Re: A-9 landing procedure



scottlowther@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...Jeez, I fight off death *twice*, just to see you two get into
another squabble over nits and pickings?

No. As I said, I'm done with Pat. He's become too much like Arndt...
willing to accept *anything* so long as it's fantastical (such as his
rubbish about the A-9 being powered by hypergolics... all referecnes
show it witha conventional A-4 LOX/ethanol engine). Applies to his
technical blather as well as his political nonsense, it seems.

Spoken like a true Northman! :-)
If he's read what I wrote, he'd have noted that I said the A9 _may_ have ended up with a hypergolic engine if it had ever been deployed.
The Germans were working on hypergolic motors to free themselves of the bother of transporting LOX around.
The A9/A10 project goes back to the beginning of the war, but because of the desire on the part of the Wehrmacht to concentrate on the A4/V-2 work on it got shelved till pretty late in the war, when the invading allied armies had captured enough of Europe that London was rapidly getting out of reach of V-2 launch areas, so the winged variant was the only way to have a chance to keep doing missile strikes on London, and it came off the back burner.
Both Lox/alcohol and storable propellants were discussed for both the A9 and A10, but again A9 never got further than the modified A4b test vehicle, and AFAIK, A10 never got to the point where even a prototype or even mock-up ever started to be built.
The A6 was to use storable propellants (Peenemunde had worked on the Wasserfall SAM, which used hypergolic propellants, so they had some experience with them), but was never built.
A7 was a subscale test vehicle for A4b/A9; basically a A5 test rocket with wings. At least one of these was drop-tested from a aircraft, but I don't know if it was ever launched from a pad.

Pat

.