Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
I can find no side views of this missile for scale data. It's full-scale dimensions would make a full scale HPR model possible.
The PDF containing the declassified British post-WWII analysis of the Taifun including results from German engineer testimony. Very interesting:
https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800683.pdf
Info from the PDF which I've merged in to one image. Click on it for full size (large and therefore readable) .:
A magnified view of a fin shown in the RAF museum photo shown below. Looks like two spot-welded halves which explains the rear view shown above.
The Taifun placard in the RAF museum image shown below is significantly wrong according to the contents of the above PDF analysis. The max altitude isn't 1.5 km as claimed on the placard, it's estimated to be 15 km in the PDF. What good would a max altitude of 1.5 km be against bomber formations? Also, the placard claims the Taifun F was a solid propellant version. It was the liquid propellant version.
The PDF containing the declassified British post-WWII analysis of the Taifun including results from German engineer testimony. Very interesting:
https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800683.pdf
Info from the PDF which I've merged in to one image. Click on it for full size (large and therefore readable) .:
A magnified view of a fin shown in the RAF museum photo shown below. Looks like two spot-welded halves which explains the rear view shown above.
The Taifun placard in the RAF museum image shown below is significantly wrong according to the contents of the above PDF analysis. The max altitude isn't 1.5 km as claimed on the placard, it's estimated to be 15 km in the PDF. What good would a max altitude of 1.5 km be against bomber formations? Also, the placard claims the Taifun F was a solid propellant version. It was the liquid propellant version.
