What is it about the V-2???

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Mugs914

Beware of the leopard.
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
2,380
Reaction score
4,073
Location
Temple TEXAS
Please understand that this isn't a rant...

Please understand that I'm not picking on anyone...

Please understand that this is a genuine question and there is no ulterior motive or implication...

Please understand that this is for entertainment purposes only...

Please understand that no animals were harmed in the composition of this question...

Please understand that any resemblance to questions living or dead is purely coincidental...

But:

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE V-2!!!?

Why is it that everyone who has ever produced a rocket kit has produced six versions of the V-2?

Why is it that when a manufacturer asks the forum what scale kits they would like to see, everyone seems to want yet another V-2 kit?

Why is it that the V-2 is the P-51 Mustang of the rocket world?

Why is it that I don't understand the apparently overwhelming popularity of the V-2?

Okay, sorry; that was five questions...

Seriously though, the mystique of the V-2 escapes me. I don't have one in my fleet, but most likely will at some point because I like scale models. I have nothing against it, it just seems to be much more popular than I understand.

So what is it that appeals to you about the V-2? Is it the historic significance? The variety of schemes? Nostalgia for B sci-fi movies on Saturday mornings ("Yeah Lloyd, just run the film backwards, it'll look like its landing...") ? It just looks cool to you?

Please help me understand the appeal!

Again, to review:

No need to point out that there are thousands of V-2 kits because it is popular. (That is a given)

No need to point out that manufacturers want to sell as many kits a possible and try to appeal to a broad market. (See above)

No need to get upset if the V-2 is your all-time, bestest most favoritest rocket of all time and you named your daughter Veeteaux. (This isn't personal.)

So, why do you love it?
 
Why do I like the V-2?

It's fat, funky, and historic.

I may not like my women like that, but a rocket like that .....is just fine.
 
Yeah, it has historic value. Yeah, lotta people like it for a number of different reasons, but.....BUT, I don't have one, I think I might have built one back in the 60's because I like boattails. I don't want one either. Scale building is a preference to many here, and I suppose, most of those builders prolly have one in their fleet. I've built a few scalers in my time, but I think the V2 is ugly. It reminds me of a fat cartoon cigar with fins. Prolly the reason I didn't get in on the TRF Logo Rocket Contest way back when. Retro rocketing really isn't my bag either.
 
When you say the word "rocket".... the V2 is the first thing that comes to my mind. It's the classic look. It's historically significant....and just plain looks cool. Plus, they fly really, really great. Get the right motor to weight sorted, and they'll lift off slowly, accelerate, and fly straight and true. Very, very much like the real thing. They're tough but simple. You can fly the crap out of one. They're a great blank canvas to customize to your heart's content.

I love the V2 and it's in my top 5 flyers....with Astron Sprint XL and Der Red Max. I'm working on an Estes 3228 right now, with several upgrades to make it a strong frequent flier along with Max and Astron.

My favorite rocket is the Saturn V. The current one in my fleet is too precious to risk.....but I plan to build another now that Estes has re-released it....with upgrades and improvements to make it a frequent flyer.
 
Despite the fact I like the V-2 - I've only had two...one was a small Estes kit I took to school for show and tell, and someone stole it. Never flew.

Years later when the mighty D motor came out, a bunch of us in college got the BAR bug around1975..I built the Estes Maxi brute V-2.
It instantly CATOed on the launch rail.
I gutted it and repaired it - and it did it again next launch.
It took me awhile to gain faith in those new "D motors".

So now I have an unbuilt Loc V-2 kit in the corner of the room ....if I think I can avoid the V-2 curse I may actually build it and fly it.
 
Historic, kinda fat, big tail cone that gives it a furtuistic look, interesting fins
 
P51 R/C plane over a V-2. I often wondered that same. It might be one of those pay tribute, milestone, significance kits to have or something in your fleet that anyone instantly recognizes.
 
The historic value can't be understated. It really is the seminal rocket for all rocketry that followed. This includes the Saturns, the SCUDs, and so many others. It also heavily influenced sci-fi rocket design throughout the 50s and 60s. I got into rocketry after reading a Von Braun biography, and it was a big part of his career. But if you've ever looked at the engineering of the original, it's more than that.

The V2 doesn't have straight sides. The fuselage shape is difficult to reproduce in a model rocket, and pretty much every kit out there is only an approximation. The fins can also be a challenge to shape correctly. I know I've messed them up on a couple of builds. There are a lot of details typically omitted by the kits. If you're one of the many skilled scale modelers on this forum, or aspire to be, there's a lot of detailing you can add to the kit. Paint schemes are many and varied.

In a lot of ways it sums up model rocketry - pick your challenge. I built one when getting back into rocketry after many years to relearn some old skills, As I expected, I messed it up in many ways. I have another in progress to correct those mistakes. And I'll be adding some details. Then I'll build an HPR.

It's just such a fascinating rocket!
 
The V-2 was truly the most powerful, liquid-fueled ballistic missile of its time. Yes, it is sloppy on the stability scale, but for that reason if you hit it with a fast burning motor on my 7.5" model, during coast mode it whistles to where it echos of the nearby treeline.
My brother always says "Real rockets have 4 fins" LOL
Next year we'll be out there with the fleet and white lab coats irritating the V-2 non-believers!
 
It was the first real, modern rocket/missile. Sure, you could argue Goddard, but his stuff never went very high. The V2 is the real granddaddy of all that came after it.
 
It was the first real, modern rocket/missile. Sure, you could argue Goddard, but his stuff never went very high. The V2 is the real granddaddy of all that came after it.

This. The V-2 is the Rosetta Stone of modern rocketry. Every rocket that has flown since the V-2 was developed is arguably influenced by it to some degree.

James
 
I'll just chime in...I never really thought much of it, in fact I thought it was ugly for most of my rocketing life. As I build and fly more, with restricted launch sites, I have started liking fatter rockets. Also, looking at the construction and understanding more about aerodynamics, I've started liking boat tails...all of a sudden, the V-2 design has become a lot more appealing. In a lot of ways, the V-2 was way ahead of its time.
 
A big fatty scale design with historical significance and a boat tail and multiple, cool schemes to choose from? Sign me up, I have an Estes 2.6" kit just waiting for me to get to it.

Someone at a recent launch I attended flew a big V2 on a fast sparky. It was one of the 2 or 3 coolest launches of the weekend. See my YT channel of the OROC launch to watch it go. Pretty inspiring.
 
Last edited:
"Real rockets have 4 fins" That quote just made my day!!
I've personally never built a V2 myself. It would not be my first "go-to" kit if I'm flying. But I LOVE to watch them.. the drag and grunt with a fast burn is awesome to watch imho

The V-2 was truly the most powerful, liquid-fueled ballistic missile of its time. Yes, it is sloppy on the stability scale, but for that reason if you hit it with a fast burning motor on my 7.5" model, during coast mode it whistles to where it echos of the nearby treeline.
My brother always says "Real rockets have 4 fins" LOL
Next year we'll be out there with the fleet and white lab coats irritating the V-2 non-believers!
 
No need to get upset if the V-2 is your all-time, bestest most favoritest rocket of all time and you named your daughter Veeteaux. (This isn't personal.)

In Louisiana, that would be pronounced Vee-Toe, like the Italian Vito. :wink:

I've never built a V-2, but I will at some point. When I was younger, I had a friend who bought the Estes kit one day and we launched it the very next day, sans paint, and it drifted right into the woods. We never saw it again. :facepalm:

As has been said by others, it's the historical significance of it as a true rocket, and especially its importance to the American space program.
 
I will add something I didn't see mentioned above. Four finned rockets with fins that extend bwlow the motor retainer are easy to build. Clamp a straightedge onto opposing fins during assembly and they are going to be dead straight to each other.

There are lots of ways to get dead straight fins, but the V-2 design makes it very easy on a builder of any skill level.
 
Maybe this explains the fascination of the V-2?


[video=youtube;v-adQTsFMLE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-adQTsFMLE[/video]
 
My affinity is also because most US V-2s were tested near where I grew up. There was one on display nearby and my Dad had a photo of himself next to one at WSMC.
 
If it were not for the V-2 testing, Russia would have stepped on the moon.
And the thought of that sends chills up my spine.

I thought the Russians got loads of V-2s and parts after WWII just like us.
What they didn't have was Von Braun.
Von Braun hid out with a lot of his technical papers and staff so they could surrender to the US Army.
We would have won the 1st to space had they unleashed Von Braun earlier, that gave the Russians a slight leap ahead of us.

Russia's rocket czar insisted on using huge clusters of smaller engines. Odds were when one blew it took out the whole cluster.
Their last moon rocket test detonated like a small nuke warhead. That was the end of their moon program.
 
Last edited:
I thought the Russians got loads of V-2s and parts after WWII just like us.
What they didn't have was Von Braun.
Von Braun hid out with a lot of his technical papers and staff so they could surrender to the US Army.
We would have won the 1st to space had they unleashed Von Braun earlier, that gave the Russians a slight leap ahead of us.

Russia's rocket czar insisted on using huge clusters of smaller engines. Odds were when one blew it took out the whole cluster.
Their last moon rocket test detonated like a small nuke warhead. That was the end of their moon program.

Actually, we let Russia get to space first...

Because the Russians flew their satellite over the US first, without permission, they couldn't bitch about us flying satellites over them, as they would have, had we done it first.

[video=youtube;6WMBPYWQ7EA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMBPYWQ7EA[/video]
 
I thought the Russians got loads of V-2s and parts after WWII just like us.
What they didn't have was Von Braun.
Von Braun hid out with a lot of his technical papers and staff so they could surrender to the US Army.
We would have won the 1st to space had they unleashed Von Braun earlier, that gave the Russians a slight leap ahead of us.

Russia's rocket czar insisted on using huge clusters of smaller engines. Odds were when one blew it took out the whole cluster.
Their last moon rocket test detonated like a small nuke warhead. That was the end of their moon program.

The reason they used clusters was because they had strict deadlines and larger engines, while more reliable and efficient, require much more technology that just hadn't been developed. It may have also been an attempt to make a toroidal aerospike. (doubted)
The "rocket czar"...
The first one died. The second one wasn't as persuasive or knowledgeable and had to give in to the government. However, both were still good people (to some extent, they should have just given all their stuff to us, eh?) and refused to put people on it unless the vehicle was proven effective... or until the government forced them to.
 
As an engineer I appreciate the mechanics of the V2. Today we have computerized control systems, variable position control hydraulics, etc, etc. Back on the 30s and 40s, it was almost all mechanical linkage, chain drive and so on. And it was definitely one of the most significant missiles ever!
 
Russia's rocket czar insisted on using huge clusters of smaller engines. Odds were when one blew it took out the whole cluster.
Their last moon rocket test detonated like a small nuke warhead. That was the end of their moon program.

At the time the N1 was developed the technology was very new and developing The smaller Kuznetsov engines were designed using the best technology at the time. They were learning...
 
Because... just because, so there.

More info, OK. :)

If they never had the V2, we would never have had Tintin's moon rocket.

We would never have had the Tintin moon rocket if we didn't have the preceding 3 finned test bed - the XFLR-6. Which was important for no other reason than it gave Karl Hemphill and I, the opportunity to paint a rocket in 'kooool' colours10.jpg.

Photo courtesy of CATO, David Bell of Australia of the 1/4 scale XFLR6, M1850.

Cheers
 
Here's some more crunchy V-2 goodness to enjoy:

[video=youtube;2cuz9Kguye4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cuz9Kguye4[/video]

James
 
"Real rockets have 4 fins" That quote just made my day!!
I've personally never built a V2 myself. It would not be my first "go-to" kit if I'm flying. But I LOVE to watch them.. the drag and grunt with a fast burn is awesome to watch imho

Between my brother and I we have your LOC 4", 5.5" and the 7.5".
We even made a 3" out one of your tubes and 2 old nose cones!
"It's a disease for which there is no cure", D. Shaw once told me about motorcycle drag racing.
 
Back
Top