PROJECT R-113 AT BRANCH NO. 1 OF NII 88 ON GORODOMLYA ISLAND

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2005
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: August 24, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
INFORMATION REPORT
25X1
COUNTRY USSR (Kalinin Oblast)
SUBJECT Project R-113 at Branch No. 1 of
NII 88 on Goroalomlya Island
25X1
25X1
24 August 1953
28
25X1
This Document contains Information affecting the Na-
tional Defense of the United States, within the mean-
ing of Title 18, Sections 793 and 704, of the V.S. Code, as
amended. Its transmission or revelation of Its oonteuts
to or receipt by an unauthorized person It prohibited
by law. The reproduction of this form is prohibited.
REPORT NO.
DATE DISTR.
NO. OF PAGES
REQUIREMENT NO.
REFERENCES ' '
THE SOURCE EVALUATIONS IN THIS REPORT ARE DEFINITIVE.
THE APPRAISAL OF CONTENT IS TENTATIVE.
. (FOR KEY SEE REVERSE)
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
INTRODUCTION
1. Toward the beginning of February 1950, the German ' engineers at Oatashkov
had completed work oz} the supplementary phase. of ProSect R-14
in, the period following immediately upon the submission
of these repots, to the Sotiets, the various sections on Gorodomlya ; Island
seemed to have occupied thensolves with unrelated and individual tasks.,-,such
as,t4ie compilation and sorting of reference data and computations which had
been obtained in the course of their work on the R10
Only the radio section which had been unaffected by
Pro jeot R-14 continued with its experimental woke
SECRET
STATE ARMY 'OX I NAVY I#X AIR' FBI AEC
25X1
(Not.t Washington Dan,Wyypr& J*ck F Iebdt 2Otl&106/&7" l1A-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5 ,
25X1
SECRET
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
2. During September 1950, a requirement was received by the German
group on the Island for the design of an antiaircraft missile with
a cutoff. date of 1 April 1951. After several preliminary drafts
were madey the project received the code number "113" and,
according to standard procedure, was prefixed by a letter
"R". or convenience.throughou
this report, the pro sot will be assumed as the R-113 project and
referred to as suoh.
3. 'me requirement received called for a surface -to-air missile based
on the principles of tho German World War II 'Wasserfall It was to
have ag effective conic area between the angles of ale ion of 30
and 90 and an effeotivo range from five kilometers to 30 kilo-
meters in altitude. For the first five kilometers the missile would
be ineffective because of lack of steed and control dating initial
acceleration.
in the new design without any changes, a ough,as will be seen
later, the Utman design actually utilised a slightly higher thrust
rat ng. In addition, initial German delibmrations in the use of a
gimballed motor, similar to the one designed for the 1-149 were
oouttermanded quickly by the Soviets, who insisted on the use of
an inflexible motor.
f 11'. Purther, the motor of the 'Ysse; was to be utili
was to be based on the principles of the German World War II
4. ]tit previous assignments the Soviets had extended to the German
engineers oomple to freedom in pursuing the design studies. Once the
specifications had been outlined by the Soviets, the Germans were
permitted to explore numerous avenues and ultimately select the one
design considered most suitable towards satisfying the given
requirements. However, in the 8-113 project, the Soviets deviated
from this practice and strictly circumscribed the work of the
German specialists. Thus, it' was specified that the 1-113 mtusile
At the time that the new assignment was issued, the Soviets placed.
at the disposal of the German engineers drawings and reference data
of the ' W 1 This information did not constitute the ozigia"
German som~~u a ens but rather reconstructions that had been prepared
is i94~ ass 19L6 hr Germans in Berlin under Soviet direction.
As in the
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 Clio-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
-3.
25X1
25X1
earlier major projects, the main burden of the Work was carried on
by the small core of German specialists representing the creative and
theoretically versed element on the Island.
The information that follows represents the final
design of the R-113 misbile as submitted to the. Soviets. As in the
case of the R-10 and 8-14 projects, this also was entirely a "paper
pro3act"with the final product 'being a report consisting of drawings
and computations. Ult mute dispostion of this report is not known
TABULATION 0? THE PHYSICAL CRASACTUISTICS OF
The following is a tabulation of the si fie ntl a charact
-~isti
P~
os
25X1 of 't'he R-113 missile'-
Action radius - see sketch.
1 avnoh# i'g Site
Remote control was by means of radio. Thrust was to be regulated
so'&s to maintain a constant dynamic air pressure.
IQ. S imensions sae sketches, pages 17-28.
4 :
11. Thrust - ma:iann thrust ?'8,500 kg. After a given flying pperiod,
the thrust was to gss,daally decrease to approximately 3,000 kg.
12. The weight. ,distribution was as f ollows a
Warhead, ,:,without. explosives )
Oat.sphsre;'and pressure reducing valve
containers with panel and foil, joints
fail with formers ?
Lirtoii'
Controls, rudder and rudder ring
Motor, thrust trams and lines
Rudder machines and pressure gas ring
Controls
-P. i ght omp ty
Explosives
llxplosives and weight, empty
Pressure:gas s (R N 3 'in sphere
Pr1ssur. in gam rin
Ton" ( a pr5ximately 0.81
Nitric aged, f appraximatel~- 1.51)
Propellants,
Launching weight
100 kke.
340 kg.
5 kg.
75 kg.
200 kg.
4
960 kg.
300 kg.
1r480 kg.
65 kg.
9 ke.
426 kg.
1,820 kg.
320 kg.
3,800 kg.
,d~gllRS
V V 4 ~
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/0.6/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
-4-
13. The pressurizing was as followsa
Pressure gas N
Pressure in the sphere P1 - 200 kg cm2
Volume of sphere v1 0.26 m
Original pressure in the container
(to be'constant during the early part P ! s 35 k,/cm2
of powered flight) 2 g
Final pressure in the containers
(after sphere becomes exhausted the p2 (approx) 14 kg/cm2
gas should expand in the contai rers) V
Expansion exponent n - (approx) 1.25
Safety factor of the sphere - (approx .1.8
14. The safe-load factor and lift was as follows
Safe--load factor in relation to launching weight A
0
This corresponds to a total life A w 03800 - 159200
Safe-load factor in relation to out-off weight n - (approx,) 10
DES3CRIPTI ON
enerl
15. The first drawing (oee page 17) is a layout in three views of the
R-113;missile designed by the 4ermans. As can be seen from this
drawing, the missile was to be a cigar-shaped body powered by a single
rocket motor. t was to consist of a warhead, central section, and
tail section ~ch of which shall be discussed in detail, in the
25X1 following sections of this report. The central section was to
su port two airfoils wh a the tail seotion was to support three fins
25X1 an? control surfaces,
kg.
longitudinal dimensions may be subject town
25X1 error of plus or minus five per cent, The largest errors are confined
25X1 to the warhead, where the error may easily exceed the percentage assigned
to the over-all drawing. The diameter of the missile and the angles
of leading and trailing edge of the airfoils are exact. The span of
the airfoil was not smaller than that shown here but may possibly be
25X1 as such as five percent greater. The position of the airfoil is not
exact, but is relatively correct.
the grouping of the fins was as shown on page 17# but stated that
the possibility existed that the vertical fin might have projected
upward rather than downward. Over-all the proportions of the components
and their relation to each other should be regarded as generally oorreotj
16. Although the requirements set up by the Soviets called for a surface-
to41T missile based on the principles of the Wssserfall , it can be
soon that very little similiarity existed between tse asserfall
and the R-113 in design. As stated previously the motor was le in-
tact with only the operating pressure and consequently the thrust
increased so as to improve the performance during the initial phase of
flight. The pressure sphere also remained the same in spite of the
many disputes that aroso regarding it and the many proposals that were
suggested as an improvement.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
-5-
17. The many changes that occurred were based mainly on the desires of the
aerodynamics and statics sections. The aerodynamics section dis-
approved of the' 'Wasserfall particularly in regard to flight stability.
This section wanted to attack the stability problem anew and~thue)changed
the shape of the missile. The statics section felt that the strength,
v!eighte and rigidity of' the Wasserfall were not in proper relation
to.each other and so a design was produced that was to represent a
simple, light,.and more rigid missile.
18. Perhaps many of the changes that occurred were more a result of adminis-
taratton policy than a result of technioal .inspiration. In view of
the little time available for the project, it would have been difficult
to. work with the old structure which was relatively complex and inoor-
porated many components.
19. The most pronounced difference in the R--113 missile was its flight
characteristics. The R-113 missile was to perform more as an airplane
in which turns were to be coordinated. This was to be achieved by
discarding the quadruple airfoils of the Wasserfall and using a
double airfoil. One of the main reasons for this change was a matter
of weight saving. A second reason offered in support of this modification
was the advantage gained in fuel extraction. The extraction of fuel
as in the Aas_rfa , whereby a moveable nozzle was necessary, bad
caused a great deal of difficulty. It-was expected that these difficulties
could be overcome if the missile banked into a turn. This decision was
strengthened by the control section which maintained in the early stsges
of the R-113 project that such a modification would not cause any
added difficulties from the standpoint of control. However, it was
later found that the oontrol-seotion'had been overly optimistic and
that-difficulties in control did arise. Nevertheless, the design was
adhered to.
20. From the structural point of view, the design as shown was an attempt
to make the body as compact as feasible and to limit as far as possible
any unnecessary and unexploitable spaces.
21~ After innumerable drafts, some of which called for completely differewt
shapes. contours, stool the design shown on the sketch on page 17~
was'solected. The airfoil was one of short span and large root ohord.
gtabilisation of the missile wag to bs maintained by three fins and
rudders located radially at 120 intervals. A great deal of effort
was placed on the relationships of the airfoils, fins, and center of
gravity shij't so as to produce proper stability during the entire
flight.. mach was arranged so that distance between center of gravity
loconland center of pressure location throughout flight.would be
relatively oonstant and would be of such magnitude that stability would
occur and yet not over-stress the missile.' This principle is best
illustrated in the following diagrams
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
m~m
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
2.5X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
During the extraction of fuel in powered flight, the center of gravity
would move rearward along the axis of the missile until the point
would. be reached where the weight of the warhead would pause the center
of gravity to travel forward again. During the initial part of the
flight, the center of. pressure would be located relatively far bank,
On the missile. As flight speed increased the center of pressure would
move forward. on the missile. At propellant cut off, the speed would
drop,and the center of pressure would move away from the center of
$'ravity.' However, this would generally occur at less dense atmospheres
when loads were relatively small, or the missile had spent itself.
The concentrated effort placed on the adherence of this principle
was reason to believe that the extreme difficulties of flight control
and of excessive forces could be eliminated in this missile.
NANO
23. be only reproduction of the nose section
Iwas that shown on page 17
and the connection of the nose
section .and central section shown on Daze 21. 1
The
nose consisted of a conic shaped body made of plywood.
a warhead weight of approximately 500 kg.
cou be carried while satisfying the required range and altitude.
The use of plywood provided an excellent heat insulation for the ex-
plosive;and also kept the weight to a minimum. Plywood also eliminated
the undesirable expansion problems associated with steels; shrapnel
effect was not.oonsidered, and apparently the destruction was to be
through concussion. Discussions were held on the possible use of
incendiaries, but this actually had no effect on design since the
over-all weight would not be affected,
As can be seen ,(see,page 17) a space was provided in the apes of
the nose section.
F-
lit was pose i to house a measuring devise which nenitted
25?, The connection in view A of the fourth sketch (see page 21) shows
the method of attach ng the wooden warhead to the metal central section.
she plywood wall (20) was reinforced by wane of a wooden ring (11)
glued to the walls This ring had the dual purpose of serving as'a
former and also of providing sufficient strength so that the forces
could be transmitted through screws.
26,, To ,prevent excessive forces resulting from the expansion of the
union ring (32) while heated in flight, the design provided for
intermittent slots in the ring (32). These slots cannot be seen in
the drawing.
27. Zxperimeuts conducted on sample unions of this type showed that failure
was more liable to occur in the screw head than the rest of the union.
Want
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
25X1
25X1
Central Section
28. Three sketches (see Pages 19i 20,.and 21) show cross sectional and
detailed views of the oen,ral section and airfoils, and the method of
sttaohment of the two. LBefer to appropriate legend for identification
of parts and material selection of the respective parts,
29. The press-gre sphere (3) was to contain N at an_initial pressure of
200 kg/cm and was to be located in the forward part of the central
section. The design called for a heat treatable steel formed as two
half spheres with greater edge thickness for ease in melding. Since
the pressure sphere of the Waseerfall had been the cause of many
failures in the past, an added safety factor was provided in its
design. While the safety factor of the over-all missile was set at
l.5, the safety factor used in the design of this pressure sphere
was'l.8a Care was also taken to prevent interruptions in the surface
other than a single orifice for extraction and filling.
30. The rings (32) and (33) were to be welded to the sphere first, and then
the.assembly heat treated to the point where the. sphere material had
a strength of 120 kg/ma . By this method, fur the r welding of the
assembly to the rest of the central section could be accomplished
without fear of endangering the sphere. The rings (33) were to be
of such 'material that, the 'eat treating process would provide a
strong strength of 60 to 70 kg/mm and not permit the material to bacons
brittle,so that further welding could be accomplished.
31. The remainder of the central section was to consist of a steel
oilinder separated into two,fuel cells by the steel partition (4),
The forward cell was to nt n and the
contain nitric acid.
Although the fuel container was to be a single watt structure, the
concepts in the utilisation of internal pressure for support was
different from that used in the 1-10 design. In the 1-10 and also the
R-14 'design, the internal pressure served as a principle means of
'supporting the 'thin wall structure against compressive stresses. xm
the R-113 missile, where the maximum internal pressure was to to 35
atmospheres, the internal pressure would be many time greater than
would be required to prevent buckling and to provide static stability.
'Thus, the high internal pressure became the lone determinant in the
selection of a relatively heavy steel wall of 2.73 millimeter thishnsss.
The resulting tensile stresses in the wall resulting tram the internal
pressure woe d be of such magnitude that they would offset the, compressive
forces that would arise out of bending. since the wall dimensions were
compelled to be large, continuous formers could be dispensed with
intlrely as a preventive against forces arising in missile transportation.
and transvtrss Forces arising from the airfoils. Segment formers (14)
then 'would be necessary only for the introduction of the airfoil trans-
verse force.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
33, The partition (4) separating the two fuels would be subject to minor
stress since the pressure within the two calla would be approximately
the iameo"-However,'"the partition was to be relatively thick, two
millimeters, for reasons of safety. It was felt that the steel
would. be subject to corrosion from the nitric acid. A great deal of
thought went into the problem of protecting the steel container, when
finally the Soviets informed the Germans that they had a finish
that was relatively safe against nitric acid. he Germans were told
that we could take this into consideration in the design, but no farther
details were furnished concerning this protective finish. It was con-
templated that the finish would be applied to all wooden surfaces also
for protection against splash.
34. The gas pressure lines (7) and (8) were arranged so that the outlet
would be in the upper forward part of the fuel cells where entering
pressure gas would not mix'with the respective fuels. Since the missile
was to' perform coordinated turns and fly at a reasonable altitude,
this portion of the oella would be free of fuel at all timese limilarlyo'
the fuel extraction lines were located in the lower rear part of their
respective cells so that a minimum of residual fuel would remain in
the tank whether the missile was in vertical flight or in the process
of ,'maneuvering. This locating of the extraction lines and pressure
lines along with the determined flight altitude solvid'ons of the
roblems.encountered in the Wasserfall missile configuration.
33, Additional changes that were-made were to improve the operating
oharaoteristios and to reduce the overall weight, and had to do with
the method of pressurizing the fuel containers. In this missile the .
Vied pressure within the fuel containers was to be maintiiraed at
...35 atmospheres during the'initial part of the powered flight. At some
point during the early part of the power flight, propellant feed
pressure was to be reduced until the pressurizing gas within the sphere
was practically exhausted and the gain within the fuel containers2
expended, The minimum pressure was to be approximately 14 kg/an
This can be shown diagrammatically as follows*
p.k.f l'"j
36. It eras believed that the advantage of this system would permit the
missile to reach its full velocity quickly and thereafter avoid un-
desirable aoceleratiohs. It also permitted a saving in the weight of
the preaaure sphere since the gas quantity and maximum gas pressure
would be, appreciably decreased,
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07: CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
-9-
Airfoil and Airfoil Attachment
37. The airfoil and method of attachment is shown (see pages 19, 20,,
'aw,d.21) and represents the design submitted to the Soviets
at~the'o?mpletion of the R-113 project. The form was the result
a'f'a oompromise between the usual aerodynamic and structural oon-
siderations of span, thickness, load carrying oapacity,and weight.
38. A major consideration in the design was to produce an airfo ,l with
relatively little deflection and one with no twist. To Achieve this,
it'was found that a surface must be selected with a large load
carrying capacity, and that the loads must be transmitted into the
central section at marry points. Such a design would be extremely
heavy unless a material of low specific weight were chosen. A
comparative study between Various materials, particularly wood and
steel, was made; wood was found to be the most advantageouss sing
plywood.woul-d produce an airfoil with half the weight of steel and
would permit much simpler'oonstruotiona, In addition, steel would
not only produce many thermal problems, but, unless a greater number
of spars were provided a series of waves would form in a thin shoot
steel surface between the spars. Since an antiaircraft missile would
operate in essentially denser atmospheres, the heat generated would
be of such magnitude that a, light metal design had to be rejected.
39. Therefore, the airfoil selected was to be triangular shaped and WON,
to be made of wood throughout. The skin or~surfaos (20) was to be
plywood-Of 10 millimeter thickness reinforced at the root on the
outer' and isper surface,(16) and (22). Seven wooden spars (17)
glued to the skin were provided to help carry the load ant'were
slotta,4 (26) so as to receive the lugs (21) welded logitudinal to,
the oinival section surface. A slot (27) was to be machined Into
the ends of the upper and lower surface adjacent to the oentral
section.
40. Two cantilevered steel plates (24) running the length of the air-
foil root chord were to be welded lo,tudinally along the surface
of the central section. On-attachment of the wing to the sent al
section, the two plates were to be fitted into the coves machined in the airfoil surface. The metal screws (23) located at
intervals along the root of the airfoil were to be provided as a
means of fastening.
41. nireotly opposite to the plates (24) and welded to the inside It
the central section wall were a series of plates (16). Those LP
tsa ware, welded to the,cress beams (15) and the tenet segments (14)?
42. The dejiga pyermitted the transmission of forces from the wing to the
ogntral section to take place in the following manner. Approximately,
halt of the.wisg lead was to be carried by the airfoil surface and
transmitted to the plates (24) and the extension plater (16). the
remaining lead was to. be carried by the spars (17) and transferred
tqthe lugs (21 welded to the central section surface. It prevent
1eoi1 oenoeritra son of loads and the central section, the toner
segments (14) were to distribute the loads ever the central seotioa
surface.
IIORZT
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
-10-
43. Although the wooden airfoil would be half the weight of a steel airfoil,
calculations showed that the deflections would be greater. The absolut,p
deflections in themselves would be small and could be disregarded.
However, the differential deflections resulting from the variation of
load along $he chord spans would cause twist. To compensate for this
the beams (15),Were individually dimensionalized so that each beam
would permit a uniform deflection and maintain a symmetrical airfoil
section along the span.
44. To prove the feasibility of such a design, a .6 scale. model of the
a~ffl was built and tested structurally at Ostashkov during April
444,91_7 1950. The model of the central section could not be constructed
4AIII lack of equipment, but a dummy attachment was provided.
The tests proved that the wooden airfoil was capable of carrying the
designed loads. In fact, the test equipment broke down several times
when. the static loading on the model wing exceeded the design load
by three. The probable safety factor of three, rather than 1.5,
aI ived at rxeseltSe&..:t c4, s of relatively low strength values for
plywood given to us by the Soviets. It was found that these values
already had contained a safety factor.
45. The te.sts also showed that the deflections of the model were somewhat
smaller than the calculations had led us Germans to expect. In addition,
the; uniform chordwise deflections, which the design provided for,
were :borne out by the tests.
The design loads assigned to the over-all missile were four times
that of the total launching weight. This meant that the total load.
the missile would be subjected to was in the order of 15 tons. The
airfoil was to support 60t of the total load so that the wing
would be required to support nine tons. Since the missile was to,
operate at a oonstant.dynamio pressure, the safe load factor at
propellant out-off increased to 10.
iio'dified Airfoil and Attachment
47. Although the original airfoil and attachment fulfilled the require-
assnto structurally, it presented many construction problems. The
welding of the long lon itudinal plates (24) externally to the central
leotion and the plates (16) internally would prove to be extremely
difficult if not impossible. This was borne out especially in the
sonstruoti.on of the .6 static test model. The great welding difficulties
of this design led to considerable criticism on the part of the soviets
and so a new design was attempted. This new or-modified design became
a post project to the R-113 project and lasted from four to six weeks..:
It dealt only with the airfoil and airfoil attachment to the central
section.
19 During the course of construction and testing the old model airfoil,
the Germans became familiar with a glue that made a new design feasible
uti3,i!ing wood to steel glued joints. Before proceeding with the new
design, a little information regarding this glue seems worthy of
mention.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-008.10A001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
-11-
49? While working on the old model, t2 a Germans requested from the Soviet
administration a wood glue but received in its place a metal glue
which the Soviets praised highly. A few experiments with the glue
showed it to be'very reliable if hardened properly, but complete
success in its-use did not seem to be possible especially over large
surfaces. After the tests, data concerning the use of the glue was
received from a plant in Moscow. It was a "Warmleim" glue which had
to'be heated to"100 C. The instructions showed that it was to be
used primarily for steel to steel Joints. Since, the instructions
contained all the necessary qualities of the glue, including its stre th
values, it. did not appear necessary to make additional tests. Although
the actual properties of a wood to steel joint were not known, this blue
was utilized in the design of the new airfoil to eliminate the welding
difficulties of the old design.
50. The fifth drawing (see page 23) shows a cross sectional view `and
details of the modified airfoil and its attachment. The airfoil was
to consist, as did the old., of a plywood skin 10 millimeters thick.
The spars (~) were not to be of wood but rather of a high grade light
metal. To assure a 'satisfactory glued Joint between the skin and spare,
"a.thin wood veneer strip (12) was to be glued first to the spare under
a high temperature. Following this, a normal wood to wood glued don-
nection was to be used between the veneer and the upper and lower
surface skin., 1'#e metal spars were to consist of a flange at their
extremity which would permit introduction of a screw (8) at the upper
and lower surface. The screws, (8) were to be threaded into beams (4)
protruding from within the central section. The beams (4) were to be
welded at the'points of contact with the skin (10) of the central
Section so that a leakproof seal between (4) and (10) would be obtained.
This system would also hold welding to the surface skin (10) to a
minimum.
51. 3soause of small unsymmetrical forces that could possibly arise on
the central section surface, thin pipes were welded between the upper
and lower beasts for reinforcement. The absorption of the main trans-
vetse forces took a somewhat different course than in the old wing.
Zn this design the entire load was to be transmitted by the spars (3)
to the beams (4) by way of the screws (8). In order to prevent
exo? seine 1o041 strains on the central section skin at the various
points where the forces would enter, former segments (5) were provided
lilt w`re to be attached by means of spot welds (11) to the pipe beams
4to well as the central section skin (10). (See views 3.7 on page 23.)
The spot welding would cause hardly any distortion
and, there;ose, no difficulties worthy of mention.
52a this solution meant that the welding difficulties of the original
design would be eliminated and further, the advantages of the original
design would be retained essentially.
To provide an aerodynamically clean joint between the airfoil and
o?>ttral section, a wooden triangular fairing (6) was to be glued to the
upper and lower airfoil skin. The fairing was to be appropriately
formed and the holes, located over the bolts, were to be filled with
some kind of putty to prevent aerodynamic interference.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RQP80-0081OA001600390007-5 b.W
25X1
8EC8UT`
-12"D
54,, r2he drawing does n t clearly show the method of allowing for longi-
tudinal expansion3 Because of the internal fuel pressure and the heat
generated in flight, the central section would expand logitudinally-
at a such greater rate than the wooden airfoil. Should the screwed
connections between the central section and the airfoil spars be
absolutely inflexible, a considerable expansion force would then arise
which would be~difficult,to control. To prevent this, the design
provided for the central. airfoil spar only to be connected rigidly to
the central beau. The9ther spar connections were such that flexibility
'would be possible along the missile's longitudinal axis. The design i
called for the bored holes for the connection bolt (8) to be oblong
rather th4n.oonoentrio. 'To-prevent the spar flan a from bearing
directly on-the protruding beam, when the bolt (9) was tightened,
a bushing (9) was provided with a length approximately .10 mm(longer
than the thickness of the spar flange. Thus, it would be possible for
the beams and bolts to move longitudinally relative to the airfoil.
Tail A4se= 19. . .
55. One of the sketches (see page 25), shows a layout of the tail assembly,
3 a d. others (see pages :26 end 27) : show the supporting details.
,The attached legend identifies the various components and indicates
the materials selected
Tcone
Ail
56.. ApIn after'siany comparative studies, plywood was selected for the sur-
face skin. or casing of the tail cone. The wall dimensions or thickness
selected for the surface was relatively large, so that the longitudinal
and transverse forces, bending moments, and outer pressures could be
absorbed without the use of a number of formers and stiffeners. This
was particularly desirable, since the tail cone was to be congested
and normal formers would occupy a great deal of the needed space. The
use of an extremely. thick wall,actually did make it possible to con-
fine the number of formers to one additional light former (7) other
than those required for connection to the central section, motor mount,
and introduction of ;oontrol forces.
.579 Detail A, (see page 27) shows the connection of the plywood basing
(6) to the steel central section We The design called for a
reinforcement ring 5) which was to have a dual task. First, the ring
would. have ke provide the material necessary so that the connection
to the central section could be made by the use of a smaller number
and s tropgsr screws. $eoond, it would have to serve as a terminal
former to' bsorb the forces imposed as .& result of external pressure.
The slots (40) in the central section wall were provided to allow for
the difference in expansion between the two sections. A series of
tests wars made on a connection of this type to guarantee the strength
of `the design.
58. In the area between the reinforcement ri (5) and the former (7),
a number of access panels were needed. a se anels are not shown
25X1 sno? They did not present
any design or ? rup ura :pro ems since was possible to provide
sufficient strength by reinforcing the cutouts and screwing the cover
plates firmly"to the plywood.
163CIAT
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
_13-
59. The longitudinal forces that would arise out of the motor thrust,
and the lateral force that would arise out of the lateral acceleration
had to be contended with in the design of the motor mount. It was
felt that the 'design shown in Detail By (on page 27) would provide
a means of uniformly distributing these forces to the tail cone.
60. The longitudinal force resulting from the motor, thrust would. resolve
itself into two oomponent.a l ones perpendicular to the ax-As of the
motor, and the other, in the direction of ''e~
,~tA conic ~ shaped thrust.
frame (9).. The frame (9) should he subjected to only tensile forcer?,
and could, therefore, be of very thin construction. Normally, a
thickness 'of O.8 ir!m. would suffice except for the fact that large
cutouts must be made to allow for the passage of fuel lines.. Thus,
it became necessary to select a mr~, terrial thioknere of 1.2 mm.
61. The tensile forces in the frame (9) would have to be transmitted to
the tail casing. Theme forces, along with additional bending moments,
would produce rather large circular compressive forces on the oaeing.
To support this the former (10) was provided, which'had the additional
task of acting as a normal former for absorption of external pressures.
The former (10) also would become functional in the mounting of the
fins.
6?.. The ring former (27) is discussed in. the description of tie controls.
63. in summation, the tail cone design consisted of essentially a oonlo
shaped casing and a few simple formnra and the design provided for
uniform circumferential distribution of motor forces.
Fin and Rudder
64. The design of the fin and rudder (shown on pages 25, 26, and 27)
represented a oompromi'se in regard to the use of wood and steel.
A wore ,practical solution was no doubt possible, but the relatively
short time available for devKAopmeat made it necessary to discontinue
further work.
65. A structural design for the fin similar to the design used for the
oemtral section airfoil was not fea!iblu, wince a thick fin would
result with a series of formers requiring space for attachment
not available. Therefore,, the ideal design, that is, one in which
forces could be transmitted at the point of inception, had to be for-
sak?n In favor of one in which the forces could be collected and then
transmitted. This led to a design utilising the main spar (21)
which would be capable of absorbing the bending moments, transverse
forces, and torsional forces imposed on the fin and transmitting there
frcaroes to the tail ring former (27) in the tail cone.
66. The front portions of the fin itself was to consist of a plywood
skin (2$) and the ribs (12) and (13). The rib were to be connected
to the plywood auxiliary spar (14) by means of small corner postse
l"oroes on the forward fin were to be depositod on the tail cone skin
at the root and on the shield (15) on the fin tip. In addition, the
forces that collect on the auxiliary spar (14) would be transmitted
to the t41 cone skin and the shield,, The shield in turn would trans-
mit foroes to the main spar.
$1CRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80=00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
..14-
67. For reasons of space saving and rigidity, it was necessary to call
for steel in the rear portion of .the fin. For aerodynamic reasons it
was necessary to locate the rudder (3) at the tip of the fin. In
order to transmit the great forces imposed on the rudder by way
of the rudder shaft (20) it was necessary to select material with a
high elastic modulus for the shaft.
68. It was also desirable to select a large shaft diameter for structural
reasons, but a small diameter for aerodynamic reasons. As a compromise
to the above, it was decided that the shaft diameter should be the
thickness. of the fin minus the thickness of a thin steel skin, and
that the shaft diameter would determine the fin thickness. The use
of wood in the rear portion of the fin would have demanded a pro-
hibitively thick fin. The 1.2 mm. steel skin selected was to be
supported by the ribs (18) and the main spar (21). The skin was to
be'.oonneoted to the spar by means of spot welds. In order to prevent
the loss of apace for the rudder shaft, the ribs were to be non-
continuous. The ribs were'to be'attached to the rear auxiliary spar
, which would collect the forces and transmit them to the bracket
W3 and the shield (15). This all resulted in a fin with six per cent
thickness at the root and an eight per cent thickness at the tip.
69. The comparatively small dimensions of the rudder and the relatively
great forces that-would act on it made a design calling for internal
and external parts seem impracticable. It was felt that the best
design would be one utilizing a solid plywood structure and a solid
steel oblong shaft placed within it. The two parts were to be attached
by means of a metal glue. In the pure-wood design, rigidity difficulties
were encountered in the base of the udder. For this reason a metal
own in views G4j( was provided. It was to serve
base. Plate (33)-
as a seal for the base of the rudder and, above all, was to'transmit
the torsional moments from the rudder to the rudder shaft (20).
70.4 The rudder shield (15) was provided for in design for aerodynamic as
well as structural reasons. The shield was to prevent a gap between
the fin and rudder which would give rise to unpredictable forces
and rudder intirferenoe. Structurally it was to be used to assist
in the transmission of forces.
71. The rudder shaft (16) was to be welded directly to the shaft (20) with
the base plate (33) providing a means of transmitting rudder torsional
moments. The' shaft (20) was to be mounted in the roller bearing (17)
at the top and in the roller bearing (22) at the bottom. The upper
shaft bearing (17) was to be mounted in the flange (37), which was
to be welded to the main spar (21). The lower rudder shaft bearing
(22) was'to be mounted in the bracket (25), which was to be welded
directly to the tail ring former (27). The jet vane (24) was to be
attached to the lower end of the rudder shaft and the whole arrange-
ment actuated by means of the rudder lever (23). It was believed that
this type of rudder suspension would be extremely rigid and provide a
satisfactory means of attachment.
Method of Tail Assembly
72. Should the tail unit be constructed, it would have to be assembled in
a manner siqilar to that briefly described in the following. The tail
cone (~) and the forward portion of the fin (2) would constitute one
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
-15-
structural unit. The tail ring former (27), main spar (21), and a
flange.(37) would constitute & ,second structural unit. The motor
(e) would become a provisional part of the second unit by connecting
the motor to the tail ring former. The two units would then be brought
together Sp the motor(pr)file ring (41) would be brought into contact
with the . The ring former would be attached to the
tail none casing by means of screws and the rear portion of the fin
would be screwed to the forward portion of the fin. The rudder shield
(15) would be lowered to the assembled structure and screwed to. the fin
and mounting flange. After having completed the above assembly, the
rudder together with the rudder shaft (20) would finally be inserted
from the top into its proper position and the jet vanes and rudder
lever attached to the rudder shaft.
11IOTOR AND PUEL SYSTEM
73. No information is submitted regarding the motor and fuel system.
25X1 they are essentially the same as used in the
Wasserfall with the few exceptions already disoussed.j
C ~USIO
Orlvi
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Is policy decision
on the part of the Soviets called for the gradual phasing out of the
German-projects by October 1949. for example,
theseaseless accelerations of the R-14 project was the direct result
of this program. Is, possible cause for this
Soviet policy was the decision to return the German engineers, and also
the fear that the Germans may obtain an insight into the Soviet missile
program which would is detrimental to the seourity,of the Soviets.
At any rates consonant with this Soviet policy
the German engineers at Ostashkov were no longer to be enrolled in
sensitive programs after October 1949.
this apparent contradiction, that is, the phase-
out of German engineers from sensitive projects and the asst ment
of the 5-113 vrojeot to the German specialists on Ostashkov,
work was completed on the I-14 (February 1)50), the Soviet hierarchy
may have des ded that the Germans were to remain for another two
years in the Aida. bowing this the individual research institutes
may have decided to utilise the Germans to fulfill requirements that
were still outstanding. That is, the institutes may have in fact
violated the existing regulations of security by permitting the Germans
to work on the classified project.
However a more likely explanation
a
that b Soviets may have encounters numerous problems in the develop-
ment can 4atiairoraft rocket. To surmount these, the German engineers
were o 11ed upon. In order to confine the work of the Germans to non-
?eneitjve.areas; the assignment was given to an institute at which no
engineers having experience on the Wasserfall were stationed. This
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
3: CtaT
-16-
25X1
25X1
would explain the choice of Ostashkov. The few Ostashkov Germans
who had contact with the Wasserfall were technicians and launching
personnel hardly suitable for research and development work. It was
.probably hoped that during the period allotted the Germans, the project
,would not advance to a stage of development considered critical from
a security standpoint. In addition, the Soviets may have speculated
that this work could be of aid in solving problems encountered in
the more advanced stage of the Soviet development on the mere chance
,that . engineers entering the field s.7A}:'Yr would. nut be encumbered by
the traditional ideas and conventional methods of approach prevalent
ia' the field which may have b :+.yn the ^ori n? I cause for the problems
encountered. Thus, it was essentially a gamble that in the basic or
:el'ementary work to be performed by the Germans, some novel or refreshing
thought might be-generated. this
explanation would resolve the apparent contradiction in that it would
offer the Soviets the desired security whil at the time offering a
.possible outlet from a stagnated oondition-
74.: Inconneotion with the time element, I the
problems that arose in connection with the R-113 project were not
pursued to their ideal or even logical solution. Instead, because of
the short time assigned to the project, the development was out off
.at a point regarded by many German upeoialists as unsatisfactory, and
.permitted time to merely prepare the necessary drawings and multiple
calculations so as to most the date set by the Soviets. This does not
mean, that the design was not completed, but only that the development
,Was not carried on to the final or logical conclusion thought ossible
f
ore $
by the Germano. The final p odu,-st given to the Soviets, there
represents not the best the Germano were capable of producing in the
25X1
field of antiaircraft roots r but rather the best possible develop-
meat within a such circumeoribed period.
SSCI T
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
- 17
Approved For' Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
SWRBT
?ls -
LlfoUl' OF TRg R-113 MISSILE IN THREW vim l
(LBGSMD)
1. Warhead
2. Central section
Tail section
4. Fin
5?. Rudder
6. Jet vanes
7. Airfoil
8. Reducing- valve
9? Separation between warhead and the central section
10. Pressure gas sphere ('2)
11. Fuel container (Tonka)
12. Witrio acid container
13. Lines and cable fairing
14? Gss container for rudder control
15. Separation between central section and tail section
16. Control and radio instrument compartments
17. Motor
18. Motor mount
19. Aerodynamic foil
20. Rudder lever
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 . Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600 90007-5
25X1
-19
%4p} "r tvt'f' 'r ReFease 2005/06/07: CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600390007-5
 !approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5'
,:..._ 25X1
9.,
` :` '" `" ~:`: '""?"' "8a???" '~S"rived" "or'"Release""~8i~ /05%b7' "Cf~-RDPBb`1~ O 48160'0 0007'S" ""?
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 :, CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
Approved- IF' Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600360007-5
25X1
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
j SECRET
4. Panel (steel 6 ? 80 kg/mm2)
5. Rear panel (steel t78 - 80 kg/mm2)
6. Rear Joining ring (steel 30 x r'CA 60 kg/a2
-22-
CENTRAL SECTION AND AIRFOIL (a-113 IaSSILE)
(LEG1D TO PAGES 19, 20, AND 21)
1. Tanks, container (steel. kg/mm2)
2. Nitric acid container (steel t' - 80 kg/u2)
3. Pressure gas sphere (annealed steel j" approx. 120 kg/=2)
Gas pressure line for Tonka container
8. Gas pressure line for nitric acid container
9. Feed line for Tanks.
10. Feed line for nitric acid
11. Line and cable fairing
12. Warhead central section joint
13. Airfoil
14. Former segments (steel 30 x MA c .. 60 kg/snag)
15.' Central section cross beams (Steel 30 x r CA 6. 60 kg/mm
16. Plate (steel 30 x rCA 2
~? 60 kg/mm )
17. Spars (plywood)
18. Joint reinforoem,nt (plywood)
19. Leading edge guard (steel)
20. Load carrying surface (plywood)
21. Longitudinal lugs (steel) to receive wing shearing load
22. Inner joint reinforoemsnt (plywood)
23. Anchoring screws
24. Plate (steel 30 x roA ^ 60 kg/u2)
23. Plug
26, Blot in spars to receive (21)
27. Groove in airfoil surface
28. Warhead load carrying surface (plywood)
29. Rsinforoemnnt
30. Warhead conic sealing panel (plywood)
31. Dead in the plate (16)
32. Connecting ring
3% Connecting ring
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-525X1
SECRET
-23-
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
25X1
SECRET
21
MODIFIED AIRFOIL AND ATTACHMENT (R-113 MISSILE)
(LEGEND)
1. Central Section
2. Airfoil (same dimensions and position as original design)
3.
Spars . (high grad,e., _. light metal) 6 - 42 kg/mm2
Central section Dross beams (Steel 3Ox (CA d~B approx. 60 kg/mm2)
5.. Former segments
pairing (wood)
Load worrying plywood skin
8. .Bolts
~hphing
Q. Central seotion'skin (steel v$ approx. 80 kg/mat)
114 Weldi points
12. Veneer
SECRET'1
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
r rI Y1 YY ~1 tr w ray ` _Mm a
I.WW Y_ -Nr ?r rW M~ Y
rIMlrIY ~, ,~ra41Yr~ rl+l ?YYlrrl~lrll
IY rrir~r; rrrlriilrlr~
Y,:.
?I.Y, / M r.~ r - 1r wM W. pi Y i it
^I:.nu Y~ Y ?A/ll rN r 5 Y w. /fir a rN ,tl. d., ~; ~'1
5 ^ai Mkl saf11ma r11 r WI w r~rr4 r: rni 6oaY4,~~
IA V0,07
For legend see page 28.
.. ? - Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081 OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/0.7: CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007-55X1
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
For legend see page 28.
Sum
27
Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
0
rib
 Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001600390007-5
25X1
- 28 -
LAYOUT AND DETAILS OF TAIL ASSAULT (R-11
(LEGEND TO PAGES 2, 26, AND e
) 188h1 )
1e Tail cone
2. Fin
3? Rudder (plywood)
4. Central section
5. Joint reinforcement (plywood)
6. Tail cone oasinf (plywood)
7. Former (plywood)
8. motor
9? Conic-shaped.thrust.._frame .(dural a rox. 40
pP kg/a~a2)
Pormer ...(.d ucal 0
10.. ..approx 40.,.kg/as?.
1111... C Fin,and...rudder Teading edge protector (steel)
onneoting...rib, glued and screwed to tail casing
13 Rib (
l
p
. yzood)
. 14. Auxiliary-.spar (plywood)
J.5. Rudder-shield (plywo.od) 2
17o . Rudder....XWt (sisal r apppprox. 40 kg/as )
16 Upper... rudder shaf t.....be~r
18 . Rib.(steel 6' approx. 60 kg/as2)
19. Rear.atm.ciliaf y spar (steel,. approx. 60 kg/as2)
Rudder shaft (ste.ei c appro. 40 kg sat)
21 Main spar (steel 6" approx. 60 kg/ms
22'. Lower rudder shaf t8bearing
23. Rudder lever (steel)
24. Jet vane
25. Bracket for support of rud~d r shaft and for a rating ol.aissile aa,
launching platform steel OH approx. 60 kg/aa')
26. Guide for push rod (steel
27. Tail ring former Ssteel approx. 60 kg/=2)
28. Fin forward skin (plywoodf
29. Screws
30. Fin rear skit (steel 6!8 approx. 60 kg/sat)
31. Screw
$2. Screw
33. Rudder bass late (steel)
34. Fin and rib (plywood)
35? Screw
36. Screw
37.? Mounting flange (steel ( approx. 60 kg/mm?.)
38. Screw
.39. Screw .
40. Slot in central sec ion skin
41. Motor profile ring steel) 2
42. Support ring (steel f8 approx. 60 kg/mm )
43. Rivet
44? Glued reinforcement (plywood)
45,. Screws
SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/07':`CIA-RDP80-00810A001600390007.5? ..