have recently considered that a more phased approach could be a way towards success of a sought.

I have been thinking of linking up the tailerons as designed, then bungy launching. Now I have a bungy suitable for 2m to 120" span gliders. My initial thoughts is that this arrangement could end the project quite quick, as the model would be a few hundred meters away in a split second, before I had got on the sticks. I did think of one of those frames often used on EDFs, I may have theoretical control, although not at a practical level.

It seems that I need the right Bungee, and frame to get started. Does any one know the answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eflightray

I have had similar thoughts. Although contrary to my usual requirements, which are my models must be capable of flying in most weather. I have almost accepted that this is not practical with a Natter. Which is pretty much where Simon comes from, where he requires still to moderate wind.

In my case My thoughts were along the lines of using a rocket motor, as used in model rocketry. A gyro to keep the thing tracking straight up on launch.

The bungee was to be the first stage, the second, gyro control and third using a rocket motor.

I am concerned that the rocket motor approach may not be legal, or require me to pass some test or other.

To some extent, such a path is failure, in that the model would no longer be a everyday model. Particularly as I do not like hanger Queens. I have a number, though this is due to flying other models, which are flown all the time, because I do, rather than being special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days, I'm the hangar queen, unless the weather is reasonable, I take preference over my models, (it's an age thing).

Just watched Simon Chaddock's Natter on Youtube, stick with a rocket wink

I have bungeed a few things in the past, my big Mig was the last, till I found I can hand launch it.

Ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with Ray on the limitations of 'exotic' planes whether that is in aerodynamics or propulsion.

I have very few that can fly in much of a breeze thus my annual number of flying days tends to be limited but then to me the challenge is to get the unusual to fly rather than create a "work a day" plane.

Surprisingly my Natter is rather more tolerant than might be expected. Its big fuselage and small wings means it is structurally strong and stiff despite a light wing loading. In addition as a "prop jet" it has a reasonable thrust to weight ratio.

Whilst it can and has been flown in normal sort of weather it is much nicer to fly in calm conditions..wink 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

On the 8th May 2011, I started a project, to construct a semi scale Bachem Natter. At the time I realised that my chance of success was pretty low. Not helped by my success criteria that the model should be flown in all weather conditions. 

 

Although I thought I understood what the major issues were, It turned out I was wrong. My principal problem was obtaining an acceptable CG, without an unacceptable wing loading.

 

About the same time Simon Chadwick embarked on the same challenge, with slightly differing flying criteria. His philosophy was a very lightweight construction, accepting that the flight envelope would be limited, in that in some weather conditions the model should not be flown. He was successful.

 

Meanwhile my partial model lay about the model room. It moved house. It was kicked from pillar to post. Its mear precsence caused annoyance and frustration. In the mean time probably 20 other models have been built and flown.

 

More recently. I reflected on suggestions made by others on this thread, ideas that have been buried in the back of my mind. Plus I have purchased a 3d printer, which I continue to learn about both design and production. Somehow the two elements combined. the bullet was bitten. Work restarted.

 

This is as far as I have reached

 

WP_20220508_21_01_49_Pro.thumb.jpg.6ccab58d51b0dc46071c3c4faf5ca942.jpg

 

The picture below is of a real one at the Deutsches Museum of an early model along with a Rhinetochter (from memory)

 

 

 

1485259245_Nattertochter.thumb.JPG.ebd01d87ef2161640f0ac404d7e8d8dc.JPG

 

 

 

 

$R5F7Z8H.stl

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

 

I have used the printer for a lot of the details, in finishing process. In themselves they may not seem a lot. Items produced is a motor tube for the inrunner motor, hold down beams for the wing, sprung latch for the cockpit, Rx mounting plate, and a few other items. 

 

My challenge now is a transition from round to square, whilst turning through 90 degrees (exhaust's of a Do 335 I am building). I am also designing a ducting system for a Pushy cat, a little more compact than the one I have printed out from RCM&E. I am good at pinching others ideas, and possibly making them worse.?

 

In the mean time I hae a working cardboard steam engine to design and build as part of Grand Daughters school work. Now this is really hard work, my negotiating and guidance and mentoring skills are not that great so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Yesterday i thought I had finished the Natter. Well I was wrong!

 

Having sorted the servos and mixing out, for the Tailerons and the motor rotation sorted, (I now use a piece of card on the shaft for inrunners), finaly arranged the CG in the right place.

 

Weighing the model at 2 lbs, i thought could just get away with 200 watts. This would push the ESC to its limit. Yet for one hopeful short flight, I thought what the.

 

Putting the model on the watt meter, just 146w.

 

I have now decided to put in a bigger ESC to allow me to get towards 250 watts. Thinking of a bigger propeller I decided to go for a 11". I then thought hmm, well, such a big prop is going put motor shaft in great danger of getting bent, when landing.  So I have put a folder on, ordered some Aeronauht blades.

 

Then I re-read the motor data sheet for the motor, only to realise that the motor is linited to 18 amps. On that basis the values quoted for motor of 250 satts, must have been obtained on a 4s lipo.

 

I am now in the position of probably needing to re-motor, much higher Kv, to get the watts, on a smallr diameter propeller, to limit (hopefully) torque effects. I cannot sensibly go 4s as the wing loading is already at 21 oz per foot square. I also seem to remember that Simon had control issues with his (light weight model) tailerons.

 

I am thinking success could be elusive, for a model which was never intended to be a everyday model but robust enough to be so.

 

I will now get onto building something more practical (Fokker V20). The Douglass X3 (DF) is moving towards the backburner.?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erfolg

Yes the tailerons are not particularly powerful and even less so with a scale size tail plane, however at 21 oz/sqft you will be flying pretty fast so it may be ok.

The biggest issue I had was the considerable fuselage area ahead of the CofG. Actually at the stall funny things started to happen. I ended up with the CofG at just 18%. 

Like that there was insufficient elevator authority to initiate a full stall so the wayward characteristics were not an issue.

 

I rather favoured the V25. The first low wing monoplane fighter? 

 

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Although a week after the event the Yellow peril has now flown. Not far, though it has flown. I was hoping for another flight this week, unfortunately the weather Gods thought otherwise.

 

What happened. With advancing years, caution has become my watch word. With this in mind a youngster was enrolled as the test pilot, that is some one used to flying fast, awkward models, undaunted by quirkiness, unexpected arisings and so on. To launch the model, a trusted member, who often used to hand launching most things.

 

I should state that the model had been tested at home, pulling 300w, the mixer doing what it is supposed to. 

 

So what happened, well it did not sound like there was 300w available. The pre flight checks went ahead to the flight teams satisfaction. The one concern was the amount of movement on the tailerons, suspected as being excessive. I had deliberately provide a lot of movement, based on Simons experience with his model (it is a light weight).

 

The model was thrown, away it went, barely climbing. After about approx. the model was turned though 180 degrees and brought over the field, then landed. The pilot stated the motor is pulsing, to low power. The assessment was made that the movement on the tailerons was excessive, but manageable, with minute inputs.

 

A second launch was made, with similar results. More vigour is was made in the launch, which was not quite as true, I expected the model to go in, it was recovered from a precarious situation. The return after the turn was undertaken at a lower pace, so slow I expected the model to stall, and go in. In some respects disappointing , in other ways, most encouraging. The encouraging bits is that it flies, the tailerons worked well, and the model did not seem to be stalled prone.

 

The big issue was why was the power train pulsing? The difference was at home there was no canopy on. It was also noted that ehe motor was getting hot, although the ESC seemed to be cool.

 

What have I done? Cooling was needed, on that basis I set about removing material to achieve this. I will not bore anyone with the detail of what was done, other a lot of material was removed, and a through flow from the motor to the tail pipe was ensured.

 

A test was has been rerun with the canopy in place, and +300w was achieved for about 5 minutes. Also the tx was set up using the rate switch to have a low of 50%.

 

Now I awit all the planets to align. To think My ambition was just one circuit at speed, before retirement and equipment removed. Getting ther!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...