# P-61 alternatives



## pinehilljoe (Nov 11, 2020)

Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.




I suspect not, for two reasons. One is that the USAAF didn't have quite the constraints on aircraft size, weight, and runway needs as did the USN, so they had little incentive to constrain themselves to a single-engine aircraft. The second reason, which is much more speculative, is that the USN night fighters seemed to be more defensive in their application, as night CAP aircraft, vs the USAAF night fighters, at least in Europe, which seemed to operate more in direct support of offensive operations. I'm quite willing to be corrected by someone with actual knowledge of this, as I've just read a couple of articles about US night fighter operations, so vast knowledge is not something I have on this particular topic. I think it's interesting that the USN did have at least a couple of two-seat night/all-weather fighters post-WW2, for example the F7F-2N and the Douglas F3D.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 12, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect not, for two reasons. One is that the USAAF didn't have quite the constraints on aircraft size, weight, and runway needs as did the USN, so they had little incentive to constrain themselves to a single-engine aircraft. The second reason, which is much more speculative, is that the USN night fighters seemed to be more defensive in their application, as night CAP aircraft, vs the USAAF night fighters, at least in Europe, which seemed to operate more in direct support of offensive operations. I'm quite willing to be corrected by someone with actual knowledge of this, as I've just read a couple of articles about US night fighter operations, so vast knowledge is not something I have on this particular topic. I think it's interesting that the USN did have at least a couple of two-seat night/all-weather fighters post-WW2, for example the F7F-2N and the Douglas F3D.



Only one thing to add to that; I remember reading (but not the name of the book!) of many P-61 night interdiction missions in Europe, especially against rail yards and trains.


----------



## eagledad (Nov 12, 2020)

Gentlemen,

The 547th Night Fighter Squadron had at least 2 single seat P-38J's equipped with APS-4 radar. The aircraft were modified at the depot in Townsville, Australia. Although they were credited with one of the squadron's 7 victories, they were not considered successful as night fighters, but useful as night intruders.

Eagledad

Source Queen of the Midnight Skies, pages 235 and 236. Victories found on page 356.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 12, 2020)

The P-38 Lightning would probably be the easiest single-seat, albeit twin-engine, US fighter to put a radar into; the single-engine fighters all needed the radar to be installed in a pod on one wing, and probably had to have quite a bit of rearrangement to stuff the electronics into the fuselage. For the P-38, it would be comparitively straightforward to install the radar into a nose radome and enlarge the pod to accommodate the electronics. 

As an aside, I think that the USAAF would have had a better night fighter had the turret and gunner had been designed out of the aircraft. Even sticking with the twin-boom format (generally sub-optimal due to excessive wetted area), something like the P-61E would likely be equally effective and significantly faster.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2020)

The P-82 was equipped with the APS-4 (and later versions) although it was a bit late to the war.

A good alternative to the P-61, though, may have been the XP-58 f it weren't for the troublesome engines and the ridiculous flip-flopping on the armament configurations (which rivals the RLM's reputation) that took too long to resolve.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-82 was equipped with the APS-4 (and later versions) although it was a bit late to the war.
> 
> A good alternative to the P-61, though, may have been the XP-58 f it weren't for the troublesome engines and the ridiculous flip-flopping on the armament configurations (which rivals the RLM's reputation) that took too long to resolve.



When I worked at Lockheed I met a guy who worked on the XP-58. He said it was a maintenance nightmare but when it worked it flew like a bat out of hell.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 12, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> As an aside, I think that the USAAF would have had a better night fighter had the turret and gunner had been designed out of the aircraft. Even sticking with the twin-boom format (generally sub-optimal due to excessive wetted area), something like the P-61E would likely be equally effective and significantly faster.



The XP-61E wasn't a lot faster than the P-61A/B, maybe 7 or 8mph.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2020)

For comparison

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 13, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The XP-61E wasn't a lot faster than the P-61A/B, maybe 7 or 8mph.



The P-61E used the same engines as the P-61B I believe.
The real screamer was the XP-61F version using the P-61C turbocharged engines; it was pegged for 440mph vs the P-61C's 430. With cameras instead of armament it was the F-15 reporter.

It is a credit to the Northrup design team that the three-crewed, turreted P-61 night fighter versions were only ~10mph slower than the comparable two-seat day fighter versions.


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 13, 2020)

The "C" series turbosupercharged engines in the P-61C (similar to those in the P-47N) solved the performance problems of the P-61, finally fast enough (430 MPH), with a good climb rate and ceiling (41,000 ft). That being said, the P-61C continued the slightly-snakebitten fate of the P-61 in general because the first production version of the P-61C was just delivered in July 1945, and arrived at the front just too late for service during the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 13, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The P-61E used the same engines as the P-61B I believe.
> The real screamer was the XP-61F version using the P-61C turbocharged engines; it was pegged for 440mph vs the P-61C's 430. With cameras instead of armament it was the F-15 reporter.



I don't think that there was an XP-61F.

The first XF-15 was converted from the first XP-61E (the second having being written off in a take-off crash).

The second XF-15 was converted from a P-61C.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 13, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I don't think that there was an XP-61F.
> 
> The first XF-15 was converted from the first XP-61E (the second having being written off in a take-off crash).
> 
> The second XF-15 was converted from a P-61C.



The F was the proposed fighter version of the F-15. Think of the C with the E fuselage. It was not built, as the P-82 was chosen as the long range escort fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 13, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.



The night fighter version of the Douglass A20 Havoc known as the P70 might have been fitted with PW R-2800 engines. With 18% more power and less drag due to the smaller diameter engines it should have a decent performance. I suspect 350mph. Fitting navy two stage supercharger engines even more. The A26 Invader seems a good candidate as well.

The Germans tried radar on the Me 109 and Fw 190. The pilot could tell range and approximately how far up/down left/right the target was but they found staring into an abstract oscilloscope destroyed his precious night vision. I really don’t know how the USN got around this. The radar would have to be so good the pilot didn’t need night vision.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 14, 2020)

J
 jmcalli2


How were interdictions done at night?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 14, 2020)

Fw had a NF 190 but never came across a 109 NF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 14, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Fw had a NF 190 but never came across a 109 NF.
> View attachment 601825


Agreed - the /R11 Fw190s were radar equipped, the Bf109s were radar directed (no radar equipment aboard).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 14, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Fw had a NF 190 but never came across a 109 NF.
> View attachment 601825


Any of these left?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 14, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The night fighter version of the Douglass A20 Havoc known as the P70 might have been fitted with PW R-2800 engines. With 18% more power and less drag due to the smaller diameter engines it should have a decent performance. I suspect 350mph. Fitting navy two stage supercharger engines even more. The A26 Invader seems a good candidate as well.
> 
> The Germans tried radar on the Me 109 and Fw 190. The pilot could tell range and approximately who far up/down left/right the target was but they found staring into an abstract oscilloscope destroyed his precious night vision. I really don’t know how the USN got around this. The radar would have to be so good the pilot didn’t need night vision.



There are red phosphors for CRTs, although I don't know if they were used at the time.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> There are red phosphors for CRTs, although I don't know if they were used at the time.


We used to put lightly exposed radiographic film over the screen to darken it but it only partly solves the issue, I could still see a green line for hours after finishing work every time I shut my eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 14, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.



Hi

Well if the P-61 is unavailable then the USAAF may well have asked the British for more Beaufighters, such as the 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th NF squadrons of the 12th Air Force used in the Middle-East, equipped from June-August 1943. Or maybe asked for Mosquitos from the British. Both these types were also used for night-interdiction as well as night fighting.

Mike

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 14, 2020)

the reason I'm curious if studies were done for the P-47 is the P-61's relatively low speed.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 14, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The night fighter version of the Douglass A20 Havoc known as the P70 might have been fitted with PW R-2800 engines. With 18% more power and less drag due to the smaller diameter engines it should have a decent performance. I suspect 350mph. Fitting navy two stage supercharger engines even more. The A26 Invader seems a good candidate as well.
> 
> The Germans tried radar on the Me 109 and Fw 190. The pilot could tell range and approximately who far up/down left/right the target was but they found staring into an abstract oscilloscope destroyed his precious night vision. I really don’t know how the USN got around this. The radar would have to be so good the pilot didn’t need night vision.



The difference in diameter is 2.2 inches.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 14, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> J
> jmcalli2
> 
> 
> How were interdictions done at night?



It's been a while since I read it. Wish I remember where I read




it. A quick google search found this site; Beware the Black Widow | History | Air & Space Magazine
I've included a screenshot also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 14, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The difference in diameter is 2.2 inches.


And you would need to redesign the nacelle to reduce the frontal area - probably not going to help because the MLG pretty much fills the nacelle.

I do like the idea of the twin Pratts with 2 stage blowers but then again I prefer working on Pratts and the sound of them.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> We used to put lightly exposed radiographic film over the screen to darken it but it only partly solves the issue, I could still see a green line for hours after finishing work every time I shut my eyes.




 BiffF15
Having been "disturbed" recently by Typhoons on exercise Crimson Warrior which always involved flights at night, how does the pilot use a head up display at night, doesn't it eliminate the use of eyes to see anything outside of the plane? From what I know and have experienced about human night vision, it is better than most people think it is because very few people use it. As I understand it, it takes 20-30 minutes for eyes to become used to very low light and only a seconds use of artificial light to take you back to needing that 20-30 minutes again. For a while when I was training, I had to develop macro photographs that had to be developed under minimum safelight conditions (no red light as you see in the movies). To be honest it was easier to literally learn to do it with your eyes closed, like a truly blind person, than wait the 20 minutes needed for your eyes to pick up what little could be seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> BiffF15
> Having been "disturbed" recently by Typhoons on exercise Crimson Warrior which always involved flights at night, how does the pilot use a head up display at night, doesn't it eliminate the use of eyes to see anything outside of the plane? From what I know and have experienced about human night vision, it is better than most people think it is because very few people use it. As I understand it, it takes 20-30 minutes for eyes to become used to very low light and only a seconds use of artificial light to take you back to needing that 20-30 minutes again. For a while when I was training, I had to develop macro photographs that had to be developed under minimum safelight conditions (no red light as you see in the movies). To be honest it was easier to literally learn to do it with your eyes closed, like a truly blind person, than wait the 20 minutes needed for your eyes to pick up what little could be seen.



pbehn,

Prior to wearing NVG’s we would just turn it down, along with all the interior lights, and acclimate. When NVG’s came out, we would turn off all interior lights, turn the HUD down super low, and get fairly decent use out of the goggles. I didn’t care for the NVGs as they were heavy, and if not well focused, would give me unbelievable eyeball headaches. Or they would come off during heavy maneuvering and would smash into your dangly bits with a lot of force... While wearing them we would look around the HUD, and if we needed to look through it would look under the NVGs. They sit far enough away from your eyes that its easy.

The NVGs had some good uses and not so good ones. Good ones were long range visual pick ups with the right conditions, of other fighters. Or doing rejoins on the tanker (although it looked like a spaceship at times). You could probably land without any exterior lights if there was enough zodiacal light (star light) or a little of the man made type. Bad ones were seeing two lights, one brighter than the other, and assuming that the dimmer was further away (not always the case). Annoying weight, could come off, and were a pain in the arse.

What I can’t answer is how the Helmet Mounted Sights integrate, if at all. If a jet carries a Pod of some sort (or IRSTS) it could probably be integrated. We also have data link now, and that is incorporated into the Helmet. If forced to fly with one or the other, I would take the helmet. When i flew with NVGs I got to the point were I only pulled them on when getting close to other guys.

Long winded answer, hope that covers it.

Cheers,
Biff

PS: Realize I leave a lot of stuff out to prevent some info from being compromised.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2020)

There was a reason the P-61 was as big as it was. Aside from carrying the turret it was supposed to stay in the air for a certain number of hours.

The A-20 is a much smaller airplane, 

The P-61 carried 646 US gallons of fuel internal to feed it's two stage, supercharged navy style engines. Normal fuel capacity of an A-20 was 400 gallons in the wings. Yes on the later models it could use fuel tank/s in the upper bomb bay. But then the later P-61s got drop tanks. Some got a fuel tank in place of the turret (?). 

P-61 put the intercooler intakes and carb intakes in the wing just outboard of the nacelles, which is where the outer wing tanks are on an A-20. 

P-61 wing area, 664 sq ft
A-20 wing area 464 sq ft. 
Beaufighter.......502 sq ft
Mosquito...........454 sq ft.

The US got both reverse lend lease Beaufighters and Mosquitos to use as Night fighters while waiting for the P-61. 
Perhaps a good reason why they weren't interested in single engine fighter lash-ups. Or spending a lot of time redesigning the A-20 to take bigger engines, not to mention the A-26 first flew in the summer of 1942.


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 14, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The difference in diameter is 2.2 inches.


2.2 inches is a 5% reduction in diameter results in a 10% reduction in frontal area and therefore 10% less drag. It is substantial.
Then there is the 18% to 30% increase in power In addition to options such as water injection and two stage superchargers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2020)

R-2800-65s as used in the P-61A's and later aircraft were about 550lbs heavier each than the R-2600s used in the A-20s. 
This does NOT include the weight of the intercoolers, the ducting or the larger propellers. It does not include the weight of the oil coolers and the oil and/or any other "accessories". 

The 2nd A-26 prototype, ordered in June of of 1941, was to be a night fighter version.




four 20mm in the belly pod. This plane used single stage, two speed engines. 

Going backwards and trying to install the heavier 2 stage engines in the older A-20 airframe was not going to happen in my opinion. Granted the A-26 program slipped (rather badly) but going back and redoing so much of the A-20 means a much later introduction of the A-26.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> 2.2 inches is a 5% reduction in diameter results in a 10% reduction in frontal area and therefore 10% less drag. It is substantial.
> Then there is the 18% to 30% increase in power In addition to options such as water injection and two stage superchargers.


When you use the diameters to calculate the area it is a 8% difference.

You also have to take into account that the A-20 was a generation behind the



P-61 in aerodynamics. Remember the A-26 used R-2800s but also had much better aerodynamics as a next generation design, yet managed only 42MPH more, 317mph to 359MPH on 800 more HP; hardly competition for the P-61's 366 to 430MPH. In fact, a version of the A-26 was evaluated as a night fighter and rejected in favor of the P-61.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 15, 2020)

Why do you keep mentioning performance for an a/c that never saw combat?

The first P-61C aircraft was accepted by the USAAF in July of 1945. However, the war in the Pacific ended before any P-61Cs could see combat. The forty-first and last P-61C-1-NO was accepted on January 28, 1946. At least thirteen more were completed by Northrop but were scrapped before they could be delivered to the USAAF. Northrop records show an additional 400 P-61Cs with 1945 serial numbers to have been on order, with blocks 5 and 10 being at least in the planning stages.


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 15, 2020)

I think the oft-quoted figures touting P-61 performance are slightly off. AAF Manual 45-59-1 _Security Classification and Selected Data on AAF Aircraft and Equipment_ dated August 1945 was, itself, formerly classified Confidential. Page 23 describes the P-61A and P-61B with the unclassified max speed as "Over 375 mph." Critically, the classified max speed is listed as 363 mph 15,000 feet (formerly Restricted). What matters to me is that the P-61 was the only aircraft in the document to list a classified max speed _lower _than the unclassified max speed.

Another note explains that the P-61C will have the CH-5 turbo-supercharger for high altitude performance. No projected high speed is listed, but internal memos note that the P-61C's actual high speeds were dismally below projections.

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 15, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Why do you keep mentioning performance for an a/c that never saw combat?
> 
> The first P-61C aircraft was accepted by the USAAF in July of 1945. However, the war in the Pacific ended before any P-61Cs could see combat. The forty-first and last P-61C-1-NO was accepted on January 28, 1946. At least thirteen more were completed by Northrop but were scrapped before they could be delivered to the USAAF. Northrop records show an additional 400 P-61Cs with 1945 serial numbers to have been on order, with blocks 5 and 10 being at least in the planning stages.


Maybe because the other guy was talking about an A-20 with R-2800s, a plane that never existed.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 15, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> When you use the diameters to calculate the area it is a 8% difference.


 And if you cannot slim nacelle because of the MLG and other things that hide there then the reduction in area is zero.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 16, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> AAF Manual 45-59-1 _Security Classification and Selected Data on AAF Aircraft and Equipment_ dated August 1945



Hi Dana
Interesting sounding document but I can find no trace of it using Dogpile
Is it available on line that you know of?
Mi


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 16, 2020)

Hi Mi,

No such luck - it's in the T2 section, formerly classified, bulky reports section of RG18 (CDF 1943-45) at the National Archives. I suspect there are copies at Maxwell too, but I've not looked there.

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 16, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> I think the oft-quoted figures touting P-61 performance are slightly off. AAF Manual 45-59-1 _Security Classification and Selected Data on AAF Aircraft and Equipment_ dated August 1945 was, itself, formerly classified Confidential. Page 23 describes the P-61A and P-61B with the unclassified max speed as "Over 375 mph." Critically, the classified max speed is listed as 363 mph 15,000 feet (formerly Restricted). What matters to me is that the P-61 was the only aircraft in the document to list a classified max speed _lower _than the unclassified max speed.
> 
> Another note explains that the P-61C will have the CH-5 turbo-supercharger for high altitude performance. No projected high speed is listed, but internal memos note that the P-61C's actual high speeds were dismally below projections.
> 
> ...



Maybe this will help on the P-61C:
Northrop P-61C Black Widow


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 18, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> When you use the diameters to calculate the area it is a 8% difference.
> 
> You also have to take into account that the A-20 was a generation behind the
> View attachment 601986
> P-61 in aerodynamics. Remember the A-26 used R-2800s but also had much better aerodynamics as a next generation design, yet managed only 42MPH more, 317mph to 359MPH on 800 more HP; hardly competition for the P-61's 366 to 430MPH. In fact, a version of the A-26 was evaluated as a night fighter and rejected in favour of the P-61.



The P-61 had two stage intercooled superchargers (originally developed for the US Navy) while the A-26 had single stage superchargers. Latter version of the A26 managed over 400mph. The superior speed of the P-61 over the A26 comes almost certinly down mainly to the P-61 being able to maintain power to higher altitude. The altitude of maximum speed suggests this (16000ft versus 20,000ft).

The R-2800 appears to be about 300lbs heavier than the R-2600 but I suggest it is within the capacity of the A20 to handle especially as the bomb bay would not be used.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 18, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The P-61 had two stage intercooled superchargers (originally developed for the US Navy) while the A-26 had single stage superchargers. Latter version of the A26 managed over 400mph. The superior speed of the P-61 over the A26 comes almost certinly down mainly to the P-61 being able to maintain power to higher altitude. The altitude of maximum speed suggests this (16000ft versus 20,000ft).
> 
> The R-2800 appears to be about 300lbs heavier than the R-2600 but I suggest it is within the capacity of the A20 to handle especially as the bomb bay would not be used.




Do you have a source for 400mph A-26? I've never seen it over 370.
Later versions of the P-61 were at 430mph.
And 370 is amazing at the altitudes it was designed to fly at, under 15,000.
The P-61 was designed for 15-20,000+ altitudes, thus the supercharger differences.

However, my point was replying to the idea that an A-20 with R-2800 engines would be better than the P-61. I just used the A-26 as an example of a more advanced aircraft (than the A-20) using those engines being roughly equal or slightly inferior to the P-61; therefore, the less advanced A-20 would not likely perform better. If it would, why build the A-26 at all?

I'm a fan of all three aircraft. Only the A-26 was still in combat 20 years after its first flight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The R-2800 appears to be about 300lbs heavier than the R-2600 but I suggest it is within the capacity of the A20 to handle especially as the bomb bay would not be used.


 
The two stage supercharged engines in the P-61 were 550lbs heavier than the R-2600s. the Single stage engines used with turbos were only about 300lbs heavier but then you need the weight of the turbos, the ducting, the larger intercoolers. You also have the larger, heavier propellers, without which there isn't much point in putting in the fancy high altitude engines. 

And again, design work was being done on the A-26 through most of 1941. Doing design/engineering work on an R-2800 powered A-20 is only going to delay the A-26.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2020)

Something to consider when proposing bombers for night fighters (or fighter duties in general) was that _MOST_ bombers were not stressed for fighter like maneuvers. 
The B-25 for instance was rated at up to 3.8 Gs up to certain weight and under 3.0 (2.7 or 2.8 Gs? ) above that weight. 
Granted most night fighters were not doing high G turns but there may be point on the gross weight scale you don't want to go above when doing hard maneuvers even if it is below "gross" weight. 

The high weight airframe of the Ju 88 that was left over from the dive bomber requirement may have been a benefit when it was used as a fighter/night fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 19, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Do you have a source for 400mph A-26? I've never seen it over 370.
> Later versions of the P-61 were at 430mph.
> And 370 is amazing at the altitudes it was designed to fly at, under 15,000.
> The P-61 was designed for 15-20,000+ altitudes, thus the supercharger differences.
> ...



Re the 400mph Invader

Douglas A-26 Invader
XA-26D but I believe a few 2800hp water injected engines made it into solid nose A-26. I remember reading that they went 'hunting' Luftwaffe fighters, I think on rec.aviation,military.

If the US need a night fighter in 1943 the A20 is the only game in town, else it's the B-26.

Imagine the scenario of Luftwaffe bombers attacking the US east coast at night.
1 In 1936 Luftwaffe's General Walter Weaver doesn't die in an aircraft crash.
2 He builds up a small force of Ju 89/Do 19 4 engine bombers, about 40, that are far more effective than Fw 200 in supporting the German Navy and also conduct nuisance raids all over the British Isle. They even attack the ships attacking Bismarck.
3 In 1939 When Ernst Heinkel approaches the German Air ministry warning of the problems in developing the He 177 as a two engine aircraft and Weaver agrees. The He 177 enters service in 1941 at the same time as the Manchester powered of 4 Jumo 211 engines. He 111 production is shut down.
4 His reputation growing and the Heinkel He 177 a great success he has Willy Messerschmitt develop the Me 264/6m, the 6 engine version of the Me 264 rather than the 4 engine version because he rejects waiting years for advanced engines to develop. Instead of the Me 264 flying in December 1942 the well supported Me 264/6m flies a few months earlier.
In October 1943 the first production Me 264/6m are coming of production lines. Soon Carrying copies of captured H2S radar they begin sewing mines of the US coast and attacking harbour and port targets.

Would the P-61 be ready?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 19, 2020)

Comparisons using the A-20 are not valid - you must compare using the P-70 which I suspect was somewhat slower due to the additional drag of the gun package below the belly and the aerodynamics of the gun installation. All those holes in the gun bulge for the barrels and spent brass and spent links degrade aerodynamics. Add to that the effects of the additional armour that late A-20 models carried which the actual P-70s did not and you lose more performance. Hanging an aerodynamic a***hole under the streamlined A-20 fuselage is definitely going to significantly degrade performance on an aircraft where speed is one of the prime requirements.

Redesigning the late A-20s to take 4 cannon in the nose and the ammo in the bomb bay as well as the R-2800s would have reduced these issues but there is no spare room under floor for the ammo ducts to these would cancel some of the gains. And it would lose the radar in the nose so could not be a night fighter. Diverting design staff from the *multi-role *A-26 to achieve the *night fighter only* super P-70 is going to make the A-26 even later into service and definitely be counterproductive.

I love the A-20. It is easy to work on for major operations and the major components are very easy to remove/replace which is great for field repairs but I do not think the claimed super P-70 performance is realistic and I also think the A-26 was a more important project.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 19, 2020)

There were two P-38F's converted into two seat night fighters and went into combat in the Pacific as early as Feb 1943. They installed an SCR-540 radar that operated in the VHF band, the American version of the British Mk IV radar, not the APS-4. They put a radar operator in the radio compartment behind the pilot and installed the regular radio equipment in a drop tank. They installed the radar antenna on the nose (like the one that comes for the MK II Mosquito in the Monogram kit) and had to move two of the .50 cal guns forward.

But Lockheed came out with what would have been a great nightfighter version of the P-38, called the Swordfish, which was designed to investigate the diving problems. 

There was one P-51D converted into a two seat radar equipped fighter, using a spilt bubble canopy. They used it late in the ETO but not as a nightfighter; it was designed to enable enemy aircraft to be spotted in the daytime.

Pictures from Warren Bodie's book on the P-38.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 19, 2020)

The first photo was a 2seat conversion used by Lockheed for research. The wings are shown with built up airfoils and spray fittings on port side for iceing tests. Because of the second seat and recording gear, the center fuselage was lengthened which incidentally increased speed. I suspect if a different canopy were used, the increase would be greater.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 19, 2020)

special ed said:


> The first photo was a 2seat conversion used by Lockheed for research. The wings are shown with built up airfoils and spray fittings on port side for iceing tests. Because of the second seat and recording gear, the center fuselage was lengthened which incidentally increased speed. I suspect if a different canopy were used, the increase would be greater.



That should show that a two-seat, night fighter variant of the P-38 would not be too much of a stretch, and possibly a better path than the P-61.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pararaftanr2 (Nov 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The night fighter version of the Douglass A20 Havoc known as the P70 might have been fitted with PW R-2800 engines. With 18% more power and less drag due to the smaller diameter engines it should have a decent performance. I suspect 350mph. Fitting navy two stage supercharger engines even more. The A26 Invader seems a good candidate as well.
> 
> The Germans tried radar on the Me 109 and Fw 190. The pilot could tell range and approximately how far up/down left/right the target was but they found staring into an abstract oscilloscope destroyed his precious night vision. I really don’t know how the USN got around this. The radar would have to be so good the pilot didn’t need night vision.



Red filters on the screen, and / or goggles with red lenses were used by the Navy to preserve night vision.

Below is a 1945 photo of Buck Dungan, USN Hellcat nightfighter ace, wearing an electrically heated leather flight suit. Note the red lens goggles carried for night vision adaption prior to takeoff and for use, when needed, in flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 19, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> I think the oft-quoted figures touting P-61 performance are slightly off. AAF Manual 45-59-1 _Security Classification and Selected Data on AAF Aircraft and Equipment_ dated August 1945 was, itself, formerly classified Confidential. Page 23 describes the P-61A and P-61B with the unclassified max speed as "Over 375 mph." Critically, the classified max speed is listed as 363 mph 15,000 feet (formerly Restricted). What matters to me is that the P-61 was the only aircraft in the document to list a classified max speed _lower _than the unclassified max speed.
> 
> Another note explains that the P-61C will have the CH-5 turbo-supercharger for high altitude performance. No projected high speed is listed, but internal memos note that the P-61C's actual high speeds were dismally below projections.


I'm curious if you have any data for fuel consumption at altitude. There was one here for the P-61A/B here, and I'm just curious how things would have worked out if the P-61A/B had been fitted with turbos.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 19, 2020)

Yes, there were NF versions of the BF-109. From the book "Confound and Destroy."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 19, 2020)

Where are the radar antennas? Both 109s and 190s did ground radar directed night intercepts.

*Wilde Sau* (German for *wild boar*) was the term given by the Luftwaffe to the tactic used from 1943 to 1944 during World War II by which British night bombers were engaged by single-seat day-fighter aircraft flying in the Defense of the Reich. It was adopted when the Allies had the advantage over German radar controlled interception.


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 19, 2020)

The 109s equipped with Naxos Z could home in on the H2X/H2S transmissions of night bombers. (You can see the dorsal NAXOS dome aft of the canopy on the second aircraft (#9) in the illustrations above.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 19, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious if you have any data for fuel consumption at altitude. There was one here for the P-61A/B here, and I'm just curious how things would have worked out if the P-61A/B had been fitted with turbos.



Here are some notes on the P-61D's projected performance. Note that Wright Field didn't take Northrop's projections as gospel; experience would show that Wright Field was smart about this...

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 19, 2020)

I've been organizing my notes on the P-61 for an article on America's WW2 search for a night fighter. The following are synopses of the complete documents - I hope they help with the continuing discussion:


5 Jun 42 2,000 hp – R-2880-25 (sic)

19 Sep 42 P&W reps to install oil jet in camshaft of two production R-2800-10s for XP-61 to eliminate failures encountered in previous two engines

17 Nov 42 P&W R-2800-10 not designed to provide 1800hp at 21,000' or 1875hp at 14,000' at normal rated power. “In fact, it will not deliver these horsepowers if at military rated power.”

11 May 43 Request dash number of R-2800 2-stage B and C engines to be used in P-61; also what is approx date of change from B to C type engine?

13 May43 No dash number assigned to 2-stage C engine. The R-2800-10 2-stage B engine will be used in all P-61 production

26 May 43 Flight characteristics note R-2800-10

7 Jun 43 Reports two R-2800-10s

7 Sep 43 R-2800-10s will continue to use cast ignition harnesses until GE ignition systems can be provided and approved by P&W

11 Nov 43 Request Aircraft Lab estimate high speed and rate of climb curves using water injection with present engines, and also using military and war emergency power with type C engine

12 Nov 43 Recommend replacing current engines with R-2800-C with water injection, or adding water injection to present R-2800-B engines

23 Nov 43 Repeat 12 Nov 43

26 Nov 43 HISTORY - BuAer allowed to take over entire production of R-2800-10; Army not to receive more of this engine until Mar 1944

2 Dec 43 R-2800-10 will not be available for proposed increase in P-61 production

17 Dec 43 Performance curves provided for R-2800-B with water injection, since C-type engine cannot be fitted to the aircraft without major redesign of nacelles because of greater engine length

30 Dec 43 Orders test of one P-61 with R-2800-C with single stage, single speed, turbosupercharger.

1 Jan 44 Discussion of automatic speed shift for R-2800-10 – does not appear desirable at this time

7 Jan 44 report on P-61 with water injection, calculated

27 Jan 44 Test of water injection in 2-stage, 2-speed to commence this date. Incorporation of turbocharged 1-stage, 1-speed R-2800-C is continuing and awaiting letter of quotation 

12 Feb 44 Water injection R-2800-B ground testing ended 5 Feb; flight testing to begin approx 16 Feb

11 Mar 44 There is a shortage of R-2800-10 engines. Studies have been made of water injection addition to both R-2800-C and R-2800B. Action initiated to install R-2800-57 with CH-5 turbos; this is favored by Materiel Command over R-2800-18 (2-stage type C)

17 Jun 44 Desire every effort to establish production of R-2800-C in P-61, Two P-61As have been delivered to Goodyear to incorporate R-2800-C 1-stage, 1-speed engines and CH-5 turbos. First modification expected to be complete in Sept 1944. Now studying 2-stage 2-speed R-2800-C in case 1-speed, 1-stage doesn’t work out.

1 Aug 44 Water injection appeared on the production line on P-61 41-556 (the 96th a/c) and all subsequent articles

12 Aug 44 Desire R-2800-C with CH-5 turbo ASAP.

25 Aug 44 Installation of C engine has been a very slow process. Not expected to be available until next May or June - by that time it will be outclassed by other fighters, and not capable as a day fighter

28 Aug 44 Performance report lists powerplant as R-2800-65-W. Water/alcohol injection caused failure of exhaust stacks

1 Mar 45 Cold weather tests note that water injection system froze on every test flight (no alcohol used)


Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikemike (Nov 20, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Where are the radar antennas? Both 109s and 190s did ground radar directed night intercepts.



The Fw190 profile number 5 shows the horizontal dipole antennas of the FuG 218 radar under the port wing. This was the "Neptun III V1" for single-seaters, the "V2" version for multi-seat aircraft was used on the Me 262 night fighters and also on some Ju88 night-fighters, with about 500 sets of both variants delivered. The set had a power of 2 kW, maximum range was 5 km (just over 3 miles) and minimum range 120 m (400 ft). Earlier single-seat NFs were equipped with the FuG 217 "Neptun II J I" with a range of 3500 m (3800 yds).






Picture on lower right shows the FuG 218 installation on a Fw190; lower left shows the display, replacing the SZKK ammunition counter. Upper right shows the display picture of FuG217, with one blip at a range of 1,3 km straight ahead and one blip at 2,2 km slightly to the left. Upper left shows the FuG 217 antennae on the Fw190 (for those who can't understand the German captions).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 20, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Re the 400mph Invader
> 
> Douglas A-26 Invader
> XA-26D but I believe a few 2800hp water injected engines made it into solid nose A-26. I remember reading that they went 'hunting' Luftwaffe fighters, I think on rec.aviation,military.
> ...


Well, the A-20 in its P-70 version wasn't up to the task; too slow, too low a rate of climb. And as others have said, redesigning it for the R-2800 would have delayed the A-26. 

Thanks for that XA-26D info!


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 22, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> Comparisons using the A-20 are not valid - you must compare using the P-70 which I suspect was somewhat slower due to the additional drag of the gun package below the belly and the aerodynamics of the gun installation. All those holes in the gun bulge for the barrels and spent brass and spent links degrade aerodynamics. Add to that the effects of the additional armour that late A-20 models carried which the actual P-70s did not and you lose more performance. Hanging an aerodynamic a***hole under the streamlined A-20 fuselage is definitely going to significantly degrade performance on an aircraft where speed is one of the prime requirements.
> 
> Redesigning the late A-20s to take 4 cannon in the nose and the ammo in the bomb bay as well as the R-2800s would have reduced these issues but there is no spare room under floor for the ammo ducts to these would cancel some of the gains. And it would lose the radar in the nose so could not be a night fighter. Diverting design staff from the *multi-role *A-26 to achieve the *night fighter only* super P-70 is going to make the A-26 even later into service and definitely be counterproductive.
> 
> I love the A-20. It is easy to work on for major operations and the major components are very easy to remove/replace which is great for field repairs but I do not think the claimed super P-70 performance is realistic and I also think the A-26 was a more important project.




It appear the first P-70A, being derived from the Havoc light bomber, didn't have a superchargers at all, zilch. These versions apparently still managed 329mph. Latter versions, equipped with superchargers seemed to achieve 339mph despite the draggy modifications you refer to. This obviously at a higher altitude. They may even have been slower at lower altitude.

With plain PW R-2800 offering 300 more hp (18%) I would estimate 6% (20.4mph) more speed ie 360mph, maybe more due to abut 3% less drage.

Intercooled two stage R-2800 would probably be too heavy but single stage would add only 300lbs of weight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> It appear the first P-70A, being derived from the Havoc light bomber, *didn't have a superchargers at all, zilch*.



The engines used in the P-70, the P-70A and the P-70B had single stage two speed superchargers. power in high gear was 1400hp at about 11-12,000ft no RAM. 

2nd model Engines used the Martin B-26 bomber gave 1600hp at 13,500ft no Ram. Used 4 bladed props about 1 ft in diameter bigger than the 3 blade props on the A-20/P-70.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> It appear the first P-70A, being derived from the Havoc light bomber, didn't have a superchargers at all, zilch.



Every version of the R-2600 ever built had a supercharger just like every version of the Allison V-1710 used by the USAAF had a supercharger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 22, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> Every version of the R-2600 ever built had a supercharger just like every version of the Allison V-1710 used by the USAAF had a supercharger.


These superchargers were internal, built right into the engine casing, thus easily overlooked by uninformed individuals in the information chain. I was astounded in mech school, when tearing down and reassembling radial engines, to find a supercharger and planetary reduction gear neatly tucked into each nose case. My previous experience with direct drive flat fours and sixes hadn't prepared me for that at all.
When I first saw the articulated counterweights in a Wright engine, I realized why they always sounded and felt like they were trying to clatter themselves to death at idle. A T28, C1, S2, or C117 could shake your fillings out idling on the ground.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Re the 400mph Invader
> 
> Douglas A-26 Invader
> XA-26D but I believe a few 2800hp water injected engines made it into solid nose A-26. I remember reading that they went 'hunting' Luftwaffe fighters, I think on rec.aviation,military.
> ...



Well before the German trans-Atlantic bombers would be. Unless they plan on having one-way missions for these aircraft, they'll need close to 10,000 mile still-air range. Many of the shortest flight paths from most of occupied western Europe overfly the UK, which would not exactly go unnoticed by the RAF. These same flight paths travel over the Maritimes and New England, another group of places that would likely notice bunches of aircraft. 

US and RAF bombers got slaughtered by the Luftwaffe unless escorted. Why would the USAAF and RCAF be unable to do the same to the unescorted German bombers? The US did have fighters that weren't P-61s and, bluntly, it had a number of medium bombers that would have the performance and load-carrying capability to intercept German trans-Atlantic bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 23, 2020)

There are people will argue you until they are blue in the face that such and such did not have a supercharger because they think only Turbos are superchargers and that built in mechanically driven superchargers are "blowers."

Just think about the B-29. It had a mechanically driver supercharger on each R-3350 and two turbos for each engine, for a total of twelve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Nov 26, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.


I read an article years ago that stated that night flying was tried in the P-47 but the red glow from the turbo supercharger was very visible in the night sky and left a glowing streak across the night sky where it flew. It was decided to leave it as a day fighter!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 26, 2020)

The P-47's supercharger system was encased in the fuselage (unlike the P-38's), not sure how it could be seen all that well from the outside.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 26, 2020)

and there was little, if any, infrared tracking available.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Nov 26, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Were any USAAF studies or prototypes made of trying to fit the APS-4 radar into a single place fighter like the P-51 or P-47, similar to the deployment in the F4U-4N or F6F-3N. The P-38M was late to the War.



The P-38M used a different radar than the APS-4: they used the SCR540 carried in a pod below the nose. This unit was also used on some P-70 and PV-1 aircraft. It weighed 181lbs, or less than half the 415lbs of the SCR720 radar in the P-61 and some P-70s. The radar in the P-61 had almost three times the range (17,000 yards vs 6,000 yards for detecting bombers) of the P-38M radar.
The AN/APS-6 radars used with the F6F night fighter variants had a 10,000 yard range for bombers and weighed 242lbs.
The AIA radar was used on the F4U and some F6F night fighters. It weighed 242lbs and could detect a bomber at 8,000 yards.
Some P-70s used the SCR520 radar. This unit weighed 477lbs and could detect bombers at 10,000 yards.

Interesting reading here: 
US Night Fighter Radars of WWII

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Nov 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The two stage supercharged engines in the P-61 were 550lbs heavier than the R-2600s. the Single stage engines used with turbos were only about 300lbs heavier but then you need the weight of the turbos, the ducting, the larger intercoolers. You also have the larger, heavier propellers, without which there isn't much point in putting in the fancy high altitude engines.
> 
> And again, design work was being done on the A-26 through most of 1941. Doing design/engineering work on an R-2800 powered A-20 is only going to delay the A-26.



All of which is just the beginning of the changes caused by the bigger engines: CG moves forward, or some things get shifted around to compensate; fuel consumption increased, so shorter range or added fuel tanks (resulting in more weight increase); engines moved out farther on the wing to accommodate the bigger props - and soon you have an airplane that doesn't meet the P-70's original design goal of a quick proof of concept, and doesn't achieve the P-61's speed and endurance goals. Sometimes the best thing to do is start all over.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## unkated (Dec 1, 2020)

There were a few 109s outfitted with Naxos passive receivers, which were used to track Allied bomber navigation radars. Most German single seat fighters use at night used _Wilde Sau_ tactics, where the pilots looked for bombers against ground lights or cloud illuminate by groups of searchlights. 

*pacific Night Fighters* By the time the Allies (USAAF had effective nightfighters in the field, there was little Japanese night activity, so they were used as night intruders. Most of the same aircraft were also used at night in Korea. 

*Night Interception Operations*
During WW2, most nightfighters on both sides developed similar operational modes, since air-intercept radars all suffered similar limitations of range and scope. The interceptor worked with an intercept radar, usually ground based*, that could see both the target and the interceptor, and would direct the interceptor to come from behind at the target to the 2-5 mile range that the air-intercept (AI) radar. The radar was not good enough to shoot by, but allowed the NF to track an close to within a few hundred yards of the target - about the minimum range of the AI radar. Then the pilot completed combat visually. So, AI radar only covered the middle ground.

* I said usually, but in late 1944, the RAF loaded radar into light bombers and used them east of England to control interceptions of German bombers flying north out of Holland to air-launch V1s after they lost launch sites in France and Belgium. Early AWACS!

Uncle Ted

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 2, 2020)

unkated said:


> * I said usually, but in late 1944, the RAF loaded radar into light bombers and used them east of England to control interceptions of German bombers flying north out of Holland to air-launch V1s after they lost launch sites in France and Belgium. Early AWACS!


I have an article on that somewhere. It was a Wellington AWAC paired with a NF Mossie, iirc.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 2, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> There are red phosphors for CRTs, although I don't know if they were used at the time.


I remember reading (back in the '70's) that either the Graf Zeppelin or the Hindenburg had red phosphorus instrumentation to aid in night navigation from the gondola, so if true, no reason a Fw-190 might have it several years later.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 2, 2020)

Milosh said:


> I have an article on that somewhere. It was a Wellington AWAC paired with a NF Mossie, iirc.



From the Wikipedia entry on the Blenheim:

Blenheim Mk IF
Night fighter version, equipped with an AI Mk III or Mk IV airborne interceptor radar, armed with four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in a special gun pack under the fuselage. About 200 Blenheim Mk Is were converted into Mk IF night fighters.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Well before the German trans-Atlantic bombers would be. Unless they plan on having one-way missions for these aircraft, they'll need close to 10,000 mile still-air range. Many of the shortest flight paths from most of occupied western Europe overfly the UK, which would not exactly go unnoticed by the RAF. These same flight paths travel over the Maritimes and New England, another group of places that would likely notice bunches of aircraft.
> 
> US and RAF bombers got slaughtered by the Luftwaffe unless escorted. Why would the USAAF and RCAF be unable to do the same to the unescorted German bombers? The US did have fighters that weren't P-61s and, bluntly, it had a number of medium bombers that would have the performance and load-carrying capability to intercept German trans-Atlantic bombers.




The Me 264V1 flew just before Christmas, December 22 1942. The Northrop P-61A entered production, but not service in October 1943.

The Me 262V1 underwent a test program and then within a few months was upgraded from Jumo 211F engines to BMW801. Using the Jumo 211F (not even the better Jumo 211J) was a waste of time as the Dornier Do 217E0 and Do 217E1 had been flying with the BMW801 since mid 1940 and the engine was debugged by 1941.

The aircraft arising out of this was to be the Me 264V3 which was the prototype reconnaissance bomber. It featured extended wing tips and some changes to wing/tail plane incidence to overcome handling issues detected in the V1.

It was adequate to attack the US East coast, just. At 9300 miles range of the top of my head. Paris to New York is 3600 (7200 round) so within range from Brest, Paris, France even Berlin with about 2000kg bombs. The aircraft WAS NOT designed to hit the US but was a long range recon and to communicate with the far east etc. I would suggest load out would be 4 x 500kg LMB mines. The aircraft was lightly armed. 20mm waist guns, nose guns and a dorsal turret. Proper armament would need to wait till 2400hp DB603H engines were available.

The mines would be dropped in shipping lanes, maybe rivers and ports. If they hit land they blew up within15 seconds.

The Me 264V3 was capable of 340mph so a 362mph P61A or P61B would have trouble catching it. 40 minutes of nitrous oxide was planed. A diving attack makes interception difficult.
It would be big enough for carrying the FuG 224 Berlin ground mapping radar (modified H2S) or just ordinary moon/star navigation. U-boats could also deposit Schwann-See radio marker buoys.

The aircraft received little support from Milch and lacked sufficient engineers and draughtsman applied and was eventually bombed. To be fair Messerschmitt was still reeling from the Me 210 disaster when an aircraft was put into production with wrong tooling before the test program was complete. The Ju 288 and He 177 were also in trouble.

Had the Me 264 it been supported correctly from the beginning it could have been flying missions before 1943 was out.

The Me 264/6m (also known as the Me 364 was a 6 engine version with stretched wings and fuselage armed with the 20mm armed B24 liberator style tail turret. It had 6 x Jumo 211 engines. This is the version the RLM/Luftwaffe could have built instead and was simple enough. About the size of a B-29 but slimmer fuselage, 6 engines and less bomb load about same hp. Certainly capable of 10,000 miles. These was nothing in this beyond the capability of German industry, certainly no ridiculously ambitious engines. Abandon the He 177, Ju 288 then this thing would be a lot less risky, just big and expensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 6, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> From the Wikipedia entry on the Blenheim:
> 
> Blenheim Mk IF
> Night fighter version, equipped with an AI Mk III or Mk IV airborne interceptor radar, armed with four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in a special gun pack under the fuselage. About 200 Blenheim Mk Is were converted into Mk IF night fighters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Me 264V1 flew just before Christmas, December 22 1942. The Northrop P-61A entered production, but not service in October 1943.
> 
> The Me 262V1 underwent a test program and then within a few months was upgraded from Jumo 211F engines to BMW801. Using the Jumo 211F (not even the better Jumo 211J) was a waste of time as the Dornier Do 217E0 and Do 217E1 had been flying with the BMW801 since mid 1940 and the engine was debugged by 1941.
> 
> ...




The Me-264 top speed was over 350mph, but that was with GM-1 which only lasted a few minutes. The Me 264 cruise speed was around 217mph.
The Me-264 first flew in December 42, but the engine change to the BMWs was in LATE 43, about a year later.
Only three Me-264s were built.
The first prototype was damaged in late 43 and never repaired; the second and third prototypes were destroyed in bombing raids and the project was dropped.

Messerschmitt Me 264 - Wikipedia

As for a P-61 catching the Me-264, the process would do most of the work: P-61s patrolling in assigned combat areas and directed to the threat by ground control. A P-61 at 340mph should be able to close on a Me-264 cruising at under 240mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 7, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The Me-264 top speed was over 350mph, but that was with GM-1 which only lasted a few minutes. The Me 264 cruise speed was around 217mph.
> The Me-264 first flew in December 42, but the engine change to the BMWs was in LATE 43, about a year later.
> Only three Me-264s were built.
> The first prototype was damaged in late 43 and never repaired; the second and third prototypes were destroyed in bombing raids and the project was dropped.
> ...



I’m using an iPad so I’ll be fairly point form.

Wikipedia just keeps getting worse. It’s displaced a lot of good sites with accurate information and reintroduced bad information from the 1940s and 1950s. I have a book on me 264 but I like this
Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry

1 You are quoting economical cruising speed rather than maximum cruising speed. Maximum cruising speed would usually be 85%-90% of maximum speed. Max speed was at least 520kmh/325mph without nitrous so about 275mph. 

2 598 of nitrous oxide was carried which would last 40 minutes continuous. Nitrous oxide used on aircraft, in german use, was not usually used to hot rod them (though this could be done) so there was no restriction on time. It was applied above the full pressure altitude of the engine to maintain power therefore no increased stress. Speed increase from thinner air. It was lighter than intercoolers, supercharger for 30-40 minutes NOX supply. By 1944 emergency power had no time restriction on the 801. So with nitrous 340mph Max speed for 15 minutes maybe 305 cruise in 1943.

3 The BMW801 engines replaced the Jumo 211F in August 1943. My point was that the BMW801 was flying in Do 217 E0 and E1 in 1940 already so it was a waste of time not installing them to begin this.

The Me 264 was starved of resources. This was due to a combination of the failures of the He 177, Ju 288 and Me 210 program as well as the hatred Milch had for Messerschmitt. If the resources wasted on the above were put into the Me 264 I contend raids on the us East Coast could have occured in 1943.

The P70 is probably slower than an Me 264 while the P61A and P61B have such a small speed margin (22-26mph) I doubt they’d get an intercept especially if the Me 264 used it’s nitrous to climb to 30,000ft and dived. Such tactics worked against the RAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 7, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I’m using an iPad so I’ll be fairly point form.
> 
> Wikipedia just keeps getting worse. It’s displaced a lot of good sites with accurate information and reintroduced bad information from the 1940s and 1950s. I have a book on me 264 but I like this
> Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry
> ...



My understanding of Nitrous boost was that too much of it would burn out the engines.

And when would the crew of the bomber know when to use it? The P-61 had radar, the Me-264, all three of them, never carried it.

And lastly, there were only 3 of them built, so you may as well ask if the P-61 could intercept a B-58.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 7, 2020)

Write up and history of the Me264, Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 8, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> My understanding of Nitrous boost was that too much of it would burn out the engines.
> 
> And when would the crew of the bomber know when to use it? The P-61 had radar, the Me-264, all three of them, never carried it.
> 
> And lastly, there were only 3 of them built, so you may as well ask if the P-61 could intercept a B-58.



Nitrous oxide, formulae N2O, adds oxygen and nitrogen. The oxygen supports combustion, the nitrogen provides additional working fluid. Furthermore the nitrous is very cool because it is either cryogenic or expanding, hence it cools the mixture down, contracting the air and allowing more air in to the engine.

The Nitrous Oxide is added at a rate approximately as the same rate as the fuel flow. Of the top of my head the Jumo 213E on the Ta 152H had three flow rate settings. For each 100 grams of fuel flow there could be added 50 grams, 80 grams or 130 grams of Nitrous Oxide. 

I consideration of NO containing 1.5 times more O than Air and adding in at 1:1 flow rate we can say that its equal to about 10% more power and boost at sea level (ignoring crygoenic effects)

However if you are using it at say above 20,000ft that increases power much more proportionately there.

So long as the nitrous is not being added to increase rated sea level power but to maintain power above rated full pressure altitude the engine isn't stressed. Some slight issues in terms of cooling in the thinner air, which fortunately is colder.

GM1 was used on the Ju 88S1 (with BMW801 engines), on the Me 109 and on the Ju 88S3 (with Jumo 213 engines). Some Arado 440 used for recon may have gotten it and the Ta 152H1 (about 10) which aircraft used it with MW50 in 20 minute bursts.

As to when to turn it on

1 Approach the US coast
2 As the Radar Horizon at 20,000ft is 348km/216 miles accelerate the aircraft using combat/military power to about 300 mph at 220 miles from the coast.
3 At 150 miles from the coast (ie 30 minutes out (12 minutes after potential detection by US SCR-272 radar) turn on the GM1 and then climb ( at 310mph) to about 27,000ft. That should take 10 minutes.
4 Level out, maintain 325 mph for 5 minutes.
5 Change course.
6 Change course again.

The P70 have no chance of getting an intercept. The P61A, if its in service would be challenged.

The aircraft could begin at 400mph dive about 50 miles out.

Tail warning radar might be available on such a large aircraft.

They could lay mines in a harbour. If the mines missed they'd blow up around the port. They may avoid a city entirely and just target shipping lanes.

The US would spend a lot of resources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2020)

120mm AA guns, around 500 built, most stayed in the US. there were some 105mm AA guns. 

Hard as it is to believe, the US had not only heard of, but did have minesweepers (mostly for submarine laid mines).

Me 264 mine laying sorties to America? 
a lot of resources spent for little result.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 8, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Nitrous oxide, formulae N2O, adds oxygen and nitrogen. The oxygen supports combustion, the nitrogen provides additional working fluid. Furthermore the nitrous is very cool because it is either cryogenic or expanding, hence it cools the mixture down, contracting the air and allowing more air in to the engine.
> 
> The Nitrous Oxide is added at a rate approximately as the same rate as the fuel flow. Of the top of my head the Jumo 213E on the Ta 152H had three flow rate settings. For each 100 grams of fuel flow there could be added 50 grams, 80 grams or 130 grams of Nitrous Oxide.
> 
> ...




Great info on the German boost methods, thanks.

Intercept is moot; the only three aircraft built were destroyed on the ground.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 604244
> 
> 
> 120mm AA guns, around 500 built, most stayed in the US. there were some 105mm AA guns.
> ...




Generally, you develop counters to what you know the enemy CAN do, what you THINK the enemy can do, and what YOU can do.
The USA also had many coastal artillery units that hindsight says were a 'waste of resources,' but then, hindsight is 20-20.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 9, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Generally, you develop counters to what you know the enemy CAN do, what you THINK the enemy can do, and what YOU can do.
> The USA also had many coastal artillery units that hindsight says were a 'waste of resources,' but then, hindsight is 20-20.





Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 604244
> 
> 
> 120mm AA guns, around 500 built, most stayed in the US. there were some 105mm AA guns.
> ...



The 120mm guns make my point: the mere fear of a Luftwaffe bomber tied up resources such as these.

The Me 264 could have worked. Although 2500 meter (8200ft) sealed runways are common these days for transatlantic flight they were a problem for the Germans since they were bombing targets. Hence until the 2400hp DB603H became available RATO would be needed so that 1500m runways were an option. The alternative was in flight refuelling immediately after take-off (to shorten the take-off) which the Luftwaffe had proven in 1942/42 in hose/drogue style refuelling between JU 290 and Ju 252 in 1942.

I don't see either RATO or In flight refuelling a problem in 1943.

US defences would have been formidable. SCR-272 early warning radar, SCR-584 AAA radar, proximity fuses and picket ships (themselves targets that needed protection).

My view is that the US would need to obtain Mosquitos. The turbosuperchargerless P-61A and B couldn't cut it. The P61C was not in service before June 1945.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 9, 2020)

Where is this air to air refueling to take place?


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 9, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Where is this air to air refueling to take place?



Two main options.
1 Shortly after a reduced weight takeoff, to allow a shorter runway to be used, immediately after cruise altitude is established.
2 A buddy to buddy refueling 1/3rd of the nominal maximum range (say 3000 miles out) to add 3000 miles range. A failed rendezvous would still allow an abort.
3 A combination of the above.
Schwann-Luft or Schwann-See radio marker transmitters could be used or the aircraft could be flown In formation till transfer.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 10, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The 120mm guns make my point: the mere fear of a Luftwaffe bomber tied up resources such as these.
> 
> The Me 264 could have worked. Although 2500 meter (8200ft) sealed runways are common these days for transatlantic flight they were a problem for the Germans since they were bombing targets. Hence until the 2400hp DB603H became available RATO would be needed so that 1500m runways were an option. The alternative was in flight refuelling immediately after take-off (to shorten the take-off) which the Luftwaffe had proven in 1942/42 in hose/drogue style refuelling between JU 290 and Ju 252 in 1942.
> 
> ...




By the time the Me-264 could become operational the US would be guarded by P-61C (430mph) and P-82E & P-82F.

As for the Me-264 "working," you're talking about 40-47 hour missions with a crew of 7. There is a reason it was dropped by the German Navy and Airforce; it didn't "work."


----------



## Milosh (Dec 10, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Two main options.
> 1 Shortly after a reduced weight takeoff, to allow a shorter runway to be used, immediately after cruise altitude is established.
> 2 A buddy to buddy refueling 1/3rd of the nominal maximum range (say 3000 miles out) to add 3000 miles range. A failed rendezvous would still allow an abort.
> 3 A combination of the above.
> Schwann-Luft or Schwann-See radio marker transmitters could be used or the aircraft could be flown In formation till transfer.


Where are these airfields located?

3000 miles would put the a/c just off the coast of the USA.


----------



## wlewisiii (Dec 10, 2020)

The best P-61 alternative would be to take your friendly neighborhood TARDIS to Northrup late in the war to copy the P-61E drawings and then hop back to the beginning of the program at Northrop and swapping them for the P-61 prototype drawings... 😎

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2020)

wlewisiii said:


> The best P-61 alternative would be to take your friendly neighborhood TARDIS to Northrup late in the war to copy the P-61E drawings and then hop back to the beginning of the program at Northrop and swapping them for the P-61 prototype drawings... 😎


 Trouble is they will take one look at the Plans for the P-61E and say

1. Where is the Turret????
2. How do we fit the radar in the nose????

XP-61E was an escort fighter, not a night fighter.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 10, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Two main options.
> 1 Shortly after a reduced weight takeoff, to allow a shorter runway to be used, immediately after cruise altitude is established.
> 2 A buddy to buddy refueling 1/3rd of the nominal maximum range (say 3000 miles out) to add 3000 miles range. A failed rendezvous would still allow an abort.
> 3 A combination of the above.
> Schwann-Luft or Schwann-See radio marker transmitters could be used or the aircraft could be flown In formation till transfer.



In-flight refuelling had been trialed since 1923 (https://www.amc.af.mil/Portals/12/documents/AFD-141230-027.pdf) and, shockingly, nobody used it. 

In any case, any significant raid would be noticed because many routes from western Europe to the continental United States cross the UK. I'm sure that the RAF would completely ignore a large number of German bombers overflying their territory, so that's not a problem. Nor is the fact that that HM Government would send a cable or a phone call to the US Government to the effect of "hey, guys, there's a big bunch of nazi bombers heading in your direction. The RAF got a few, but we couldn't get all of them" likely to cause any trouble.

As mentioned earlier, the US had several airframes that could be converted to night-fighters had there been an immediate need. NACA ginned up a two-seat, instrumented P-38 in a few months. Lockheed could produce a two-seat nacelle with adequate room for an AI radar. All the waste heat from the plethora of vacuum tubes could be used to heat the cockpit, thereby reducing the risk of frostbite. In other words, was there a need, the US Government would reset priorities and spend some time yelling at airframe manufacturers to get the behinds in gear and get this done _now_, otherwise the USAAF cuts some contracts and buys Mosquitoes from Canada.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 12, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> In-flight refuelling had been trialed since 1923 (https://www.amc.af.mil/Portals/12/documents/AFD-141230-027.pdf) and, shockingly, nobody used it.
> 
> In any case, any significant raid would be noticed because many routes from western Europe to the continental United States cross the UK. I'm sure that the RAF would completely ignore a large number of German bombers overflying their territory, so that's not a problem. Nor is the fact that that HM Government would send a cable or a phone call to the US Government to the effect of "hey, guys, there's a big bunch of nazi bombers heading in your direction. The RAF got a few, but we couldn't get all of them" likely to cause any trouble.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, the US had several airframes that could be converted to night-fighters had there been an immediate need. NACA ginned up a two-seat, instrumented P-38 in a few months. Lockheed could produce a two-seat nacelle with adequate room for an AI radar. All the waste heat from the plethora of vacuum tubes could be used to heat the cockpit, thereby reducing the risk of frostbite. In other words, was there a need, the US Government would reset priorities and spend some time yelling at airframe manufacturers to get the behinds in gear and get this done _now_, otherwise the USAAF cuts some contracts and buys Mosquitoes from Canada.



The Early Me 264 airframe, based on the Me 264V3 using DB801 radial engines of about 1700-1900hp , would have a range of 14,000km. The latter versions based on the using DB603H engines (essentially a DB603L of 2400hp) would have 17,000km range.

I have no photographs of the successful in flight refuelling equipment in 1942/43 between Ju 290/252 aircraft and actually order for the He 177A1 (till it ran into engine problems) but there are sketches. The receiver had a hose drogue and trailed it down to the tanker, optionally a boom to ensure good separation from turbulence. The Tanker had a telescoping probe with a Y fork and a hook that snagged the drogue ball, this was taken into the tanker aircraft and attached. Results were good.

Erhard Milch was as cynical as you, due to his acrimony against Messerschmitt but the only issue I see is rendezvous and that could be done with a variation of the Schwann-See and Schwann luft navigation beacons.

There would be reconnaissance by radar and ELINT capable aircraft to route around allied picket ships and carriers. A Fw 190 has a range of about 500 miles so can escort and fight out to 500km/300 miles (usually the first dog leg). Fitting 12.5 gallon tanks in the outer gun bays and a 25 gallon tank in the tail would add 50 gallons and probably extend range 40%. to 450 miles.

Below are a number of routes.

The first one departing Brest is 5668km or 11300km. Anything less than 6250km leaves 1500km reserve for a round trip in the 14000km version. The 17000km version can pretty much attack direct from German territory. 

View attachment 604725
View attachment 604725

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 12, 2020)

The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 12, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The 120mm guns make my point: the mere fear of a Luftwaffe bomber tied up resources such as these.
> 
> The Me 264 could have worked. Although 2500 meter (8200ft) sealed runways are common these days for transatlantic flight they were a problem for the Germans since they were bombing targets. Hence until the 2400hp DB603H became available RATO would be needed so that 1500m runways were an option. The alternative was in flight refuelling immediately after take-off (to shorten the take-off) which the Luftwaffe had proven in 1942/42 in hose/drogue style refuelling between JU 290 and Ju 252 in 1942.
> 
> ...




And the Me-264 was never in service.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 12, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.



Not 'what if" but "fantasy".


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 12, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.



I'm quite sure that the US would take no notice of German radio transmissions from Greenland.

I think _all_ of this talk of Germany fielding trans-Atlantic bombers to attack the mainland US relies on the US doing absolutely nothing in response. While there were certainly Americans who were (and are) living under figurative rocks regarding nazi Germany, they were largely not in positions of power. They'd be even farther from those positions had a German bombing raid hit a minor US city, let alone someplace major. Penny-packet nuisance raids could be handled by a couple of fighter squadrons. Raids numerous enough to inflict real damage could be handled by reallocating resources being devoted to the war against Japan.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 12, 2020)

Whether or not the ME-264 existed or not, the US would have had those heavy duty anti aircraft guns anyway. I can’t imagine the Arsenal of Democracy not anticipating that need.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 12, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I'm quite sure that the US would take no notice of German radio transmissions from Greenland.
> 
> I think _all_ of this talk of Germany fielding trans-Atlantic bombers to attack the mainland US relies on the US doing absolutely nothing in response. While there were certainly Americans who were (and are) living under figurative rocks regarding nazi Germany, they were largely not in positions of power. They'd be even farther from those positions had a German bombing raid hit a minor US city, let alone someplace major. Penny-packet nuisance raids could be handled by a couple of fighter squadrons. Raids numerous enough to inflict real damage could be handled by reallocating resources being devoted to the war against Japan.



And the bases would have been bombed that were in range. Someone also forgot that "range" is not "combat range" which is typically 1/3 of "range".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Whether or not the ME-264 existed or not, the US would have had those heavy duty anti aircraft guns anyway. I can’t imagine the Arsenal of Democracy not anticipating that need.


The Me264 existed, but only in prototype form.
The U.S. did have considerable AA batteries installed in strategic locations on both coasts.
The U.S. also had fighter squadrons, both Army and Navy (plus Marines) situated in key locations on both coasts.
Add to that constant ASW patrols by Navy, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol, inner coastal patrols by Army and Civil Air Patrol on both coasts PLUS patrols by RCAF that interlaced with US patrols at the border on either coast.
Not much was going to get through.

The only way the Japanese managed to bomb the West Coast, was with a sub-launched aircraft - It acheived zero success.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 12, 2020)

re the P-70 and P-61 vs night attacks by bombers.

From: Air Defense Command Historical Study No.14 "History of Air Defense Weapons 1946-1962"

P-70 TTH was 45 min to 22,000 ft "and at that altitude Japanese medium bombers could outrun it."

"In one of the few instances where the P-61 was used for air defense purposes, the results were not encouraging. Between October 1944 and January 1945 the Japanese made 63 night bombing raids on Morotai, an important AAF base approximately midway between New Guinea and the Philippines. GCI radar detected 33 of these and P-61 aircraft went aloft to make the interception 61 times. On only five occasions was the raiding bomber destroyed. Malfunctions in the airborne radar were most often blamed for unsuccessful interceptions."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 12, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me264 existed, but only in prototype form.
> The U.S. did have considerable AA batteries installed in strategic locations on both coasts.
> The U.S. also had fighter squadrons, both Army and Navy (plus Marines) situated in key locations on both coasts.
> Add to that constant ASW patrols by Navy, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol, inner coastal patrols by Army and Civil Air Patrol on both coasts PLUS patrols by RCAF that interlaced with US patrols at the border on either coast.
> ...


Did you forget the balloons?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Did you forget the balloons?


No, I didn't include the FuGo ballons because they were random events, not a conventional attack via bomber(s).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 12, 2020)

I know. Just being pedantic.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2020)

In regards to my what if Me 264 attacking the US East Coast (all the way to Florida)


The Me 264 V1 flew in December 1942 on basic 1350hp Jumo 211F engines. It could easily have flown earlier, 6 months I assert, and earlier with far more powerful BMW 801D2 engines (1700hp) since these had been thoroughly mature since the beginning of that year. (The 1450hp Jumo 213J was capable of the mission at 13000km instead of 14000km)
Its known the program was starved of resources: engineers, draftsman, hanger space etc which slowed the program down. Messerschmitt was suffering from the impact of the problems with the Me 210, the whole bomber program was suffering from the non-performance of the He 177 and the failure of the Ju 288 program. Had some of these programs been sensibly rescheduled and re-specified or cancelled none of this wastage would have occurred and the Me 264 program would be properly resourced. Erhard Milch told Will Messerschmitt to concentrate on the Me 262 Jet instead and sarcastically remarked about structural problems in the Me 109F0 (turned out to be engine-flutter interaction fatique.)
A Mission from Occupied Europe to the East Coast USA does not require flight refuelling. Nevertheless in flight refuelling would extend range and warlord considerably and quite deep into the US.
Refuelling could be carried out 1/3rd of the way to target by transferring fuel from a buddy aircraft. It would not require rendezvous as the aircraft could leave together in formation. This would require minimal radio communication.
Alternatively, the aircraft can take of with 70% fuel load and be topped up within 500km/300miles of the European coast within escort range of the Fw 190. It only takes 100 miles of flying to complete a refuelling.
Schwann-See radio marker buoys were dropped by Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft ahead of Allied convoys to help u-boats home in. They were also dropped by Ju 88S1 pathfinders in the ocean as way points for bombing raids against Britain, for instance to find a way through radar gaps and as markers for V1 launches. This is how He 111 launched V1 missiles over the ocean. There were Schwann-Luft (parachute) and Schwann-Land (land) versions of this interesting radio marker.
I am suggesting radio transmitters such as these might be carried on the bombers and refuelling aircraft. Radio Silence would be observed as much as possible.
Assuming a first flight in Mid 1942 on BMW 801D2 engines its not unreasonable to expect a few dozen aircraft ready to attack the US East Coast by Late 1943.
US airborne defences would struggle. The Me 264 should be able to achieve 340-350mph and would easily outrun the P70 and the P-61A/B would hardly be any better.
I see the main missions to be reconnaissance, helping u-boats find targets, providing weather information and helping u-boats avoid interception.
Mining operations into US shipping lanes, some ports and harbours would be very disruptive.
Im impressed by the efficiency of the Me 264, the US needed the B-36 to do this job.


----------



## Juha3 (Dec 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> In regards to my what if Me 264 attacking the US East Coast (all the way to Florida)
> 
> 
> The Me 264 V1 flew in December 1942 on basic 1350hp Jumo 211F engines. It could easily have flown earlier, 6 months I assert, and earlier with far more powerful BMW 801D2 engines (1700hp) since these had been thoroughly mature since the beginning of that year. (The 1450hp Jumo 213J was capable of the mission at 13000km instead of 14000km)
> ...



I'm not a fan of these utopians. When the North Sea began to be an ocean? Have you any idea how inaccurate those air-launched V-1s were, they had difficulties even to hit England, speaking nothing on their intended targets. Using the radio beacons to mark convoys to u-boats is different thing than marking turning points for bombers. In the former, the navigation error of the recon plane did not matter, in the latter it did. It is well known that the positions given by LW recon planes were often way off. And knowing how inaccurate LW bombing raids against the GB were in 1944, I doubt that those beacons dropped by Ju 88s were always on the correct position. And flying at full throttle has its effect on ones fuel reserves. And we don,t know the performance of a fully equipped Me 264 because V1 and V2 were not fully equipped and V3 was not completed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2020)

Messerschmitt Me 264 V1 Flight Tests
DateTest PilotAirfieldResults
*December 23, 1942*Karl BaurAugsburgAfter extensive taxiing trials, the Me 264 made its maiden flight. The duration of this first flight was 22 minutes, and for safety reasons the landing gear was left down. On landing, the airframe was damaged in the area of the flap mounts when the aircraft rolled over the end of the runway due to the failure of the brake system.
*January 20, 1943*Karl BaurAugsburgThe second test flight was made. Karl Baur complained that the forces on the controls were too high, about the poor placement of the instruments and of exhaust fumes penetrating into the cockpit.
*January 22, 1943*Karl BaurAugsburgThe Me 264 was transferred to Lechfeld.
*January - February, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldOn the fifth test flight, the underside of the fuselage was damaged when it accidentally contacted the ground. Also, the hydraulic system of the landing gear failed, making it impossible to retract the gear.
*February, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldBaur reported some problems with the inner flaps and a defective nose wheel. Despite some changes to the control surfaces, the forces against them were still too high and the changes had displaced the center of gravity. The nose wheel problems were fixed, and now the retraction functioned properly. Also, some minor defects were found in the electrical cables of the intercom system.
*February, 1943*Gerhard CaroliLechfeldCaroli also found that the forces against the control surfaces were still too high, especially at high speed. Small defects were still present in the radio system and landing gear.
*February, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldDuring two flights by Baur, a speed of 600 km/h (373 mph) was reached. The faulty trimming and controls revealed that an eventual change in the entire control system would be inevitably needed. Flights with two or three engines were found to be satisfactory, but in flights with the automatic controls it was found that the servos were too low powered to control such a heavy aircraft.
*March 2, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldStability tests were continued.
*March 4, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldA test of the polare system was cut short when after 15 minutes of flying time, the third engine began to smoke and had to be cut out. At this time, 11 test flights had been made totaling 12 hours flight time.
*March 23, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldAfter the faulty engine was changed, the critical altitude tests were made. Several other test flights were made this day, mainly to check the longitudinal stability. Also, the first measures to improve the rudder effect was made.
*March 23, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldDuring landing, the left oleo leg broke, which was probably not fully locked down, causing some damage.
*March 23 - May 21*, 1943 LechfeldDuring repairs, a new steering column, a reinforced wing skin, a modified nosewheel drive and a complete radio were added. Also, a new emergency tail skid was added, a changed tailplane and four new Jumo 211J engines were installed.
*May 22 - June 5, 1943*Karl BaurLechfeldContinued high forces against the ailerons and rudder surfaces were found. Six flights were made totaling 12 hour 16 minutes.
*June 2, 1943*Flight Capt. WendelLechfeldSerious problems arose when the nosewheel jammed during retraction.
*June 10, 1943*FBM BöttcherLechfeldReported that the cockpit excessively heated up in the summer sun.
*August 11, 1943* LechfeldThe Me 264 V1 was taken out of service, and re-equipped with BMW 801 twin row radial engines.
*March 18, 1944* LechfeldThe Me 264 V1 was slightly damaged in an air raid, and was quickly repaired.
*April 14, 1944* LechfeldDuring the first test roll with the new engines, the brake shoes tore off.

Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry 
*April 16, 1944* LechfeldThe Me 264 V1 was transferred to Memmingen.April, 1944 MemmingenDuring the 38th test flight, the emergency skid was torn out after a rough landing. When the rudders were fitted with balances, the excessive vibrations almost ceased.
*late April, 1944*FBM ScheibeLechfeldScheibe, from the Rechlin Trial Establishment, complained about the canopy reflections during his test flight. He also indicated that the excessive airframe vibrations were the number one problem to fix. 
*late April, 1944*Colonel BarsewichMemmingenBarsewich, from the Chief Reconnaissance Department, judged the Me 264 V1 too slow for combat missions, even though the aircraft was about 10% faster than with the Jumo 211J engines.
*early May, 1944*Lt. Colonel KnemeyerMemmingenAfter an uneventful flight, Knemeyer was completely enthusiastic about the Me 264, in his opinion all problems could be overcome in the further testing and refinement of the aircraft.
*April 17 - May 17, 1944*Karl BaurMemmingenFlight testing was performed for tailplane flutter and the emergency tail skid. The rear of the plane was found to be too heavy.
*April 26 - May 3, 1944*Captain NebelMemmingenThree test flights were made by Capt. Nebel of the Rechlin Test Establishment to finally redress the tail vibrations. To avoid building an entire new tail, balance weights were added to get the vibration problems under control. Since the problem was not solved, a larger tail plane seemed inevitable.
*June 5, 1944*Karl BaurMemmingenMore stability tests were made, with a small improvement. However, the flights were complicated by the continuous problems with the Patin system.
*June 6, 1944*Karl BaurMemmingenExtreme rudder fluttering was found in the 380 - 450 km/h (236 - 280 mph) range. Also criticized were the too soft automatic controls, which had to be adjusted again. 
*June 26, 1944*Karl PatinMemmingenA climb flight with combat performances was prematurely cut short when the fuel pressure of both inner engines fell to zero. After checking the fuel pumps, several defects were found. Also, the failure of the Patin, radio and electrical systems caused intensive repairs.
*July 18, 1944* MemmingenThe Me 264 (RE*+*EN, work number 264000001) was damaged during an air raid. The extent of the damages was too severe for the damage to be repaired.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Early Me 264 airframe, based on the Me 264V3 using DB801 radial engines of about 1700-1900hp , would have a range of 14,000km. The latter versions based on the using DB603H engines (essentially a DB603L of 2400hp) would have 17,000km range.
> 
> I have no photographs of the successful in flight refuelling equipment in 1942/43 between Ju 290/252 aircraft and actually order for the He 177A1 (till it ran into engine problems) but there are sketches. The receiver had a hose drogue and trailed it down to the tanker, optionally a boom to ensure good separation from turbulence. The Tanker had a telescoping probe with a Y fork and a hook that snagged the drogue ball, this was taken into the tanker aircraft and attached. Results were good.
> 
> ...




Could never happen.

The thousands of B-19Bs and B-36As would bomb the Me-264 factories out of existence, and the 433 heavy aircraft carriers stationed along those routes would shoot them down with the thousands of F7Fs they launched. The two day flight time would give the P-89s plenty of time to zoom in on any survivors.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Messerschmitt Me 264 V1 Flight Tests
> DateTest PilotAirfieldResults
> *December 23, 1942*Karl BaurAugsburgAfter extensive taxiing trials, the Me 264 made its maiden flight. The duration of this first flight was 22 minutes, and for safety reasons the landing gear was left down. On landing, the airframe was damaged in the area of the flap mounts when the aircraft rolled over the end of the runway due to the failure of the brake system.
> *January 20, 1943*Karl BaurAugsburgThe second test flight was made. Karl Baur complained that the forces on the controls were too high, about the poor placement of the instruments and of exhaust fumes penetrating into the cockpit.
> ...




All part of a normal flight test campaign. Many of the above issues from the test pilot, Diplom Ingineur Karl Bauer's, flight logs were dealt with. Like a good engineer he had a punch list. Some of them were rather pedestrian, such as a failure in an standard Patin autopilot. Flutter issues come out of many causes. You can rebalance the ailerons with weights to change the resonant frequency or adjust the springs in the servo-tabls. Worst case is adjustment of angle of incidence to change down wash.

The lessons learned were passed into the Me 264 V3. You'll note that the Aircraft didn't receive BMW801D2 engines until August 1943. The BMW801D2 had been in service with the Focke-Wulf 190A3 since about Feb 1942. The earlier BMW 801C of about 1560hp running of B4 fuel had been flying on prototype Do 217 since mid 1940.

This is why I was saying to make the Me 264 a reality capable of attacking the US East Coast before 1943 is out what is need is a properly resourced program and phased production of 3-4 prototypes so all of the above niggles can be ironed out. Unlike the He 177 and Ju 288 the Me 264 didn't need any weird engines.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 13, 2020)

It would be interesting to see the reliability of any recip engine after sorties of 40-48 hours. Plus a max power run at the 20 something hour point. There is doing things on paper, and there is doing them for real. I’m not saying it was impossible, just it was going to a bit of a stretch with minimum margins for safety.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2020)

Juha3 said:


> I'm not a fan of these utopians. When the North Sea began to be an ocean? Have you any idea how inaccurate those air-launched V-1s were, they had difficulties even to hit England, speaking nothing on their intended targets. Using the radio beacons to mark convoys to u-boats is different thing than marking turning points for bombers. In the former, the navigation error of the recon plane did not matter, in the latter it did. It is well known that the positions given by LW recon planes were often way off. And knowing how inaccurate LW bombing raids against the GB were in 1944, I doubt that those beacons dropped by Ju 88s were always on the correct position. And flying at full throttle has its effect on ones fuel reserves. And we don't know the performance of a fully equipped Me 264 because V1 and V2 were not fully equipped and V3 was not completed.



Luftwaffe navigation aids had been allowed to degrade such that they only could handle guiding a small number of aircraft simultaneously ie pathfinders. I don't know what the issue was with air launched V1 accuracy but I suspect the problem wasn't with homing on to the Schwann-See radio marker buoys but their placement to begin with and other inaccuracies within the V1 itself.

Radio Navigation systems the Luftwaffe had were:
1 EGON I (Erstling-Gemse Offensive Navigation) which adapted the standard German IFF system (Erstling the transponder, Gemse the interrogator) to guide a bomb drop, similar to Oboe but using only a single radar. Range accuracy was very good but the angular accuracy was dependant on the angular resolution of the radar, about 0.2 degrees. The EGON system was not locked into a circular route and used a free form approach coded in tables.

I suspect the above system was used to place the Schwann-See buoys at times and that would add a +/- 1 to 2 km at long range angular error (but only +/-100 distance. U-boats could place them as well.

2 EGON II. Was similar to EGON-I but used two interrogators like Oboe and its cat and mouse system and so was much more accurate.

3 Zyklops was a beam riding system that used a pair of small trailers to set up antenna about 300m apart. It was very accurate along the beam, less than 20 meters. It used the Erstling-Gemse transponder for distance. Seems to have been used mainly for tactical purposes on the eastern front, even from a Fw 190F or G. This is how Ar 234 attacked the Bridge and Remagen at night.

4 Nachtfee was a coded communication link for the above. It couldn't bee spoofed or misled. Initially voice links had been used and these were prone to interference.

5 Neuling was the new IFF system that was replacing Erstling on Luftwaffe aircraft. It incorporated blind bombing capability as standard, I think 5 aircraft could be guided simultaneously. It could also work with Airborne radar.

I dont think the Schwann-See buoys were inaccurate but rather the inaccuracy of airborne V1 launches related to their placement and other sources of error.

The EGON-II system was quite accurate but was little used due to the limited transmission stations in the final stages of the war.

As far as navigation to find targets in the USA there are a couple of possibilities:

1 Celestial Navigation from the aircraft combined with use of moonlight to identify features. It needs an experienced navigator to do this to within a 4-5km
2 Schwann-See radio marker buoys deposited by u-boats as way points and triangulation out to sea. A U-boat could probably deposit these to within 1km using celestial navigation.
3 The German copy of H2S known as FuG 224 was flying within a few months of its capture on a Fw 200 and latter He 177. Generally too big for the smaller German aircraft it was miniaturised to the point it was smaller and more compact than H2S. Priority for microwave radar production seems to have been FLAK radars, Airborne Radars and German Navy.

A radio homing warhead "Raddischen" (Raddish) had been designed to home into allied radar and navigation beacons. It was to be used from BV246 glide bombs (range about 150km) and Fritz-X bombs. It would make allied picket ships and radar a target. There was also a passive microwave homing radar called MAX-P that came out of the Wasserfall Surface to Air missile (targeting allied H2S/H2X and night fighter radar)

I suppose the radio marker buoys could have transonders added to provide a navigation and glide bomb guidance system limited only by accuracy of the buoy placement.

There was a plan to attack British Blast furnaces using Fritz-X and infrared homming.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2020)

German a/c engine production, 43-45_1.jpg (1535×900) (enginehistory.org)


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 13, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> It would be interesting to see the reliability of any recip engine after sorties of 40-48 hours. Plus a max power run at the 20 something hour point. There is doing things on paper, and there is doing them for real. I’m not saying it was impossible, just it was going to a bit of a stretch with minimum margins for safety.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Gordon Gollubs (or was it Peterson's) report on the Fw 190A evaluates the BMW801 as a good engine that would require a year or more to reach maturity. He said it should be used with caution over the sea and in the tropics. It was certainly regarded with reserve on the Fw 190A1/A2. I think it was reliable enough by the end of 1942. The Jumo 211 was mature enough. 

While Americans may find being bombed and outrage its important to note that the Luftwaffe leadership in part avoided developing these weapons not only because the cost benefit was very poor but because they didn't want to provoke Americans. Me 264 was a reconnaissance aircraft and courier.

Nevertheless having the capacity to attack the USA I believe should have been a priority since US entry into war was inevitable and it would tie up significant US resources and the development of the Me 264/6m (with 6 jumo 211) resolves many problems. The US was already developing aircraft such as the B19 and B36 to do this before any German efforts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2020)

XB-19 construction took so long that competition for the contracts to make the XB-35 and XB-36 occurred two months before its first flight.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Me 264 was a reconnaissance aircraft and courier.


The Me264 was to be a strategic bomber from the start. The RLM's interest in it being an "Amerika bomber" came about in '42 with the idea of having it built with six engines.
The long-range recon role came about when the Kreigsmarine considered the 264 as a replacement for the Fw200.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> It would be interesting to see the reliability of any recip engine after sorties of 40-48 hours. Plus a max power run at the 20 something hour point. There is doing things on paper, and there is doing them for real. I’m not saying it was impossible, just it was going to a bit of a stretch with minimum margins for safety.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



The B-36 had a 10,000 mile range cruising at 230mph, its six R-4360s running for over 43 hours. The B-36 also had provisions for a 'relief crew,' unlike the Me-264. The R-4360 was a generation advanced over the BMW-801.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2020)

The Germans did have a number of indigenous navigation aids, none of which were any good on the western side of the atlantic unless deployed on buoys or ships. 

The Germans did have a number of smart bombs and guidance systems. Only a few of which made it into service in any numbers or at a time when they could have been used against the US (before late 1944 or 1945).
Most or all of the smart bombs/missiles required outside stowage (to big to fit in bomb bay) which plays havoc with cruise speeds and range. 

The US was already using up a fair amount of resources in defence of the coast, like shore batteries, AA guns, coastal patrol by both ships and planes. It is possible for a U-Boat to place a radio navigation buoy of the coast of the US, it is also possible for the US defences to sink such a U-boat. 
Is the U-boat better employed attacking shipping or trying to place radio navigation buoys? 
How long will a radio Navigation buoy last? and how accurate is it's location? Coastal waters off the US coast can be a lot deeper than the North sea (or the same depth, depends on location) but hundreds of feet of anchor line can mean some drift as currant/winds change. Not to mention the US might take a dim view of a radio beacon and send planes/ships to investigate and eliminate it. How many days/ missions is each buoy good for? 

Celestial navigation for buoy placement only works on clear nights. Unless buoy is placed on clear night and only activated upon radio signal from approaching aircraft to begin transmitting several days later? 

Sounds like the Germans would be tying up a considerable amount of resources too. Americans weren't totally stupid, they knew where the likely targets were and the likely approaches.


----------



## Juha3 (Dec 14, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Luftwaffe navigation aids had been allowed to degrade such that they only could handle guiding a small number of aircraft simultaneously ie pathfinders. I don't know what the issue was with air launched V1 accuracy but I suspect the problem wasn't with homing on to the Schwann-See radio marker buoys but their placement to begin with and other inaccuracies within the V1 itself.
> 
> Radio Navigation systems the Luftwaffe had were:
> 1 EGON I (Erstling-Gemse Offensive Navigation) which adapted the standard German IFF system (Erstling the transponder, Gemse the interrogator) to guide a bomb drop, similar to Oboe but using only a single radar. Range accuracy was very good but the angular accuracy was dependant on the angular resolution of the radar, about 0.2 degrees. The EGON system was not locked into a circular route and used a free form approach coded in tables.
> ...



IIRC EGONs were range limited same way as Oboe, so not much help for putting buoys in right places in the middle of the Atlantic. And the Atlantic is very deep and besides winds it has strong currents, how to keep the buoys in the right place? U-boats could place then fairly accurately but when? If they got their orders when leaving their harbours, there was a great risk that timing would have gone wrong, weather, technical difficulties, Allies bombing raids might well disturb the attack timetable and so the buoys would have drifted away from their right positions. U-boats could of course sent the signals themselves, but that would be risky. If they were given the release time for the buoys by radio, IMHO the probably way, there is a possibility that Enigma would give away the attack times of the follow-up raids. At the first time British would probably have been puzzled but after the first raid guessed the connection and so the next orders might well have been early warnings of impending attacks.



Koopernic said:


> As far as navigation to find targets in the USA there are a couple of possibilities:
> 
> 1 Celestial Navigation from the aircraft combined with use of moonlight to identify features. It needs an experienced navigator to do this to within a 4-5km
> 2 Schwann-See radio marker buoys deposited by u-boats as way points and triangulation out to sea. A U-boat could probably deposit these to within 1km using celestial navigation.
> ...



So none of these weapon systems were ready for use when red flags were raised over the Reichstag, less so for 1944 attacks against US. And as I wrote earlier, we don't know the real performance and handling of a fully equipped and armed Me 264. IIRC RLM thought that Messerschmitt tended to give over-optimistic performance estimates and that those of Focke-Wulf were usually more realistic.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 14, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> The B-36 had a 10,000 mile range cruising at 230mph, its six R-4360s running for over 43 hours. The B-36 also had provisions for a 'relief crew,' unlike the Me-264. The R-4360 was a generation advanced over the BMW-801.



jmcalli2,

Yes, and those 4360s were starting production in 1944 (according to wiki) and had growing pains. And this from PW who had been engineering and producing large numbers of radials. While the 801 is a good engine, doing 40-48 hour sorties in 1943 is another. Also, where were the divert fields, how much drag penalty is there on having 1, 2 or 3 engines out. Lose an engine, continue, lose another may result in not having enough gas to get back (battle damage as well). Do you put U-Boats along the route, in listening mode for a Mayday calls? How many assets do you throw at something of questionable return?

This came up before, and I think the US would have contained it in a 6-12 month period between radar (picket ships or other) to offer GCI for fighters or P-61 type aircraft. Scenario, a city on the East coast gets hit. Scramble fighters and you may or may not get a successful intercept. Install radar (ship borne or otherwise), and you now have the ability to intercept them on the inbound and or the outbound leg. The end result is few if any now make a successful RTB. You can also make fighters optimized for bomber intercept over the US & Coastal waters. Less armor, optimized weapons, etc.

Use enigma and other spy systems to determine where they are launching from and destroy them on the ground. Yes, it would use resources that otherwise would have been for offensive devices but I think in the big scheme of things it would be almost negligible. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2020)

We should also keep in mind that the USN had active carriers in the Atlantic, especially in the convoy lanes.

So the chance of intercept does not only lie within range of the North American coastline.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 14, 2020)

Rose tinted glasses are being worn.


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 14, 2020)

Early Warning escort carrier line. Interesting.

Maybe the US Atlantic Barrier and Texas Tower Network start 10-15 years earlier.


----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 14, 2020)

You'd be seeing the F6F-3N going to the Atlantic along with the creation of radar pickets ala' Okinawa but a few months earlier.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Nevertheless having the capacity to attack the USA I believe should have been a priority since US entry into war was inevitable and it would tie up significant US resources and the development of the Me 264/6m (with 6 jumo 211) resolves many problems. The US was already developing aircraft such as the B19 and B36 to do this before any German efforts.



What about the German resources that developing the Me 264 would have chewed up?

The US could better afford using resources to defend its coast than the Germans could attacking it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 15, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me264 was to be a strategic bomber from the start. The RLM's interest in it being an "Amerika bomber" came about in '42 with the idea of having it built with six engines.
> The long-range recon role came about when the Kreigsmarine considered the 264 as a replacement for the Fw200.



I'm recalling Frank Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt. It was clear the initial versions were to be used as long range reconnaissance aircraft and as couriers to connect Germany to the far east and maybe sth america. They were too underpowered, under armed and under armoured and short ranged (at 13000km). In the fullness of time they should develop into a 17000km range system using 2400hp DB603L or DB603H engines and remote controlled armament.



jmcalli2 said:


> The B-36 had a 10,000 mile range cruising at 230mph, its six R-4360s running for over 43 hours. The B-36 also had provisions for a 'relief crew,' unlike the Me-264. The R-4360 was a generation advanced over the BMW-801.





Id argue the point. Big doesn't mean sophisticated. The R-4360 may have been an engineering marvel but was not a commercial success suggesting it was also an inefficient weapon. Furthermore the path to long range was clear and it didn't involved piston engines. Unlike piston engines jet engines do no loose efficiency(become fuel inefficient) at high altitude or high speed. Jets can get long range by flying high, where there is little drag, using small, low parasitic drag wings with high lift devices for landing. The plan was to use jets to aid the Me 264's range and performance.

The BMW 801F was expected to achieve 2600hp and used lots of advanced technology such as vacuum cast heads.
The turbo charged versions the BMW801-TJ1, TJ2 and TQ had critical altitudes beyond any allied engine.
When the 18 cylinder BMW802 was cancelled the technology was put into a program known as the BMW801R: variable pitch cooling fan, 2 stage 4 speed supercharger, intercooler and after cooler. Intended for the Ta 152C but a likely candidate for the Me 264.
The 2800-3000hp Jumo 222E/F after a few years of development was ready enough to be scheduled for production in late 1944 and was also a candiate for developed Me 264.


Dont you think the B-36 is rather a dreadnaught or battleship? An impressive but vulnerable system, too many eggs in one basket. Early versions were slow and big targets for FLAK or the evolving SAM's. 



Shortround6 said:


> The Germans did have a number of indigenous navigation aids, none of which were any good on the western side of the atlantic unless deployed on buoys or ships.
> 
> The Germans did have a number of smart bombs and guidance systems. Only a few of which made it into service in any numbers or at a time when they could have been used against the US (before late 1944 or 1945).
> Most or all of the smart bombs/missiles required outside stowage (to big to fit in bomb bay) which plays havoc with cruise speeds and range.
> ...



I think the Germans had one over the horizon radio navigation systems good for a few 1000 km called sonnenstrahl or sunray. It was an electronically rotating 'talking becon' I can get a link. The allies used it as well and so when the Germans coded it the allies bombed the stations so the Germans stopped coding them and the allies left them alone. The US managed to create LORAN. 

Buoys can be pre placed and timed to surface and transmit or be trigged.

Ground mapping radar is maybe the best way,



Juha3 said:


> IIRC EGONs were range limited same way as Oboe, so not much help for putting buoys in right places in the middle of the Atlantic. And the Atlantic is very deep and besides winds it has strong currents, how to keep the buoys in the right place? U-boats could place then fairly accurately but when? If they got their orders when leaving their harbours, there was a great risk that timing would have gone wrong, weather, technical difficulties, Allies bombing raids might well disturb the attack timetable and so the buoys would have drifted away from their right positions. U-boats could of course sent the signals themselves, but that would be risky. If they were given the release time for the buoys by radio, IMHO the probably way, there is a possibility that Enigma would give away the attack times of the follow-up raids. At the first time British would probably have been puzzled but after the first raid guessed the connection and so the next orders might well have been early warnings of impending attacks.
> 
> So none of these weapon systems were ready for use when red flags were raised over the Reichstag, less so for 1944 attacks against US. And as I wrote earlier, we don't know the real performance and handling of a fully equipped and armed Me 264. IIRC RLM thought that Messerschmitt tended to give over-optimistic performance estimates and that those of Focke-Wulf were usually more realistic.



My assertion is that they could have had something ready by the end of 1943 and that US defences would be challenged.




GrauGeist said:


> We should also keep in mind that the USN had active carriers in the Atlantic, especially in the convoy lanes.
> 
> So the chance of intercept does not only lie within range of the North American coastline.



They would be withdrawn into a defensive posture and their position would be known.



jetcal1 said:


> You'd be seeing the F6F-3N going to the Atlantic along with the creation of radar pickets ala' Okinawa but a few months earlier.





wuzak said:


> What about the German resources that developing the Me 264 would have chewed up?
> 
> The US could better afford using resources to defend its coast than the Germans could attacking it.



Think of the allied resources. The energy wasted in the ME 210, Ju 288 and He 177 program could have funded the Me 264 1.5 times over.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> They would be withdrawn into a defensive posture and their position would be known.


I don't think you realize just how many escort carriers the U. S. Navy had, 40 +/- Bogue class and 19 Casablanca class in commission (out of 122 total all escort carrier classes) by the end of 1943 alone.

Also, where do you get the idea that they'd be "withdrawn into a defensive posture..."?

I'm sorry, the Navy is many things, stupid is not one of them. I'd wager they'd station escort carriers and their groups along known flight paths leading to the North American continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2020)

Didn't some of the convoy routes pass under some of the proposed bomber routes? Another sets of eyes, and ears, to spot the bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2020)

There was also Bermuda, which had a joint Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy base, US Navy base, RAF and USAAF bases.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> There was also Bermuda, which had a joint Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy base, US Navy base, RAF and USAAF bases.


and Iceland. Not sure when Greenland got bases.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2020)

Milosh said:


> and Iceland. Not sure when Greenland got bases.


I think that between the bases on Bermuda and on Newfoundland, the route to the US coastline from France becomes a very narrow option.
Add to that, the convoy routes to England fall in that corridor, which have escort carrier activity PLUS the afore-mentioned ASW patrols, who would at the very least, provide an early warning/intercept solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 15, 2020)

re "The energy wasted in the ME 210, Ju 288 and He 177 program could have funded the Me 264 1.5 times over."

My apologies, but I am a bit confused about the actual timeline possibilities vs (hopefully somewhat realistic) potential timeline relative to the Me 264 family. If I am understanding Koopernic's argument correctly, it is that the Me 264 could have been developed into at least a nuisance level threat to the US east coast, thereby rerouting resources used against the Germans or Japanese to the defense of the continental US.

I agree that the Germans had the technical ability to develop the Me 264 into an inter-continental bomber. My question is what would be the timeline if this had taken place. I realize we are assuming that the war did not progress exactly as it did in reality, but I would still be interested in getting a better grasp on a potential timeline relative to the successful development of the Me 264 family.

Not sure if this is particularly clear. Obviously - if the Germans could have developed reliable engines early enough, solved the aerodynamic problems early enough, and been able to allocate the resources necessary to develop/manufacture early enough - then the Me 264 would have had some significant effect on the US approach to fighting the war.

An example is the statement that the Germans intentionally did not provoke the US (any more than necessary via the U-boat campaign) in order to delay/prevent the entry of the US into the war. However, once the US entered the war I am quite sure that Hitler etal would very much have preferred to have the option of bombing the US.

Another question I have is the potential for generating more than a nuisance threat, assuming that the war went better for the Germans than it did in reality? Examples being success in the air war of the BoB and a subsequent cease fire of some sort (not an invasion of the UK as that was basically unrealistic) resulting in no bases for 8th AF, and/or spectacular success of Operation Barbarossa along the lines hoped for before it went sideways.

My input into the discussion is that even during the height of the Cold War (late-1950s-mid-1960s) the SAC estimate for a successful round trip of a B-52 (that did not encounter the Soviet air defense system) was less than 40%. Admittedly, the ranges were longer for the US attack against the missile fields and heartland cities in the SU, but navigation technology and reliability of (jet) engines were greatly improved over that in WWII.

Also IIRC, the operational losses to the B-29s in the bombing campaign vs Japan (before the US had emergency landing bases closer to Japan than the TO locations) were horrendous - as high or higher than in the ETO.


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> It would be interesting to see the reliability of any recip engine after sorties of 40-48 hours. Plus a max power run at the 20 something hour point. There is doing things on paper, and there is doing them for real. I’m not saying it was impossible, just it was going to a bit of a stretch with minimum margins for safety.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



ANT-25 stayed in the air over 60 hours in several record flights in 1936-1937.
Tupolev ANT-25 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans did have a number of indigenous navigation aids, none of which were any good on the western side of the atlantic unless deployed on buoys or ships.
> 
> The Germans did have a number of smart bombs and guidance systems. Only a few of which made it into service in any numbers or at a time when they could have been used against the US (before late 1944 or 1945).
> Most or all of the smart bombs/missiles required outside stowage (to big to fit in bomb bay) which plays havoc with cruise speeds and range.
> ...




The 437 Heavy Aircraft Carriers and their escorts would sink all U-boats.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> jmcalli2,
> 
> Yes, and those 4360s were starting production in 1944 (according to wiki) and had growing pains. And this from PW who had been engineering and producing large numbers of radials. While the 801 is a good engine, doing 40-48 hour sorties in 1943 is another. Also, where were the divert fields, how much drag penalty is there on having 1, 2 or 3 engines out. Lose an engine, continue, lose another may result in not having enough gas to get back (battle damage as well). Do you put U-Boats along the route, in listening mode for a Mayday calls? How many assets do you throw at something of questionable return?
> 
> ...



Hey, somebody asked for a piston engine that could run for 40+ hours. They didn't ask for a time frame. The R-4360 did.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I'm recalling Frank Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt. It was clear the initial versions were to be used as long range reconnaissance aircraft and as couriers to connect Germany to the far east and maybe sth america. They were too underpowered, under armed and under armoured and short ranged (at 13000km). In the fullness of time they should develop into a 17000km range system using 2400hp DB603L or DB603H engines and remote controlled armament.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good to know Germany won the war using 1940 tech.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I'm recalling Frank Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt. It was clear the initial versions were to be used as long range reconnaissance aircraft and as couriers to connect Germany to the far east and maybe sth america. They were too underpowered, under armed and under armoured and short ranged (at 13000km). In the fullness of time they should develop into a 17000km range system using 2400hp DB603L or DB603H engines and remote controlled armament.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Not a commercial success."

Over 18,000 built.

Used on 29 different aircraft, some of which remained in service from 1947 through 1978, over 30 years.

I'd invest in it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 15, 2020)

I really doubt “their [the carriers’] positions would be known.” First, as posted by Mr Gunn, the USN wasn’t collectively stupid; they were quite capable of, I don’t know, spoofing their own signatures, so “carriers “ would be in a lot more locations than the USN had carriers. Second, oceans are big. 

The US had the potential to deal with this sort of attack; that it never needed to do so just proves it never needed to, not that it couldn’t. The Me264 is still an unescorted bomber with a level of performance inadequate to survive without escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 15, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> ANT-25 stayed in the air over 60 hours in several record flights in 1936-1937.
> Tupolev ANT-25 - Wikipedia



Those are some tremendous flights, all in a single engine plane!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Think of the allied resources. The energy wasted in the ME 210, Ju 288 and He 177 program could have funded the Me 264 1.5 times over.



What of the Allied resources?

What would the US need to do differently? They were already on the way to building 100,000 fighters of various types. 

How many fighters would they need to hold back to deal with the threat of a handful of Me 264s? A squadron of P-47s ought to be enough.





Koopernic said:


> I'm recalling Frank Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt. It was clear the initial versions were to be used as long range reconnaissance aircraft and as couriers to connect Germany to the far east and maybe sth america. They were too underpowered, under armed and under armoured and short ranged (at 13000km). In the fullness of time they should develop into a 17000km range system using 2400hp DB603L or DB603H engines and remote controlled armament.





Koopernic said:


> The BMW 801F was expected to achieve 2600hp and used lots of advanced technology such as vacuum cast heads.
> The turbo charged versions the BMW801-TJ1, TJ2 and TQ had critical altitudes beyond any allied engine.
> When the 18 cylinder BMW802 was cancelled the technology was put into a program known as the BMW801R: variable pitch cooling fan, 2 stage 4 speed supercharger, intercooler and after cooler. Intended for the Ta 152C but a likely candidate for the Me 264.
> The 2800-3000hp Jumo 222E/F after a few years of development was ready enough to be scheduled for production in late 1944 and was also a candiate for developed Me 264.



When are all these wonder engines to be available?

The Me 264 was only fitted with Jumo 211s because there weren't any of the intended DB 603s available.

Will they have enough fuel to fly to the US? The Jumo 222E/F "scheduled for production in late 1944" would be available after the Oil Plan had significantly reduced the Luftwaffe's supply of aviation fuel.

The fuel situation was so dire that they even had a program to develop an aviation steam turbine for use in the Me 264, which would run on 70% pulverised coal/30% aviation fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 15, 2020)

Hey Koopernic,

Am I misunderstanding the discussion re the Me 264, from my post#128: "Obviously - if the Germans could have developed reliable engines early enough, solved the aerodynamic problems early enough, and been able to allocate the resources necessary to develop/manufacture early enough - then the Me 264 would have had some significant effect on the US approach to fighting the war."

Is there any question that the Germans, in the real timeline, did not have the time or resources needed to develop the Me 264 into a serious threat?


----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 15, 2020)

If the Me-264 had been flying and operational in 1940-41? It would have been a great way to hit the Navy Yard in NYC, along with the Grumman and Republic plants on Long Island with nuisance raids. The 264 was a tactical dead end after mid-1942 when the combination of radar and the 56th equipped with the P-47B (Which would have been fine over Long Island Sound.)

(Edit: Let's not forget the Shipyards further up the coast as well.)


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2020)

Pretty sure the Me264 (or any other strategic bomber) would have been put to better use striking viable targets like tank factories, power plants, aircraft manufacturers, etc. in in the Soviet Union rather than random and expensive nuisance raids on the U.S.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2020)

jetcal1 said:


> If the Me-264 had been flying and operational in 1940-41?



Was going to difficult to get the Me 264 into service before the end of 1941, since development only started around that 1940-41 time frame.


----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 15, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Was going to difficult to get the Me 264 into service before the end of 1941, since development only started around that 1940-41 time frame.



Well, then I guess the whole idea is kinda' a non-starter then ain't it?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 16, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Also IIRC, the operational losses to the B-29s in the bombing campaign vs Japan (before the US had emergency landing bases closer to Japan than the TO locations) were horrendous - as high or higher than in the ETO.



Um, no.

In B-29 Superfortress at War David Anderton gives the following stats:
B-29s carried out around 33,000 sorties with a loss rate of 1.38% which meant that about 450 aircraft were lost with all or part of their crew (how many were lost over Japan I cannot say).

Early on more were lost to mechanical failure than to fighters/flak which was ~145


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 16, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I don't think you realize just how many escort carriers the U. S. Navy had, 40 +/- Bogue class and 19 Casablanca class in commission (out of 122 total all escort carrier classes) by the end of 1943 alone.
> 
> Also, where do you get the idea that they'd be "withdrawn into a defensive posture..."?
> 
> I'm sorry, the Navy is many things, stupid is not one of them. I'd wager they'd station escort carriers and their groups along known flight paths leading to the North American continent.



What is a bunch of Avengers and Wildcats going to do to an Me 264 that can do 339mph at 21,000ft and manage 350mph at 28,000ft for 40 minutes with the 600L of Nitrous Oxide it carries? Its probably faster than a B-29 at 20,000ft.




Milosh said:


> Didn't some of the convoy routes pass under some of the proposed bomber routes? Another sets of eyes, and ears, to spot the bombers.



Conversely the Me 264 is another way to spot convoys and ascertain the strength of their escorts. Reconnaissance would have been the main contribution of a Me 264. Knowing the size, position and defences of a convoy greatly hampered and made the U-boat vulnerable. Reconnaissance Me 264 would be sent ahead. U-boats report.



ThomasP said:


> re "The energy wasted in the ME 210, Ju 288 and He 177 program could have funded the Me 264 1.5 times over."
> 
> My apologies, but I am a bit confused about the actual timeline possibilities vs (hopefully somewhat realistic) potential timeline relative to the Me 264 family. If I am understanding Koopernic's argument correctly, it is that the Me 264 could have been developed into at least a nuisance level threat to the US east coast, thereby rerouting resources used against the Germans or Japanese to the defense of the continental US.
> 
> ...



The Me 264 V1 had its maiden flight in December1942. It had used 4 x Jumo 211F engines of 1350hp. The 1450hp Jumo 211J was already entering service. These were considered solid and reliable engines, proably the best German engine in that regard, and offered a range of 13000km. With latter BMW801 engines the range grew to 14000km due to the greater load. The problem of the Me 264 was one of engine power to accelerate the aircraft within a realistic take-off length. By Feb 1942 the 1700hp BMW801D2 radial engine of 1700hp was powering Fw 190A3. Versions of this engine. the BMW 801C using B4 fuel and offering 1560hp had been in use on earlier Fw 190A0/A1/A2. The engine had been powering the Do 217E0 and E1 since mid 1940.

So I'm saying the could have directly installed the BMW801 engines directly.

Im suggesting the program could be brought forward 6 months maybe more. The 6 engine version with Jumo 211 engines is about the size of a B29 but sidesteps the issue of requiring advanced engines.

There is no technology that is not found in a He 177, Lancaster. Less advanced than a B17 as no turbo.




swampyankee said:


> I really doubt “their [the carriers’] positions would be known.” First, as posted by Mr Gunn, the USN wasn’t collectively stupid; they were quite capable of, I don’t know, spoofing their own signatures, so “carriers “ would be in a lot more locations than the USN had carriers. Second, oceans are big.
> 
> The US had the potential to deal with this sort of attack; that it never needed to do so just proves it never needed to, not that it couldn’t. The Me264 is still an unescorted bomber with a level of performance inadequate to survive without escort.




Carriers and their Pickets need to keep their radar turned on. They are declaring where they are. Each carrier would need 2-3 sloops to protect against U-boat attack and as a picket. Carrier operations generate RT. Escort Carriers have a speed of 16 knots.



wuzak said:


> What of the Allied resources?
> 
> What would the US need to do differently? They were already on the way to building 100,000 fighters of various types.
> 
> ...



The Me 264 was only fitted with Jumo 211s and then BMW801 because there weren't any of the intended 2400hp DB 603s available at that time. They started to become available in 1944.

The BMW 801 was available at 1700p, probably 1850hp by end 1943 and close to 2000hp by end 1944. Jumo 213 and DB603 were becoming available from the second half of 1944 but probably not of the requisite power till early 1945.

So a raid is possible with Jumo 211 engines (likely with RATO) and as the engines improve range and armament go up.,




ThomasP said:


> Hey Koopernic,
> 
> Am I misunderstanding the discussion re the Me 264, from my post#128: "Obviously - if the Germans could have developed reliable engines early enough, solved the aerodynamic problems early enough, and been able to allocate the resources necessary to develop/manufacture early enough - then the Me 264 would have had some significant effect on the US approach to fighting the war."
> 
> Is there any question that the Germans, in the real timeline, did not have the time or resources needed to develop the Me 264 into a serious threat?



The Jumo 211J offers 13000km range and the BMW801 offers 14,000km range. This is enough to reach the US East coast. This would be with very light armament.

The two sources in terms of politics are Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt and Griehl's Luftwaffe over America. Forsyth book is technically great but doesn't have all the politics.

My point is that vast resources were spent on the He 177 with very little result. Furthermore this aircraft proved unable to do what was needed which is provide long range maritime reconnaissance,

Why waste time on a 4 engine 3000 mile range bomber when to achieve anything in prosecuting the war a 6 engine 9000 miles range machine is needed.




jetcal1 said:


> If the Me-264 had been flying and operational in 1940-41? It would have been a great way to hit the Navy Yard in NYC, along with the Grumman and Republic plants on Long Island with nuisance raids. The 264 was a tactical dead end after mid-1942 when the combination of radar and the 56th equipped with the P-47B (Which would have been fine over Long Island Sound.)
> 
> (Edit: Let's not forget the Shipyards further up the coast as well.)



The P-47 could do nothing at night.

As engines developed the Me 264 would have gone faster and higher. If 1700hp gets 339mph at 21000ft then what does 2400hp from an engine with a much higher full pressure altitude? 36% power increase is about 11% speed increase using a cube law. So about 374mph plus about 15mph from the lower drag engines ie 390mph probably all the way to 30,000ft. I think the Jumo 222 version was projected at 407mph.



wuzak said:


> Was going to difficult to get the Me 264 into service before the end of 1941, since development only started around that 1940-41 time frame.



It wasn't resourced as a priority. In part I think because of the acrimony between Milch and Messerschmitt, in part because all surplus resources had been exhausted on the He 177/Ju 288 and Me 210. In general resources was very stretched for the Germans. which meant the stars had to line up.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 16, 2020)

*Production versions*
*DB 603A*, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1750 PS (1726 hp, 1287 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
*DB 603AA* DB 603A with an improved supercharger, rated altitude of 7.3 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1670 PS (1647 hp, 1228 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level 
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
*DB 603E* rated altitude of 7.0 km, B4 fuel 
Power (take-off): 1800 PS (1775 hp, 1324 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level 
Combat power: 1575 PS (1553 hp, 1158 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 16, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Those are some tremendous flights, all in a single engine plane!



Here is a film of an interview with the pilots:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> What is a bunch of Avengers and Wildcats going to do to an Me 264 that can do 339mph at 21,000ft and manage 350mph at 28,000ft for 40 minutes with the 600L of Nitrous Oxide it carries? Its probably faster than a B-29 at 20,000ft.


Aaand they wouldn't be facing F6F Hellcats because?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, If the Germans manage to get their long range bomber working, the U.S. doesn't get the same benefit for a response?

Also why do the Germans get a free pass? Are all the Lightnings and Thunderbolts taking siesta's on the east coast?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 16, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I don't think you realize just how many escort carriers the U. S. Navy had, 40 +/- Bogue class and 19 Casablanca class in commission (out of 122 total all escort carrier classes) by the end of 1943 alone.
> 
> Also, where do you get the idea that they'd be "withdrawn into a defensive posture..."?
> 
> I'm sorry, the Navy is many things, stupid is not one of them. I'd wager they'd station escort carriers and their groups along known flight paths leading to the North American continent.



Also, the entire "if" of this thread allows me to put 437 Midway Class aircraft carriers in the Atlantic, each flying F7F day and night fighters and assorted ASW aircraft. In addition, the US is defended by P-89s armed with nuclear tipped rockets.
Offensively the 12,000 B-36Bs would crater every runway in Europe from 50,000 ft within a week.

I can do this because it makes as much sense as having the Me-264 fully developed and deployed in significant numbers in 1940. Fair is fair.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 16, 2020)

"The P-47 could do nothing at night."

As engines developed the Me 264 would have gone faster and higher. If 1700hp gets 339mph at 21000ft then what does 2400hp from an engine with a much higher full pressure altitude? 36% power increase is about 11% speed increase using a cube law. So about 374mph plus about 15mph from the lower drag engines ie 390mph probably all the way to 30,000ft. I think the Jumo 222 version was projected at 407mph.


_Weren't the Germans flying radar directed single engine fighters at night? _
_And, what does fuel consumption do at these higher speeds? Running a gauntlet of pickets and interceptors over the Atlantic certainly would have a negative impact on fuel consumption._
From f4u-2:
_"Prior to the first flight of the XF4U-1 the Navy commissioned Vought to study a night fighter, version of the F4U-1. Working with the Sperry company and the MIT Radiation Laboratory the necessary radar equipment needed to accomplish the mission was developed and the necessary Engineering design modifications determined for conversion of the F4U-1 to the F4U-2 Night Fighter.
The initial Engineering design of the F4U-2 was complete at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A mock up was complete and ready for review on January 28, 1942. Because Vought was heavily committed to meet schedules on other programs, arrangements were made with the Naval Aircraft Factory at Philadelphia, Pa. to convert production F4U-l's to the F4U-2 configuration. A total of 34 F4U-1's were converted to F4U-2's. Thirty two conversions were made at the Naval Aircraft Factory and two were made in the field at Rio Island, Kwajalein Atoll."_

Now, I will happily grant you the fact that F4U-2 combat didn't take place until April 1944 and only the RN was operating the F4U off of carriers at a earlier date. But, since we're talking what-ifs. I'll suggest that bombing the Bath Iron Works and the Boston Navy Yard would focus both procurement and carrier qual efforts using technologies that actually existed and were prototyped before your airplane flew.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 16, 2020)

Could the US spare a few of those Midways for the defense of Malaya?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 16, 2020)

Table 165 has Very Heavy Bomber (B-29) losses, army_air_forces_statistical_digest_ww2_1945.pdf (91stbombgroup.com)


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Me 264 was only fitted with Jumo 211s and then BMW801 because there weren't any of the intended 2400hp DB 603s available at that time. They started to become available in 1944.
> 
> The BMW 801 was available at 1700p, probably 1850hp by end 1943 and close to 2000hp by end 1944. Jumo 213 and DB603 were becoming available from the second half of 1944 but probably not of the requisite power till early 1945.
> 
> So a raid is possible with Jumo 211 engines (likely with RATO) and as the engines improve range and armament go up.,



The Me 264 was designed around the DB 603 of 1,750hp. Don't think that 2,400hp versions were even under development in 1940/1941.


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 16, 2020)

One of the reasons the B-29 didn't fly combat missions from the UK was runway length - contemporary Brit runways were too short for fully laden Superforts. I would suspect that any aircraft capable of carrying a transAtlantic bomb load would also need a very long runway. The US Strategic Air Forces in Europe would certainly bomb the dickens out of any extended German runways - and if you can't takeoff in the first place, you certainly can't reach New York, let alone require the attention of of US forces in Newfoundland, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the UK, or the mid-Atlantic.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 16, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Here is a film of an interview with the pilots:



_"We not take a gasoline, we not take an airplane. We take a steamship! And that's how we fly across the ocean."_
Willy was narrow minded and he just wasted time and resources with Me 264. He had to build a steamship. A flying one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Could the US spare a few of those Midways for the defense of Malaya?


Only if equipped with P-39s. But with radios moved aft. Or forward... Let me read that other thread again.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 16, 2020)

Hey Peter Gunn,

My apologies, by "horrendous" I mean the ratio of losses due to all things other than combat relative to combat losses. (Am I using the term "operational losses" incorrectly?) If I am reading the chart that Milosh references above correctly, then the PTO (XX and XXI Bomber Command) B-29 non-combat losses were somewhere around 2x the losses due to combat.

So in comparison, the ratio of non-combat losses to combat losses for heavy bombers in the PTO was 2:1, while for the ETO during the ~same time period it was about 1:5.

The Me 264 etal would be flying around 2x (or more) the distance of the PTO B-29s, so the non-combat losses would (presumably) be at a rate more than 2x the non-combat losses the B-29s suffered.


Hey Milosh,

Thanks for the reference.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 16, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Only if equipped with P-39s. But with radios moved aft. Or forward... Let me read that other thread again.



P-39s re-engined with V-3420s...


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 17, 2020)

Milosh said:


> *Production versions*
> *DB 603A*, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
> Power (take-off): 1750 PS (1726 hp, 1287 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
> Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
> ...




You are missing the following
DB603EM at 2250hp with MW50 This engine was delivering in Ta 152C0
DB603L 2400hp. This engine was the below DB603LA but had a intercooler. Disruption by bombing prevented its preferential adoption.
DB603LA 2250hp. This engine was delivering in Ta 152C3




Peter Gunn said:


> Aaand they wouldn't be facing F6F Hellcats because?
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too, If the Germans manage to get their long range bomber working, the U.S. doesn't get the same benefit for a response?
> 
> Also why do the Germans get a free pass? Are all the Lightnings and Thunderbolts taking siesta's on the east coast?



Ive put togther a plausible scenario that doesnt involve anything but supplying resources. No special engines are required.




wuzak said:


> The Me 264 was designed around the DB 603 of 1,750hp. Don't think that 2,400hp versions were even under development in 1940/1941.



The 2400hp DB603L and DB603H were always projected. 1750hp is on B4 87 octane without MW50.



Dana Bell said:


> One of the reasons the B-29 didn't fly combat missions from the UK was runway length - contemporary Brit runways were too short for fully laden Superforts. I would suspect that any aircraft capable of carrying a transAtlantic bomb load would also need a very long runway. The US Strategic Air Forces in Europe would certainly bomb the dickens out of any extended German runways - and if you can't takeoff in the first place, you certainly can't reach New York, let alone require the attention of of US forces in Newfoundland, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the UK, or the mid-Atlantic.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dana



A MTOW take-off required a 2500m runway and this was seen as a very serious limitation. Hence either RATO would be needed or a wait till 1945 and 2400hp engines.




jmcalli2 said:


> Also, the entire "if" of this thread allows me to put 437 Midway Class aircraft carriers in the Atlantic, each flying F7F day and night fighters and assorted ASW aircraft. In addition, the US is defended by P-89s armed with nuclear tipped rockets.
> Offensively the 12,000 B-36Bs would crater every runway in Europe from 50,000 ft within a week.
> 
> I can do this because it makes as much sense as having the Me-264 fully developed and deployed in significant numbers in 1940. Fair is fair.



Maybe go the Joe Baughers site and check out some dates A B36. B-36A or B36B couldn't fly at 50,000ft. Operational ceiling was 35,800ft. The engines didn't exist.
Unlike the B-36 the Me 264
1 Had its maiden flight in a plausible time frame (not post war)
2 Used of the shelf engines available at the time.
It just needed a normal supply of resources.

The Wasserfall Surface to Air Missile was test flying well before the B36 and was designed to engage a 2G target at about 55,000ft. It would have bisected a lumbering B-36 having given plenty of warning time and being no challenge to the missile due to its slow speed. Even a Ta 152H1 could intercept a B36. Britain did well to wait till it had the V bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2020)

*Prototypes and other versions*

*DB 603D*, a DB 603A with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
*DB 603F*, a DB 603E with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
*DB 603G* (production cancelled)
Power (max): 1900 PS (1874 hp, 1397 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1560 PS (1539 hp, 1147 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

*DB 603L/LA* (prototype with two-stage supercharger, B4 fuel)
Power (max): 2000 PS (1973 hp, 1471 kW)

*DB 603L/M* two-stage supercharger, rated altitude of 10.5 km, C3 fuel
Power (take-off): 2450 PS (2416 hp, 1801 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 2100 PS (2071 hp, 1544 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

*DB 603N* (prototype with two-stage supercharger, C3 fuel)
Power (take-off): 3000PS (2958 hp, 2206 kW) at 3200 rpm at sea level
Power (max): 2570 PS (2762 hp, 2059 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
Continuous: 1930 PS (1904 hp, 1420 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

*DB 603S* (DB 603A with experimental TK-11 turbo-supercharger) - Intended (not known if actually used) for the Heinkel He 274 prototype airframes.
Power (max): Not known.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 17, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> My apologies, by "horrendous" I mean the ratio of losses due to all things other than combat relative to combat losses. (Am I using the term "operational losses" incorrectly?) If I am reading the chart that Milosh references above correctly, then the PTO (XX and XXI Bomber Command) B-29 non-combat losses were somewhere around 2x the losses due to combat.


No apologies necessary my friend, I was not sure whether or not you were aware of the loss situation for the B-29 and figured I'd put up some data (in a cordial way (I hope)).


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 17, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Let me read that other thread again.


If that's the case, then see you next spring...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Ive put togther a plausible scenario that doesnt involve anything but supplying resources. No special engines are required.


So let me understand this, you're saying there is nothing in the 1943 U.S. arsenal that can intercept a 330mph behemoth at ~22,000ft?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Even a Ta 152H1 could intercept a B36. Britain did well to wait till it had the V bombers.


How's it going to get past the escorting Sabre's?


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 17, 2020)

Hi
I don't think the USA would have had to put too much effort into air defences against the ME 264 as preparations for deployment of the type would have been spotted quite early by the Allied intelligence systems, that were already in place. Indicators would have been the lengthening of an airfield's runway, for the over loaded bombers, either in France or Norway Judging by the construction of the Atlantic Wall and V1 sites this work would have been carried out by slave or forced labour and also have been visible to the local population so the information on construction would be quite 'easily' obtained. This would have been confirmed by photo reconnaissance, especially as both areas were of great interest already to Allied intelligence, Norway because of the Arctic Convoys of course as well as Heavy Water production. As soon as four engine bombers start to fly to these airfields they will be spotted on approach and take-off and during training, it would be rather hard to hide these operations, so as soon as the bombers arrive they will be targets for bombing attacks. If flight refuelling was used (and possible), this would have to be in daylight, just after take-off they would have to use R/T between the tanker and receiver which would be picked up by listening stations in the UK so long range fighters could intercept. If the Germans put up fighters to protect the bombers while re-fuelling then that would be another indicator that 'something was up' and attract allied attention. An awful lot of things could go wrong for the German deployment that are more in the realm of possibility than everything going right for the ME 264 programme and potential operations. The allies were not a 'powerless by-stander' and had a quite good, not perfect, intelligence system, as was shown in the 'real' war!

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2020)

There seems to be a strong undercurrent of "the Amurricans were too stoopid 2 deal with German brilliance" from the Me264 advocates. 

The Americans reset priorities as needed throughout the war: the B-36 was back-burnered because it was not needed once Britain didn't fall. Big-deck carriers weren't assigned to the Atlantic because they were superfluous; the German Navy's blue-water fleet was pretty tiny and had been emasculated by the loss of most of its heavy units (_Bismarck_: sunk; _Tirpitz_: stuck in port; _Scharhorst_: sunk; _Gneisenau_: damaged and never repaired). With a convenient island -- Britain -- near at hand, there was no need for carrier-based aircraft to deal with the _Luftwaffe_ at places like Normandy in any case. 

Put a significant threat of German bombardment of important places in the Northeast -- which had a major concentration of the US defense industry (Grumman, Electric Boat, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Remington Arms, Curtiss-Wright, Edo, Bath Iron Works, Boston, Brooklyn, and Portsmouth Navy Yards, Vought-Sikorsky, ..... all head headquarters or major facilities in New York or New England) -- and there would be a change in priorities: fighter squadrons would be reallocated or formed, early warning radar systems would be put in place (the British would help here -- they had dealt with a long and unsuccessful bombing campaign by the _Luftwaffe_), night fighters developed, anti-aircraft batteries moved, civil defense procedures promulgated and enforced.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 17, 2020)

What kind of night-fighters did we have for defending the United States? The P-70 and P-61 right? I do remember some kluge jobs including a P-38 with a radar-pod (eventually, the night-lighting was developed as a purpose-built night-fighter, but that was later, IIRC).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 17, 2020)

Maybe go the Joe Baughers site and check out some dates A B36. B-36A or B36B couldn't fly at 50,000ft. Operational ceiling was 35,800ft. The engines didn't exist.
Unlike the B-36 the Me 264
1 Had its maiden flight in a plausible time frame (not post war)
2 Used of the shelf engines available at the time.
It just needed a normal supply of resources.

[/QUOTE]

And you still couldn't get more than 2 1/2 planes made because it stunk-even an engine change couldn't save it!.

And no one has yet to address a 40+ hour mission with a crew of only six or seven.

If you get to rewrite history for your argument, so does everyone else.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 17, 2020)

Milosh said:


> *Prototypes and other versions*
> 
> *DB 603D*, a DB 603A with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
> *DB 603F*, a DB 603E with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
> ...



All are insignificant next to the R-4360 VDT, the R-33450 and V-1710 turbo compound engines.

It's one thing to play a "What If" game, like "what if you had only two a/c to fight WWII with. It is quite another thing to take the position that "Germany had all these wonderous war-winning weapons and lost because they chose not to use them," especially when you magically up the production dates by 2, 3, or more years and turn them into in-service dates.

In case you missed it, Germany was low on fuel and rubber from late 43 through the end of the war. Their factories were being bombed. They HAD to put everything into fighters to slow the bombing, and they were stuck with one 1935 and one 1939 fighter design. They produced more advanced aircraft, but could not make enough of them to change anything; their dilemma was to halt production of the types in service and retool for the better designs and running out of fighters or keep fighting with the types in production with minor 'fixes' applied. Neither was a path to victory.

Germany did NOT have most of a vast continent to build new factories that were simply out of range of the enemy. The USA produced significant numbers (1,000+) of the P-36 (1,100+), P-38 (10,000+), P-39 (9,500+) , P-40 (13,000+), P-47 (15,000+), P-51 (15,000+), P-63 (3,300+), F4F (7,800+), F4U (9,000+ during WWII), and F6F (12,000+) during the war. This is in addition to Great Britton producing Spitfires (20,000+), Hurricanes (14,000+), Tempest/Tornado/Typhoons (5,000+), and Defiants (1,000+), while the Soviet Union was turning out LaGG-3s (6,500+), La-5s (9,900), La-7s (5,000+), Mig-3s (3,400), I-16s (10,000+), Yak-1s (8,700), Yak-3s (4,800+), Yak-7s (6,300+), and Yak-9s (16,000+).

Germany managed significant numbers of only the Me-109 (33,000+), Me-262 (1,400+, Me-110 (6,000+), Me-410 (1,100+), and FW-190 (20,000+).

M4 Shermans won the battle of Europe over slightly inferior Pz IV and the superior Panther and Tiger tanks due to overwhelming numbers. It was nearly the same story in the air, with one critical exception; by 1943 the Allied forces had a decisive qualitative and quantitative advantages.

It all adds up to this: the Me-264 went nowhere and never was going anywhere.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 17, 2020)

I like your turn of phrase.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 17, 2020)

Probably Me 264 deserves its own thread. Just saying.
Anyway, interesting project. I'm grateful for the new information I learned from Koopernic and from his "opponents".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> I learned from Koopernic and from his "opponents"


Not so much "opponent" as it is "point and counter-point"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> What kind of night-fighters did we have for defending the United States? The P-70 and P-61 right? I do remember some kluge jobs including a P-38 with a radar-pod (eventually, the night-lighting was developed as a purpose-built night-fighter, but that was later, IIRC).



None as none were needed. What kind of night fighters did Germany have before the RAF started night bombing?


----------



## Violator (Dec 17, 2020)

Talk about a bait and switch! The title of this thread is "P-61 alternatives," but the last 5+ pages are dedicated almost exclusively to the Me 264. Call me crazy, but I don't see the Me 264 as being a viable alternative to the P-61.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2020)

J
 jmcalli2
*, yup those German engines didn't go anywhere.*


----------



## wuzak (Dec 17, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.



Didn't the US have a base in Greenland, via which aircraft were flown to the UK?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Early Me 264 airframe, based on the Me 264V3 using DB801 radial engines of about 1700-1900hp , would have a range of 14,000km. The latter versions based on the using DB603H engines (essentially a DB603L of 2400hp) would have 17,000km range.
> 
> I have no photographs of the successful in flight refuelling equipment in 1942/43 between Ju 290/252 aircraft and actually order for the He 177A1 (till it ran into engine problems) but there are sketches. The receiver had a hose drogue and trailed it down to the tanker, optionally a boom to ensure good separation from turbulence. The Tanker had a telescoping probe with a Y fork and a hook that snagged the drogue ball, this was taken into the tanker aircraft and attached. Results were good.
> 
> ...



A couple of those routes seem to be within striking distance of a NF Mosquito fitted with long range tanks, particularly the one leaving from Germany.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2020)

wuzak said:


> A couple of those routes seem to be within striking distance of a NF Mosquito fitted with long range tanks, particularly the one leaving from Germany.


All of the routes are within striking distance at some point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Didn't the US have a base in Greenland, via which aircraft were flown to the UK?


Three USAAF bases, plus a joint USN and USCG base that had an air station.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 17, 2020)

Violator said:


> Talk about a bait and switch! The title of this thread is "P-61 alternatives," but the last 5+ pages are dedicated almost exclusively to the Me 264. Call me crazy, but I don't see the Me 264 as being a viable alternative to the P-61.



I started out me suggesting the P70 needed R-2800s and that neither P70 or P61 were up to the job. I was saying that if the Me 264 (speed 339mph at 21000ft or 350mph at 28000ft) might of been ready to conduct night raids on the US East Coast in December 1943 and that the P70 stood not hope of intercepting it since it was slower at any altitude and that the P-61 margin of speed (362mph) was insufficient for an intercept. The P61 was beginning production on October 1943 and I doubt it would be ready in December 1943 anyway.

The Me 264 had its maiden flight in December 1942. The engines it required, BMW801D2. were available and in service so a December 1943 nuisance raid is not implausible.

Basically the P-61 was ill-conceived as any bomber designed to attack the USA from japan or Europe would of necessity have exceptional aerodynamics and therefore speed. Adding turbo-chargers to the P61A of the day probably wouldn't make anything much better as its not going to improve speed at 21000ft by much if any.

I understand it was meant to loiter using its wide scan angle radar but what it needed was speed to get an intercept.

Mosquitos would be needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2020)

The P-61 was capable of over 360mph at 20,000 feet.
Explain again, how the Me264 equipped with BMW801D engines, travelling at 350mph at 27,000 feet is going to be hard to catch?


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Dec 18, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> In regards to my what if Me 264 attacking the US East Coast (all the way to Florida)
> 
> 
> US airborne defences would struggle. The Me 264 should be able to achieve 340-350mph and would easily outrun the P70 and the P-61A/B would hardly be any better.



The P-38 was designed and built from the start AS A BOMBER-INTERCEPTOR!
And it certainly did reach 400mph.
Its use as a fighter was a later mission-shift.

If there was a threat from a German fast high-altitude bomber, the P-38M (2-seat radar-equipped night fighter historically built) would certainly have been produced in numbers, and deployed in the penetration route areas.

As noted earlier in the thread, a version with a longer fuselage giving a larger cockpit for the radar operator (and incidentally increasing top speed) would have been produced, based on that test airframe discussed in posts 45-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Dec 18, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> What kind of night-fighters did we have for defending the United States? The P-70 and P-61 right? I do remember some kluge jobs including a P-38 with a radar-pod (eventually, the night-lighting was developed as a purpose-built night-fighter, but that was later, IIRC).



Yes, the P-38M was kind of a "kludge", but it was not "cleaned-up" because the P-61 met the need.

*The P-38M had a top speed of 406 mph at 15,000 feet as compared to only 369 mph at 20,000 feet for the Northrop P-61A Black Widow. * *Initial climb rate was 3075 feet per minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 8.7 minutes.*

If there was a need for a faster radar-equipped night-interceptor than an improved version (with the better fuselage mentioned above) would certainly have been introduced - and would likely only take a couple of months to do so.

P-38M :








Joe Baugher's site said:


> In 1944, Lockheed converted P-83L-5-LO Ser No 44-25237 as a two-seat night fighter, with the radar operator sitting aft of the pilot under a raised section of the canopy. The aircraft was fitted with an AN/APS-6 radar in an external radome underneath the nose, relocated radio equipment and anti-flash gun muzzles.
> 
> This modification was successful, and provided the USAAF with a night fighter having a top speed of 406 mph at 15,000 feet as compared to only 369 mph at 20,000 feet for the Northrop P-61A Black Widow. Consequently, the Army issued a contract change calling for the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas to convert 80 additional P-38L-5-LOs into P-38M twin-seat night fighters (some sources give 75, but 80 serials are identified). They were painted glossy black overall. These were just entering service when the war ended. The P-38M saw operational service in the Pacific in the last few days of the war. It was an effective night fighter with very little performance penalty over the standard single-seat Lightning.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 18, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Yes, the P-38M was kind of a "kludge", but it was not "cleaned-up" because the P-61 met the need.
> 
> *The P-38M had a top speed of 406 mph at 15,000 feet as compared to only 369 mph at 20,000 feet for the Northrop P-61A Black Widow. * *Initial climb rate was 3075 feet per minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 8.7 minutes.*
> 
> ...



That is certainly a far better night fighter interceptor though I note the radar was not in production till March 1944 and the P38M till late in 1944. The P38M certainly could have been prioritized somewhat. The glowing exhaust might alert the Me 264 crew. I’m not confident that the muzzle flash arrestors would be enough. The radar should be in the upper part of the nose and the guns low as possible. Luftwaffe night fighter pilots worked in dark cockpits with radium dial instruments to develop a strong night vision. The He 219 wing guns was disliked because of the effects of gun flash from them. A ventral pack is best.

In late, post D-day, 1944 things would be going badly for the Luftwaffe but replacing the BMW 801 radials with DB603 inline increased the speed of the Do 217K (Do 217M) by 15mph and increase the speed of the Ju 188E to Ju 188A with Jumo 213A also be 15mph. Ju 88G1 to G6 speed increase is 25mph with radar fitted possibly due to “increased boost” 1900hp rating.. Our Me 264 is now somewhere between 355-365mph at 21000ft. Still Within interception speed but not easy.

The mosquito was such a fast aircraft interception procedures involved orbiting the target. It had guns low down. 

The crews of such Me 264 would suffer attrition but the threat of the Me 264 would continue to force the US to deploy disproportionate resources.

The latter Me 264 would have been able to bomb the US west coast from bases in Japan using one in flight refueling.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 18, 2020)

Milosh said:


> J
> jmcalli2
> *, yup those German engines didn't go anywhere.*



Not on the Me-264 they didn't.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 18, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> That is certainly a far better night fighter interceptor though I note the radar was not in production till March 1944 and the P38M till late in 1944. The P38M certainly could have been prioritized somewhat. The glowing exhaust might alert the Me 264 crew. I’m not confident that the muzzle flash arrestors would be enough. The radar should be in the upper part of the nose and the guns low as possible. Luftwaffe night fighter pilots worked in dark cockpits with radium dial instruments to develop a strong night vision. The He 219 wing guns was disliked because of the effects of gun flash from them. A ventral pack is best.
> 
> In late, post D-day, 1944 things would be going badly for the Luftwaffe but replacing the BMW 801 radials with DB603 inline increased the speed of the Do 217K (Do 217M) by 15mph and increase the speed of the Ju 188E to Ju 188A with Jumo 213A also be 15mph. Ju 88G1 to G6 speed increase is 25mph with radar fitted possibly due to “increased boost” 1900hp rating.. Our Me 264 is now somewhere between 355-365mph at 21000ft. Still Within interception speed but not easy.
> 
> ...



One advantage the P-38M had was altitude performance until the P-61C came online. 
One disadvantage was the smaller radar that had a shorter range on the P-38M.
Another disadvantage was the cramped seating for the radar operator.
And one more observation: the P-61 had a much heavier armament, 4 x .50 cal and 4 x 20mm vs 4 x .50 cal and one x 20mm.

Oh, and if you're going to have "latter" Me-264s with inflight refueling operating from Japan, my F-106s will shoot the down as my B-58s nuke their bases.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 18, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Didn't the US have a base in Greenland, via which aircraft were flown to the UK?



North Atlantic air ferry route in World War II - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 18, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Didn't the US have a base in Greenland, via which aircraft were flown to the UK?



They did. So the Germans, whose bases(stations) remained undetected for a long time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 18, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> One advantage the P-38M had was altitude performance until the P-61C came online.
> One disadvantage was the smaller radar that had a shorter range on the P-38M.
> Another disadvantage was the cramped seating for the radar operator.
> And one more observation: the P-61 had a much heavier armament, 4 x .50 cal and 4 x 20mm vs 4 x .50 cal and one x 20mm.
> ...



Before anybody says that it the delta wing was developed in WW2 by Germany, that is certainly _partly_ true, but flight at high speeds was an active area of research in many national aeronautical laboratories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2020)

The triangular wing for stabilizing a rocket in flight were pioneered by an Austrian and a Lithuanian several hundred years before aircraft, however, it may be disappointing to some to know that it was indeed a German, Dr. Lippisch, who developed a delta wing that was capable of flight properties (both with and without a tail).
This was in the late 1910's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 18, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> They did. So the Germans, whose bases(stations) remained undetected for a long time.



Weather stations.

One was bombed by US planes.
Flying from Iceland.

Greenland during World War II Summary & Facts

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Before anybody says that it the delta wing was developed in WW2 by Germany, that is certainly _partly_ true, but flight at high speeds was an active area of research in many national aeronautical laboratories.



The Germans almost exclusively invested in the supersonic wind tunnels and the only ones to do so with big enough wind tunnels. We had some excellent work by Jakob Ackerart in Switzerland. His work on biconvex wings was what was used on the Miles M.52. He was lecturing at the University of Goetingen during the war and the US wanted to inter him and take him to the US but he was a Swiss citizen.
The Swept and delta wing (for purposes of raising Mach limit) was clearly the invention of Bussmann,
Along with that came development such as
-Area Ruling (No it was Not Whitcomb) the WW2 Germans even had coke bottle designs.
-Methods to deal with span wise flow such as slats, geometric twist, leading edge flaps, Krueger flaps.
-They even had supercritical wings.
There was at least 2 years of data there, probably much more

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The triangular wing for stabilizing a rocket in flight were pioneered by an Austrian and a Lithuanian several hundred years before aircraft, however, it may be disappointing to some to know that it was indeed a German, Dr. Lippisch, who developed a delta wing that was capable of flight properties (both with and without a tail).
> This was in the late 1910's.



ive always thought the claim for invention of a delta “wing” On the basis of a triangular stabilising “fin“ applied to a sketch of a black powered rocket originating from the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth or was it empire is petty and trite. At one point over 40% of the Wikipedia entry on delta wing was taken up by this jingoistic nonsense over triangular fins with no useful technical information. While it deserves a sentence in mention and a separate article on these fascinating early rockets we have by contrast at most 1 sentence on Alexander Lippisch, the only guy with primacy in theoretical and practical work on delta wings (not fins) and their stability in both subsonic and supersonic level flight. Nothing about how they generate vortices to reattach air flow. I have to go to millenium 7 on youtube for that. The ethnicity of the guy involved seemingly varies from Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Polish or what not depending on the political or national agenda of who is involved in writing the article. Wikipedia has become a cesspit of carefully adjudicated fake history and fake narratives that infect even technology. I’m pretty sure that Saturn V will soon be shown to be directory inspired by the guy that put triangular fins on black powder rockets.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> One advantage the P-38M had was altitude performance until the P-61C came online.
> One disadvantage was the smaller radar that had a shorter range on the P-38M.
> Another disadvantage was the cramped seating for the radar operator.
> And one more observation: the P-61 had a much heavier armament, 4 x .50 cal and 4 x 20mm vs 4 x .50 cal and one x 20mm.
> ...



Why? The Luftwaffe demonstrated multiple successful in flight refuelling in 1943 between Ju 252 and Ju 290 aircraft. They happened in WW2. F106 didn’t. In Manfred Griehl's “Luftwaffe over Amerika” minutes of meeting are reproduced between Erhardt Milch and the Luftwaffe project manager for the Me 264 who says the results of these in flight experiments and trials was very good and the risk was acceptable because if the tanker and aircraft left together and refuelling took place 1/3rd of the way out to target there would be no loss of crew or aircraft if the refuelling failed as they could both abort to base.

The prototype for the 13000km and 14000km range Me 264 flew. The 17000km range version with 2400hp engines didn’t get built but those engines did start to become available before the war was out.

If the Me 264 became available there would be a vast improvement in Luftwaffe reconnaissance and maybe nuisance raids on the US east coast. It would also allow rapid exchange of personnel, materials, technology between the Japanese and Germans.

17000km x 1.33 is about 22200km which would allow attacks on San Francisco Bay by Me 264 based near Tokyo. This makes the most industrially important areas both US east coast and west coast vulnerable. 

The P61 would be useful as a picket and AWACS in a sort of layered defence.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Germans almost exclusively invested in the supersonic wind tunnels and the only ones to do so with big enough wind tunnels. We had some excellent work by Jakob Ackerart in Switzerland. His work on biconvex wings was what was used on the Miles M.52. He was lecturing at the University of Goetingen during the war and the US wanted to inter him and take him to the US but he was a Swiss citizen.
> The Swept and delta wing (for purposes of raising Mach limit) was clearly the invention of Bussmann,
> Along with that came development such as
> -Area Ruling (No it was Not Whitcomb) the WW2 Germans even had coke bottle designs.
> ...



I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where Scotty mentions Scotch and Checkov replies that Scotch was "inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Why? The Luftwaffe demonstrated multiple successful in flight refuelling in 1943 between Ju 252 and Ju 290 aircraft. They happened in WW2. F106 didn’t. In Manfred Griehl's “Luftwaffe over Amerika” minutes of meeting are reproduced between Erhardt Milch and the Luftwaffe project manager for the Me 264 who says the results of these in flight experiments and trials was very good and the risk was acceptable because if the tanker and aircraft left together and refuelling took place 1/3rd of the way out to target there would be no loss of crew or aircraft if the refuelling failed as they could both abort to base.
> 
> The prototype for the 13000km and 14000km range Me 264 flew. The 17000km range version with 2400hp engines didn’t get built but those engines did start to become available before the war was out.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, seems I forgot that Germany won the war and ruled the world.

"I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal."
Marx
Groucho not Karl

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> If the Me 264 became available there would be a vast improvement in Luftwaffe reconnaissance and maybe nuisance raids on the us east coast. *It would also allow rapid exchange of personnel, materials, technology between the Japanese and Germans.*


Only if they could find a route that did not over-fly Soviet territory.
Historically, the Japanese discouraged anything that would compromise their neutrality pact with Moscow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 19, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Only if they could find a route that did not over-fly Soviet territory.
> Historically, the Japanese discouraged anything that would compromise their neutrality pact with Moscow.



Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan/India-Manchukuo(refueling). The actual route (subject no Japanese on board) could be over the USSR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2020)

Turkey would be a possibility but Iran/Iraq may have been an issue due to an Allied presence.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 19, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where Scotty mentions Scotch and Checkov replies that Scotch was "inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad."


Quatrotriticale was also revealed to be a product of the USSR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Only if they could find a route that did not over-fly Soviet territory.
> Historically, the Japanese discouraged anything that would compromise their neutrality pact with Moscow.



Just playing with the "measure distance" function on google maps. A Polar route between say Narvik and Sapporo is about 6000km. Filling it with dog legs to avoid Soviet Territory increases this to 9200km. That's within the 14000km capability of the aircraft Going from Munich over the Mediterranean, middle east then the Himalayas on to Japan is about 12300km. It would be a pretty hazardous journey with the flight over the Berring Sea between Alaska and Siberia perhaps vulnerable to interception. These flights would of course take place with maximum secrecy and phases of low altitude and night flying timed to minimise risk of detection interception.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> ive always thought the claim for invention of a delta “wing” On the basis of a triangular stabilising “fin“ applied to a sketch of a black powered rocket originating from the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth or was it empire is petty and trite. At one point over 40% of the Wikipedia entry on delta wing was taken up by this jingoistic nonsense over triangular fins with no useful technical information. While it deserves a sentence in mention and a separate article on these fascinating early rockets we have by contrast at most 1 sentence on Alexander Lippisch, the only guy with primacy in theoretical and practical work on delta wings (not fins) and their stability in both subsonic and supersonic level flight. Nothing about how they generate vortices to reattach air flow. I have to go to millenium 7 on youtube for that. The ethnicity of the guy involved seemingly varies from Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Polish or what not depending on the political or national agenda of who is involved in writing the article. Wikipedia has become a cesspit of carefully adjudicated fake history and fake narratives that infect even technology. I’m pretty sure that Saturn V will soon be shown to be directory inspired by the guy that put triangular fins on black powder rockets.


Just to touch on this briefly, the Lithuanian was Kazimierz Siemienowicz, who was a General in the Polish Army. He was quite accomplished in military rocketry and had written about his methods and applications (which may have caused his demise, too).
This page from Brown University has listings of his publications as well as a short bio:
Kazimierz Siemienowicz

By the way, NASA has a great timeline overview of rocketry from it's beginnings, to modern day (in .PDF form):
NASA (.gov) › atoms › filesPDF Rockets Educator Guide - NASA

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 19, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Quatrotriticale was also revealed to be a product of the USSR.



Along with many other 'intentions' and sayings.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Just playing with the "measure distance" function on google maps. A Polar route between say Narvik and Sapporo is about 6000km. Filling it with dog legs to avoid Soviet Territory increases this to 9200km. That's within the 14000km capability of the aircraft Going from Munich over the Mediterranean, middle east then the Himalayas on to Japan is about 12300km. It would be a pretty hazardous journey with the flight over the Berring Sea between Alaska and Siberia perhaps vulnerable to interception. These flights would of course take place with maximum secrecy and phases of low altitude and night flying timed to minimise risk of detection interception.
> View attachment 605723



Because there were no aircraft or other US forces on or around the Aleutian Islands, and Germany had several different kind of aircraft that could fly the 2,600 mile stretch while carrying useful cargo, and there were absolutely no allied forces in the Mediterranean or India/Burma regions, so it could work.
But, why bother? The Germans could have just used their transporter and beamed everything to Japan.
Funny why they never did any of that. Seems so obvious.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Because there were no aircraft or other US forces on or around the Aleutian Islands, and Germany had several different kind of aircraft that could fly the 2,600 mile stretch while carrying useful cargo, and there were absolutely no allied forces in the Mediterranean or India/Burma regions, so it could work.
> But, why bother? The Germans could have just used their transporter and beamed everything to Japan.
> Funny why they never did any of that. Seems so obvious.



I should have known. There would be Brad Pitts stationed in the Aleutians. They can intercept anything. Ive seen them dodge shrapnel from 81mm mortars bursting 2 yards away by crouching with an M1 Sherman BAR and running in a cool uniform as has been accurately documented by Stephenie Spiegelbergerman. (Also Fact Checked) Once training and romance has been completed they would be equipped in 1942 to fly Pratt and Whitney R4360 Corsairs carrying AN/APG F15 Eagle Radar with Mighy Mo Phoeinix 050 Browning missiles there can be no escape for the huns. No radar gaps, no strategies. There would be but one causality: the nice guy in the rear cockpit, nicknamed "Goose" might die tragically at the hands of the Germans but that just makes us feel more emotion and that is a good thing. If you need any more WW2 history like this go to your video library.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2020)

The Japanese did hold the western-most portion of the Aleutians until '43, so the route proposed *may* have been viable, as patrols by the U.S., Canada and the Soviet Union were sparse north of the islands.
The main concern would be the violent weather that can develop in the Bering Straights region.
That area is known to spawn storms that can reach as far south as Southern California.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 20, 2020)

As likely to happen as Germans flying over the North Pole in planes they didn't have to give the Japanese military gear Germany produced an excess of.
Or Germany using aerial refueling to bomb the US in 1940 using planes that were immune to interception and first flew in December 1942 then were abandoned after a few flights.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Japanese did hold the western-most portion of the Aleutians until '43, so the route proposed *may* have been viable, as patrols by the U.S., Canada and the Soviet Union were sparse north of the islands.
> The main concern would be the violent weather that can develop in the Bering Straights region.
> That area is known to spawn storms that can reach as far south as Southern California.



Exploring the P61's capacity to counter attacks by the Me 264 has been informative. I can see how US planners wanted to create an aircraft that could patrol far from American shores using an aircraft with the capability of carrying an excellent radar. In doing so they compromised its performance as an interceptor. The Turbosupercharger version would seem to have have the ability to intercept at a high speed and higher altitude than the intruding Me 264 and then dive to intercept but did not get built till late 1945. Yes I concede that the P38M would be able to intercept but that the 1944 and 1945 versions of the Me 264 would be faster as well.

The B-29 flew in October 1942 after seemingly getting the go ahead in 1938.

The Me 264 was on a tighter schedule. Formal work started in January 1941 after an formal order for 6 prototypes and 30 bombers had been placed in the preceding year.

(Early 1940 was the year the Roosevelt Administration gave port facilities and ship repair facilities (before the Battle of Britain) to the British and shortly thereafter signed the Lend Lease Act effectively funding 40% of the UK war effort and this triggered the Me 264 program)

However Messerschmitt had already done much advanced preliminary work in Project P1061 and he promised a first flight in May 1942. He was late by 7 months (December 1942).

Had Messerschmitt achieved his target date of May 1942 I think we would have seen the Me 264 in service. Major Petersen of the Luftwaffe Reichlin Test Facility reported it should be ready by Autumn 1943 for operations against the United States.

I'm still reading Fredrick Forsysth's excellent book. It seems the Me 264 failed because
1 The men in charge of its development and Luftwaffe procurement Ernst Udet and his replacement (after Udets suicide) Erhardt Milch not only did not support 4 engine bombers but both opposed them.
2 Milch did not like Messerschmitt due to supposed insensitivity after one of Milch's friends died flying one of Messerschmitt's aircraft which had experimental spoilerons (like the P-61)
3 Milch wanted resources to go to the Me 262 jet instead.
4 In 1941/42 the Me 210 fiasco occurred where handling difficulties arose in the Me 210 preventing a ramp up in production just as Me 110 and He 111 was to ramp down. Its said Messerschmitt had personally intervened in the design to reduce tail length. The RLM and Messerschmitt also constructed hundreds of jigs for the flawed tail. No measure to solve handling worked without the lengthened tail. Messerschmitt got blamed.

All these difficulties compounded. I Messerschmitt made a mistake, he made very few, and more people are to blame for gambling so much on this aircraft. Had he not have made this mistake I believe resources would have been available for the Me 264.

More fascinating is the Me 264/6m, a minor 6 engine 4.5m stretch of the 4 engine Me 264, which when upgraded from Jumo 211 with with 6 x Jumo 213 was expected to have a range of 18000km with bombs and 22,000km without.

That is more than enough for any scenario.

If the Me 264 was produced at 100/month as had been planed for the He 177 I suspect the Luftwaffe might have kept 400-600 Me 264 operational at any one time.

I cant see that being enough to effect US industry. However treble production to 300 month and get the Japanese involved it becomes a threat. Obviously the Reich lacked recourses to do this.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 4, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Why? The Luftwaffe demonstrated multiple successful in flight refuelling in 1943 between Ju 252 and Ju 290 aircraft. They happened in WW2.


Does anybody have any data about the refueling system they used?


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 8, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Does anybody have any data about the refuelling system they used?



Unfortunately I cant find my copy of Manfred Grieh's Luftwaffe over Amerika which has sketches, otherwise id send scans.

It involved a hose but I believe the tanker flew behind the receiver and pumped up to it in the 1941 experiments. Sort of a reverse hose and drogue but they tried a version in which the hose and drogue was on an extension arm that could be called a boom. This would have cleared the downwash of the aircraft and made hook-up easier.

There are several original sketches of the various German experiments conducted with small 2 engine aircraft (ABOUT 10 seaters) in 1940 as well as some photographs of the hose reel and its attachment. These were reproduced in Manfred Griehls "The Luftwaffe over Amerika". This book also refers to the experiments conducted over what was then the Sudetenland and is now the Czech Republic between Ju 252 and Ju 290, the flight logs confirm this. In several of the minutes of meeting conducted around the progress of the Me 264 the Luftwaffe's project manager for the Me 264 (who also had responsibilities regarding long range maritime reconnaissance, who had been keeping an eye on these in flight refuelling tests referred to them as having produced quite good results and that a buddy to buddy refuelling should extend range by at least 1/3rd. The risk of a refueler and receiver not rendezvousing could be managed by having them leave in formation together. This was by way of a meeting with Milch and Goering present with a stenographer that clearly could keep up with their sarcastic banter.

Refuelling kits were ordered for the He 177A1 recon but fell of production when that aircraft encountered its problems.

Basically one system from the 1940 tests the aircraft trailed a drogue with a drag producing ball or funnel. The aircraft behind (the tanker) had a Y-fork on about a 2m extensions coming veristically out behind the cockpit. The fork had a crook that closed and snagged the ball which was then drawn in to the aircraft and attached to the fuel system. Another system connected at a nose probe.

These were the 1940 experiments. Obviously by 1943 things had progressed. The Ju 252/353/290/390 of course had a trappoklappe rear loading ramp to simplify the installation.

From what I can see the receiver would only require a hose reel and a drogue.

Griehl was a prolific writer on books regarding German aviation but he clearly wasn't an aviation professional or engineer or historian. Nevertheless the material he collects is sometimes unique.


After 1943 the Me 264 prototypes had been destroyed however the Ju 290/390 could still use it and the theoretical paper Me 264, Ta 400 and the various jets sometimes referred to it being included.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 8, 2021)

I have the book and got it out because of this and other threads. It looks like a very delicate operation in Atlantic weather.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 11, 2021)

special ed said:


> I have the book and got it out because of this and other threads. It looks like a very delicate operation in Atlantic weather.



I think the versions used for the Ju 290 tests would have been much larger, robust than the 1940s version. The Ju 390 could plausibly just reach the US eastern seaboard on a return mission with one in flight refuelling. Probably not reliable due to bad weather often found at 20000ft.


----------



## gruad (Jan 14, 2021)

I think the big problem with the P61 was not that it was a bad aircraft, but that it arrived late through over engineering.

A forward firing 2 man aircraft could have been delivered in large numbers by mid 1943. This is early enough to make it an offensive aircraft against German nightfighters and aerodromes. 

This could have made a big difference to the night assault on Germany and thus it is a big shame that Northrup went for technical perfection rather than practicality. Normally this stupidity would be on the German side, but here the allies are guilty too.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2021)

gruad said:


> I think the big problem with the P61 was not that it was a bad aircraft, but that it arrived late through over engineering.


In what way was it over-engineered? The turret was a problem, but it was part of the specifications.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jan 14, 2021)

gruad said:


> I think the big problem with the P61 was not that it was a bad aircraft, but that it arrived late through over engineering.
> 
> A forward firing 2 man aircraft could have been delivered in large numbers by mid 1943. This is early enough to make it an offensive aircraft against German nightfighters and aerodromes.
> 
> This could have made a big difference to the night assault on Germany and thus it is a big shame that Northrup went for technical perfection rather than practicality. Normally this stupidity would be on the German side, but here the allies are guilty too.



Combat changed a lot between project conception and squadron service. The P-61 was designed to shoot down night bombers like the AVRO Lancaster, not dogfight enemy day fighters.
P-61s were the only thing flying at certain points during the Battle of the Bulge.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Jan 18, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> In what way was it over-engineered? The turret was a problem, but it was part of the specifications.


Ok the spec may have been wrong, a bit like the Defiant.

The P61 was based on a British spec - at the time the Defiant was being used as a nightfighter.

Getting rid of the gunner means no twin boom and additional weight/complexity. With the R2800s you have a plane with great performance.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

Alternative to the P-61? Accelerate development on a P-38 NF.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Alternative to the P-61? Accelerate development on a P-38 NF.


The USAAF had the P-70, too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2021)

They First flew an A-26 in the summer of 1942, there may have been a night fighter version of it on paper. 

In 1940-4-42 the P-38 needed radar that didn't exist yet. That or the P-38 would have needed a new fuselage/nacelle to hold the radar and operator.


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 21, 2021)

The P-61 was found to be inadequate to intercept Japanese bombers hitting Saipan because they could not climb to altitude fast enough and were replaced by Hellcat night fighters. The P-70 was not a high altitude airplane and would have been even less adequate.

They compared the P-38M night fighter to the P-61 in the Pacific and found the P-61 to be superior. Among other things, the RO was so cramped that he could not help the pilot scan for targets visually.

The A-26A was the night fighter version. They built one. It was not a high altitude airplane either.

Hey, for a real What If, they should have told Fisher to forget that abortion called the P-75 and built the P-82 under NAA's direction instead. Everything you need and a 3000 mile range, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The USAAF had the P-70, too.





Shortround6 said:


> They First flew an A-26 in the summer of 1942, there may have been a night fighter version of it on paper.
> 
> In 1940-4-42 the P-38 needed radar that didn't exist yet. That or the P-38 would have needed a new fuselage/nacelle to hold the radar and operator.



My impetus for developing a NF version of the -38 would be 1) a moderate addition of speed (~10%?); 2) better climb than either of these alternatives, enabling more useful response times. And yes, I'd think a nacelle redesign would be necessary, but I'd think a 1943 operational date would be doable. For the radar itself, I don't doubt the UK would help with their experience at AI units.

I'd think the biggest problems encountered in such a modification would be C/G issues (which perhaps could be handled entirely by adding some length to the nose to counterbalance a larger RIO station), and relocating the guns to the underside to reduce flash-blindness for the pilot. I don't see either of those problems as insuperable, but I'm no engineer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'd think the biggest problems encountered in such a modification would be C/G issues (which perhaps could be handled entirely by adding some length to the nose.


 If you didn't have to add additional equipment, the first solution would be adding ballast before a structural mod.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you didn't have to add additional equipment, the first solution would be adding ballast before a structural mod.



Not being too conversant with the equipment weights, I'd think that extending the rear of the nacelle to accommodate the RIO -- and perhaps a larger radar than the pod-mount carried by the P-38M -- I was thinking that a plug installed forward of the cockpit to put the weight of guns and/or ammo would serve to counterbalance.

Then again, we could simply take advice about the P-39 and move the radio? 

Bottom line is that if this project is taken in hand in early 1942, I don't doubt that by mid-1943 a flying solution could hit the assembly lines and be issued to squadrons for work-ups.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not being too conversant with the equipment weights, I'd think that extending the rear of the nacelle to accommodate the RIO -- and perhaps a larger radar than the pod-mount carried by the P-38M -- I was thinking that a plug installed forward of the cockpit to put the weight of guns and/or ammo would serve to counterbalance.


 Again, if you're adding more equipment, yes - to stop and do a re-design (engineering, tooling, production phase in) is too much work and time consuming if can add a few pounds of ballast to achieve the same goal.


Thumpalumpacus said:


> Then again, we could simply take advice about the P-39 and move the radio?



LOL - yea, just make sure the CG goes forward!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

It'd definitely take some time no matter what solution was chosen, not just for the redesigns (preferably minor, perhaps more than minor being required), but also for a testing regime before operational capability is acquired.

At any rate, I suspect it was doable had the need been present (to nit at another thread, if the Me-264 had started haggling New York, or something, for instance). As it was, our need for night-fighters wasn't as pressing as the Brits, which is why theirs were pegging out better, I imagine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It'd definitely take some time no matter what solution was chosen.


The additional equipment maybe, adding ballast to support the CG, not. Ballast installations are simple to do and in most cases can be done within hours (if less).


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The additional equipment maybe, adding ballast to support the CG, not. Ballast installations are simple to do and in most cases can be done within hours (if less).



I'm assuming additional equipment/structure in order to give the radar operator a better crew-position behind the pilot -- extending the nacelle a couple of feet aft, and giving the RIO the room for screens and life-support equipment; and perhaps relocating the radar into the nacelle (under/behind the RIO, or between him and pilot?) in order to clear the way for guns relocated to the underside to avoid flash-blindness.

I sure wouldn't want to do a Quasimodo on my backseater for a six-hour mission like the -M would require.

Admittedly a longer development time, but still, I think 16-18 months (if started in, say, Jan 42) giving the US a competitive night-fighter by summer of 43.

I'm not sure how much extra room any -38 had in the nose for ballast (given ammo load-out) to compensate for these mods, so I'm being conservative. But I think even being conservative, we could have made a good nightfighter from that airframe by mid-1943 had the need been demanding.

There's a few ways to skin this cat, I think.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 21, 2021)

Quick and easy way to get a RIO in a P-38



Snautzer01 said:


>

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Quick and easy way to get a RIO in a P-38



Is that a recce bird (note window)? Also has the long range navaid antenna.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 21, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Is that a recce bird (note window)?



Yes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 21, 2021)

Typically, the SCR-720 was mounted in the nose.


Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'm assuming additional equipment/structure in order to give the radar operator a better crew-position behind the pilot -- extending the nacelle a couple of feet aft, and giving the RIO the room for screens and life-support equipment; and perhaps relocating the radar into the nacelle (under/behind the RIO, or between him and pilot?) in order to clear the way for guns relocated to the underside to avoid flash-blindness.
> 
> I sure wouldn't want to do a Quasimodo on my backseater for a six-hour mission like the -M would require.
> 
> ...


If you're going to go to all that trouble, than perhaps look to the XP-58. It had a good start but was plagued with engine development issues that ended up shelving the project towards war's end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 21, 2021)

Structural mods involve design, stress analysis, aerodynamics, punches and dies, form blocks and other tooling, jigs, training, etc etc etc
Moving heavy components like the battery and oil tank(s) etc and adding ballast are always the preferred options

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Quick and easy way to get a RIO in a P-38



... and you can drop him off on your way home. I like it!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Typically, the SCR-720 was mounted in the nose.





MiTasol said:


> Structural mods involve design, aerodynamics, punches and dies, form blocks and other tooling, jigs, training, etc etc etc
> Moving heavy components like the battery and oil tank(s) etc and adding ballast are always the preferred options



I'm learning a lot in this discussion. That's always cool.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'd think that extending the rear of the nacelle to accommodate the RIO -- and --- I was thinking that a plug installed forward of the cockpit to put the weight of guns and/or ammo would serve to counterbalance.


You now have a much larger keel surface area which will try and keep the aircraft flying in a straight line so will need bigger elevators and rudders which means extending the nose for balance which means...... It is not as simple as it first sounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If you're going to go to all that trouble, than perhaps look to the XP-58. It had a good start but was plagued with engine development issues that ended up shelving the project towards war's end.



I guess that's essentially my solution, without the engine swap. Say with mounting the radar and the crewman you add 4-500 lbs, without changing the engines with all that entails. What is that in terms of airspeed, do you know? I'd guess you lose thirty or forty MPH, which still gets you an improvement over either of the bomber conversions mentioned.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'm learning a lot in this discussion. That's always cool.



That is one of the reasons I hang out here when I have spare time. There are so many here who know so much more that I do and who are willing to share it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> You now have a much larger keel surface area which will try and keep the aircraft flying in a straight line so will need bigger elevators and rudders which means extending the nose for balance which means...... It is not as simple as it first sounds.



Yeah, I was thinking the nose would have to be extended a little. I get that the rudders need to be larger, for yaw stability. So long as the platform is stable enough for night-shoots it should be okay, no?

I may be underthinking this. I appreciate y'all humoring me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I guess that's essentially my solution, without the engine swap. Say with mounting the radar and the crewman you add 4-500 lbs, without changing the engines with all that entails. What is that in terms of airspeed, do you know? I'd guess you lose thirty or forty MPH, which still gets you an improvement over either of the bomber conversions mentioned.


*when* the Allison V-3420s were working properly, it was able to attain a max. speed over 435mph.
Wince we're in sort of a "what-if" zone here, I'd suggest fitting it with R-2800s from the start. Also stop wasting time by trying to equip it with any and every sort of rifle/cannon that's in the Army's inventory - go for a brace of 20mm cannon.
There should be enough room in the nose for the SCR-720 radar and enough room in back for the crewman to operate the radar equipment.
I'm even thinking that the two defensive turrets may not be nessecary...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> *when* the Allison V-3420s were working properly, it was able to attain a max. speed over 435mph.
> Wince we're in sort of a "what-if" zone here, I'd suggest fitting it with R-2800s from the start. Also stop wasting time by trying to equip it with any and every sort of rifle/cannon that's in the Army's inventory - go for a brace of 20mm cannon.
> There should be enough room in the nose for the SCR-720 radar and enough room in back for the crewman to operate the radar equipment.
> I'm even thinking that the two defensive turrets may not be nessecary...



Yeah, I'm thinking no defensive armament, and no engine swaps. For a night fighter, I'd like 4x20mm under the hood. Same 1710s, no guns pointing the wrong way, and accept the lower speed -- still in the high 300s -- as that will get the job done anyway.

What I'm thinking would certainly require redesigning the nacelle, but done right, you should be able to do that without too much fuss elsewhere. Larger rudders -- or dorsal fillets? -- to tamp down yaw from the extra length.

XP-58 is certainly more than what I'm imagining. Too much superstructure, and new engines to boot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, I was thinking the nose would have to be extended a little. I get that the rudders need to be larger, for yaw stability. So long as the platform is stable enough for night-shoots it should be okay, no?
> 
> I may be underthinking this. I appreciate y'all humoring me.



The Problem is that the P-38M used radar that didn't exist in 1942. let alone when work started on the P-61. 




The SCR-520 radar went about 477lbs. It was replaced by the SCR-720 radar. 
The P-38M used the same radar as the Corsair and F6F used in the wing mounted pods.

The parabolic dish on the SCR-520 was 30in in diameter. see The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: SCR-520 Airborne Radar

Good radars got smaller rather quickly but the small radars aren't going to show up until sometime in 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Problem is that the P-38M used radar that didn't exist in 1942. let alone when work started on the P-61.
> View attachment 616877
> 
> The SCR-520 radar went about 477lbs. It was replaced by the SCR-720 radar.
> ...



Anyone know the cross-sectional dimensions of the P-38 nacelle?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2021)

The Later SCR-720 mounted in a P-61
.





Please note that the dish could and did turn 90 degrees from the fuselage axis and is nearly there in the photo. 

The radar used on the F4U, F6F and P-38M used a 19in parabolic reflector.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2021)

Interesting thread. If I've got it right here's the definitive NP38 so far.
Somewhat elongated central nacelle with a boat tail extension aft and a longer canopy with a more gradual downsloping "fastback" to accommodate the RO. I read somewhere that NACA determined the P38's aerodynamics were negatively affected by the center nacelle's "bobtail" shape, but production commitments prevented a fix from being applied.
SCR 520 in the nose, with a mod engineered for 720 when it would be available. Bigger dishes enhance radar performance, but in practical terms antenna azimuths beyond 60° aren't worth the extra drag the larger radome produces.
Four 20MMs under the nose to minimize flash blindness. Moving the guns and ammo down and back along with the boat tail extension will shift CG aft so as much electrical and electronics as possible can go in the now vacated nose. Expendable ammo is now closer to the CG. The further forward the radar boxes are, the more separation they have from the cannons and their vibrations.
Night fighters don't "dogfight", but they do require a stable gun platform, so the additional keel effect of the longer boat tail aft of CG can be viewed as a gift, not a burden, and the existing flight controls should be adequate (boosted ailerons, of course). Redesigned larger "bolt on" rudders may be required for engine-out handling reasons.
This is all speculation, and given the time frame it would have been needed, the decision to proceed would have to be made long before the real world shortcomings of the P61 would become evident. On paper it would have looked like a world beater from the perspective of 1941-42. Nice exercise in retroscopy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Quick and easy way to get a RIO in a P-38


Not a great place to be for a belly landing


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2021)

Glider said:


> Not a great place to be for a belly landing


Well they're not Radar Intercept OFFICERS. They're Radar Operators, corporals and sergeants, so they're expendable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2021)

I hate to be the one to spoil the party, but that pod on the F-5 (P-38) was actually for Medivac...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2021)

The 'Swordfish' P-38 modification would've been a good start, minus the wing appendices of course: link

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 22, 2021)

The SCR-720 radar used in the P-61, late Mossies, and the P-82 was the best night fighter radar of WWII. It had a range of 10 miles and worked well even down to altitudes as low as 500 ft. AGL. Deliveries of the SCR-720 began in Nov 1942.

The Hellcat and Corsair night fighters were equipped with the APS-4. Production began in late 1942. It had a range of only 5 miles and was more adversely affected by ground clutter than the SCR-720.

The SCR-720 was much larger than the APS-4. Take a look at the pod that held that radar on the P-82; it was huge. There was no way to incorporate the SCR-720 in a P-38. 

Comparing the P-61B and P-38M, the USAAF concluded that the P-38M had higher performance but for aircraft that both fighters were capable of intercepting the P-61 was superior. Both aircraft were found to have the same range, and the P-61's range was found to be inadequate in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I hate to be the one to spoil the party, but that pod on the F-5 (P-38) was actually for Medivac...



True, but it's still not good place to be for a belly landing

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 23, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Interesting thread. If I've got it right here's the definitive NP38 so far.
> Somewhat elongated central nacelle with a boat tail extension aft and a longer canopy with a more gradual downsloping "fastback" to accommodate the RO. I read somewhere that NACA determined the P38's aerodynamics were negatively affected by the center nacelle's "bobtail" shape, but production commitments prevented a fix from being applied.
> SCR 520 in the nose, with a mod engineered for 720 when it would be available. Bigger dishes enhance radar performance, but in practical terms antenna azimuths beyond 60° aren't worth the extra drag the larger radome produces.
> Four 20MMs under the nose to minimize flash blindness. Moving the guns and ammo down and back along with the boat tail extension will shift CG aft so as much electrical and electronics as possible can go in the now vacated nose. Expendable ammo is now closer to the CG. The further forward the radar boxes are, the more separation they have from the cannons and their vibrations.
> ...



You certainly put the advantages in better, and more technical terms, than I have, but that's essentially the basis underlying my suggestions. And yes, there's a bit of hindsight involved, but I've been known to climb up my own ass as well before, lol.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 23, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> The 'Swordfish' P-38 modification would've been a good start, minus the wing appendices of course: link



That's what I'm talking about!


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 23, 2021)

What are those appendages?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> What are those appendages?


Some sort of airfoil cuff to enhance lift in the propwash stream and guarantee a root stall prior to a tip stall?? Some sort of a coolant radiator?? "Conformal aux fuel tankage?? An embryonic Boundary Layer Control system?? You never know what Kelly and the Skunks will come up with next. Watch the Billboard Hot 100 every week to find out!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 24, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> Take a look at the pod that held that radar on the P-82; it was huge.


Was that beast configured as a two pilot airplane with full flight controls on both sides, or was it a Pilot/WSO (or enlisted RO) configuration?


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> What are those appendages?



NACA was testing airfoils.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 24, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Was that beast configured as a two pilot airplane with full flight controls on both sides, or was it a Pilot/WSO (or enlisted RO) configuration?



The normal configuration for the P-61 is the pilot in the front, the gunner behind him in a seat that rotated 360 degrees with the turret, and the radio operator in the rear of the center fuselage. The only flight controls were in the pilot's position. Since the turret was either removed from late P-61A and early P-61B airplanes and in some cases replaced by fixed forward firing guns, one of the ETO units (421st?) moved the RO position to the gunner's position behind the pilot so to enable both men to acquire targets visually.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 24, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The normal configuration for the P-61 is the pilot in the front, the gunner behind him in a seat that rotated 360 degrees with the turret, and the radio operator in the rear of the center fuselage.


My apologies for the ambiguous question. I was asking about the P82. The P61 has been discussed at great length here and I think, well understood.


----------



## ClayO (Mar 24, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> Comparing the P-61B and P-38M, the USAAF concluded that the P-38M had higher performance but for aircraft that both fighters were capable of intercepting the P-61 was superior. Both aircraft were found to have the same range, and the P-61's range was found to be inadequate in the Pacific.



Which says that maybe all they needed to do with the P-61 was leave off the turret and one of the crewmen from the beginning. Less weight for higher speed and faster climbing to altitude as an interceptor, or more room for an extra gas tank for longer endurance on patrol. Without the complexity and airflow problems of the automatic turret, the development time would have have been shorter, so maybe it would have been fully ready for service in early 1944 instead of needing further trials, undergoing second-guessing, etc.
Which crewman to leave out? They probably would have kept the rear guy, since he could operate the radar and keep an eye out for approaching fighters. That means that there would still have been the problem of the tail cone falling off, but maybe they could have solved that quicker if they could have focused more effort on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Mar 24, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The normal configuration for the P-61 is the pilot in the front, the gunner behind him in a seat that rotated 360 degrees with the turret, and the radio operator in the rear of the center fuselage. The only flight controls were in the pilot's position. Since the turret was either removed from late P-61A and early P-61B airplanes and in some cases replaced by fixed forward firing guns, one of the ETO units (421st?) moved the RO position to the gunner's position behind the pilot so to enable both men to acquire targets visually.



Actually, the gunner controlled the turret up to the 3:00 and 9:00 positions - aft of the the RO was to take over with his own gun sight and controls.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 24, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Was that beast configured as a two pilot airplane with full flight controls on both sides, or was it a Pilot/WSO (or enlisted RO) configuration?


The P(F)-82 had dual controls so one pilotnwas able to relieve the other on long escorts/patrols.
The NF version, however, saw the flight controls removed from Starboard cockpit to make room for the RO's equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 24, 2021)

For ferry purposes in the Pacific the P-61 did have a fuel tank mounted in location for the turret. Ugly thing, but I guess it was not used in combat.

Looking out behind was not a big deal; the aircraft had the APS-13 tail warning radar, so if they had relocated the RO forward to the gunner location they would not lose anything. P-61's in the Pacific were directed not to engage enemy aircraft in daylight but the pilots did not always heed that restriction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 24, 2021)

The RO in the F-82 did kind of have his hands full with that radar. But he did have a few basic flight instruments. Also attached is one of my favorite Scale Modeler covers. Exactly what the F-82's shot down that day seems a bit uncertain. They reported the enemy aircraft had an observer to some have asserted it was a Yak-11, as shown, But the Yak-7V fighter also was a two-seater and it probably is more likely it was one of those.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 27, 2021)

I don't think it would have been possible to move the P-82 up significantly in time. The fuselage of the production P-82 was "based" (and I use that word loosely because I've heard different things about how much actual commonality there was) on that of the P-51H that itself didn't make it into combat in WWII. The best alternative for the USAAF to the P-61 would have been either the F6F-5N or the F7F-2N. In my mind, if it was given enough priority, the F7F could have been moved to another facility to give it more attention. The Navy put the F7F on the slow track to avoid delaying F6F production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 27, 2021)

Here's the special test P-38 with the extended center nacelle. It still would have not been able to mount the SCR-720.

As for moving up the P-82, I think that if they job was given to Fisher instead of that XP-75 monstrosity it could have been moved up. Basing it on the P-51D instead of the P-51H should have been entirely feasible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> As for moving up the P-82, I think that if they job was given to Fisher instead of that XP-75 monstrosity it could have been moved up. Basing it on the P-51D instead of the P-51H should have been entirely feasible.



Preach on, brother

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 27, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> . . . that XP-75 monstrosity . . .



I will say ten .50 cal machine guns as standard armament was an impressive number. Though I wonder what the actual firing rate would have been for the four nose-mounted guns which had to be synchronized to fire between two (counter-rotating) propellers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 27, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I will say ten .50 cal machine guns as standard armament was an impressive number. Though I wonder what the actual firing rate would have been for the four nose-mounted guns which had to be synchronized to fire between two (counter-rotating) propellers.


Better install an ejection seat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Mar 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note that the dish could and did turn 90 degrees from the fuselage axis and is nearly there in the photo.
> 
> The radar used on the F4U, F6F and P-38M used a 19in parabolic reflector.



When discussing the 520 and 720 it should be kept in mind that they were basically the same radar, with the same basic modes and performance characteristics, with the 720 being a newer, more compact, and lighter version that addressed some shortcomings of the 520. It was improved, but the displays and basic capabilities were very similar with only minor differences.

The dish of the SCR-720 (and SCR-520 also) turned rather further than 90 degrees off axis. The *only* scan that the -720/520 had was a full 360 degrees in azimuth.

The antenna used what is called a helical scan or a unidirectional sector scan. It spun completely around 360 degrees, stepped up, spun 360 again, stepped up, etc. When it reached its upper scan limit it started back at the lowest currently set elevation. The radar only transmitted while the radar was pointed in the forward hemisphere, and was blanked when pointed aft. This made the mechanics of the radar more simple, and simple means light. Basically it consisted of an azimuth drive motor that spun the antenna around, the same direction all the time, and a more restricted elevation drive motor that controlled elevation. To construct an antenna, and more importantly drive system, that sweeps an antenna rapidly side to side is more complex. And for reference such a scan, back and forth in a sector, is called a bidirectional sector scan.

Working from memory the basic scan rate of the radar was about 5.7 scans per second, meaning the antenna spun on its azimuth axis about 350 times per minute. Certain models included other operator selectable scan rates. The SCR-720 actually ended up being used in many different applications, including as a short range, high angle, air search radar mounted on ships. The last one I saw, and used, was mounted in the back of a truck for instrumentation purposes on a test range.

It has been a long time, and I may have this part wrong, but I seem to remember that in the 100 mile mode of operation the scan rate was slower. The 100 mile mode was the beacon mode, and it makes sense that you might sweep a bit slower for that.

The APG-1 and 2, which were in development for the P-61, would have been a totally different animal, with multiple and very different modes of operation, including auto track. Unfortunately they never became operational on any platform, and were only tested briefly on the P-61.

The AIA and AN/APS-6 radars used in such things as the F6F, F4U, P-38M, etc, uses a totally different scan from the -720. It has a couple of scan modes, depending on what mode the radar is in, but the basic search mode is a spiral scan, inner to outer. The shooting or targeting mode is a conical scan centered on straight ahead of the aircraft.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 27, 2021)

The 720 had a 10 mile normal range while the APS-6 had a 5 mile range under good conditions, especially at higher altitude. The APS-6 was fine if you were under tight control of ground radar and were being vectored onto nearby targets at higher altitudes. But if you you want to get out and look around, see what you can find, do a nighttime fighter sweep, the SCR-720 was much better.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> But if you you want to get out and look around, see what you can find, do a nighttime fighter sweep, the SCR-720 was much better.


That is, if you can lug it into the air. Was that "shape" in the P82 photograph actually crammed full of electronics, or partially a low drag fairing for the antenna? After reading Token's description of the 360° scanning antenna, I'm wondering if that "shape" isn't an attempt to get the antenna down and forward for a wider azimuth usable scan?
The earliest AN/APQ72s in the F4 were all tube, no solid state (I'm told) and many times the power and range of the SCR720, but they weren't THAT big.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> Basing it on the P-51D instead of the P-51H should have been entirely feasible.


The P-82 was based on the XP-51F, which was a *lightened* version of the P-51 (and the basis of the P-51H).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Mar 28, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That is, if you can lug it into the air. Was that "shape" in the P82 photograph actually crammed full of electronics, or partially a low drag fairing for the antenna? After reading Token's description of the 360° scanning antenna, I'm wondering if that "shape" isn't an attempt to get the antenna down and forward for a wider azimuth usable scan?
> The earliest AN/APQ72s in the F4 were all tube, no solid state (I'm told) and many times the power and range of the SCR720, but they weren't THAT big.



The APQ-72 antenna was only 2 inches larger than the SCR-720 antenna. However, since the -72 is X band (just under 10 GHz) and the -720 was S band (about 3 GHz) the gain of the APQ-72 antenna was much higher. The 30 inch SCR-720 dish had a gain of just under 25 dBi, while the 32 inch APQ-72 dish had a gain of about 36 dBi. This 11 dB delta enhanced separately both the transmit and receive sides of the equation.

So not only did the -72 have higher transmitter peak power than the -720 (on the order of 4 to 10 times as much), it also had 11 dB more transmitter gain, this makes the ERP at least 17 dB (and maybe 21 dB) higher, or the transmitter power into the air at least 50 times greater and maybe as much as 115 times greater. And on the receiver side the more modern -72 probably has at least 10 dB better sensitivity, and quit possibly 20 dB better MDS. Combined with the 11 dB greater antenna gain and the -72 receiver might be as much as 1000 times more sensitive.

As for the F-82's, various models carried the SCR-720, the APS-4, and the APG-28. I have no idea what model is in the picture mentioned.

Working from memory here, but, want to tie it all back to the P-61? I believe that the APG-28 that the later models of the P-82 carried was a modified version of the APG-1 that was developed for, and never operationally used in, the P-61.

T!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 28, 2021)

Token said:


> As for the F-82's, various models carried the SCR-720, the APS-4, and the APG-28. I have no idea what model is in the picture mentioned.


The picture is in post #247 in this thread and is alleged to be an SCR720 installation. Just eyeballing the photos, it looks as if that 360° dish could get close to 270° unobstructed usable azimuth at zero elevation angle and below, and maybe 220 or so above that. That pod looks awfully big for an AI radar. It's hard to imagine that entire volume is filled with electronics.


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 28, 2021)

One reason the P-82 pod is so big is that they needed to get the radar out front so the props were not in the way. The APS-4 used on the P-82D used the same pod as the P-82C.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> One reason the P-82 pod is so big is that tgey needed to get the radar out front so the props were not in the way. The APS-4 used on the P-82D used the same pod as the P-82C.


So if you integrated that into an enlarged P38 schnoz it might work after all, and perhaps counterbalance the aft RO position? It would be already out in front of the props.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 28, 2021)

The P-38 had the guns up there, too, so there was a lot less room to work with. Initially on the P-38 night fighter they tried putting the radar pod below the aft center fuselage. When that proved to be a not very good location they moved it out under the Right wing outside of the prop. 

The first P-38 night fighter, built for use locally in the Solomans, put the MK IV VHF radar in the nose, with that arrow antenna sticking out in front. They rearranged the guns to accomodate that. They put the RO behind the pilot and relocated the radio equipment to a drop tank under one wing. Very cramped.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 28, 2021)

Naturally they based the P-82 on the latest production P-51, although there were virtually no interchangable parts. But I can see no reason why you could not have built a P-82 based on the P-51D, with the earlier Merlin. It does involve extending the fuselage quite a bit - try doing it with a model kit as I did back in the 80's and you'll find out just how much. The performance would be lower than the P-82 as it was actually built but it would still be a world beater.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Mar 28, 2021)

Token said:


> The antenna used what is called a helical scan or a unidirectional sector scan. It spun completely around 360 degrees, stepped up, spun 360 again, stepped up, etc. When it reached its upper scan limit it started back at the lowest currently set elevation. The radar only transmitted while the radar was pointed in the forward hemisphere, and was blanked when pointed aft. This made the mechanics of the radar more simple, and simple means light. Basically it consisted of an azimuth drive motor that spun the antenna around, the same direction all the time, and a more restricted elevation drive motor that controlled elevation. To construct an antenna, and more importantly drive system, that sweeps an antenna rapidly side to side is more complex. And for reference such a scan, back and forth in a sector, is called a bidirectional sector scan.



I had heard that before, but didn't understand it until I thought about it more. The antenna would scan at the same rate and in the same direction across every scan, which is not only mechanically simpler, it would simplify the back-end electronics, making them smaller and lighter. Simplicity is a big deal when you're dealing with low-noise circuits based on tubes and transformers. An airplane is an electrically noisy environment (start with every spark plug being a broad-spectrum air-gap transmitter). A smaller circuit would need less physical shielding, so it's a win that way, too.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 28, 2021)

Regarding the P-82 as a night-fighter:



> _The additional weight of the radar pod created very few performance problems with the F-82F having a top speed of 460 mph. The G's SCR-720 radar weighed slightly less than the APG-28 and thus the aircraft's performance was slightly better._




However, the aircraft was not without issues:



> _The F, G, and H Twin Mustang was not a pilot's ideal night fighter due to the cockpit's limited field of view, and poor landing characteristics especially at night. Moreover, during nocturnal operations, the pilot and radar operator found it difficult to maintain night vision due to engine exhaust flame, instrument glare and the bright flashes from the aircraft's machine guns.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, some pilots felt a psychological discomfort of impending doom of a mid-air collision when they caught sight of the co-pilot/radar operator's fuselage out of the corner of their eyes. Another problem was with the J-8 Altitude Gyro used during instrument flying. Pilots either loved it or hated it because it read exactly opposite to the presentation of conventional gyroscopic instruments. When the miniature aircraft on the gyro appeared 'below' the reference line, instead of descending the F-82 was actually climbing and so, during an instrument landing approach, the pilot had to remain cognizant of what the aircraft was actually doing._




Quotations from _Twin Mustang — The North American F-82 at War_ by Alan C. Carey, pgs. 53, 55, 59, and 61.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2021)

I'm not quite understanding why we would be looking for a sinlge-place alternative night fighter in the first place. The P-61 was VERY good at what it did and was purpose-designed as a night fighter. It was also the first warplane designed for rader from the outset. Since it DID perform well, why would we be looking for alternatives? Perhaps as interim fighters uuntil the P-61 was available? The A-20 was used before the P-61 and did a credible job ... but the P-61 was far and away a better night fighter.

The P-61 (706 built) was introduced in 1944 and the P-82 (272 built) was introduced in 1946. USe the P-61. There were more of them and it was a vastly better night fighter in 1944 since it was actually flying at that time. Actualy airframe performance would favor the P-82, but it didn't fly until after the war was over.

Maybe the Germans should have proceeded with the Bf 109Z:


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 28, 2021)

I guess the question was really : "What else could we have done that would have been better than the P-61 and available at least as soon?" For defending ships, bases, and cities the F6F-3N was better than the P-61 and was available at least 9 months earlier. For long range interception and night intruding the P-82 was better than the P-61 and could have been available just as fast. 

The P-70 was deemed to be too low in performance to be used in the ETO.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The P-38 had the guns up there, too, so there was a lot less room to work with.


The P38 night fighter suggestion upthread was for the cannons to be mounted in the bottom of the central nacelle to reduce flash blindness. This would require a slight widening of the nacelle to make them fit, which should fit with the wider radome that spinning SCR720 antenna would require. This should leave enough room for the radar electronics and the cannon ammo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 28, 2021)

How about this proposal? That is two .50 cal and a 75MM cannon. Plenty of room in the back for an RO, too

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 28, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> How about this proposal? That is two .50 cal and a 75MM cannon. Plenty of room in the back for an RO, too
> 
> View attachment 617669


No, I don't think so. I'll go with four 20s mounted further aft and lower, firing both sides of the nose gear well. Requires a slightly wider central nacelle, which will be needed anyway to fair the SCR720 radome. Aft portion of the nacelle will probably have a "wide jowl" semi triangular cross section a la ME262 to accommodate the cannons. The idea is to hide the muzzle flash under the wing center section. Needs a more extended tailcone with both crewmembers moved aft and nose extended for the radar. IIRC in the P38 pilot seat sat nestled in a notch in wing leading edge, backed against spar center section, didn't it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2021)

Don't think the P-82 could have been flying in 1944. They started working on it in late 1943, but the first flight wasn't until June 1945. That doesn't leave a lot of time to get operational in WWII, and it didn't. Had they run a top-priority development, maybe a few months sooner. But night fighters were NEVER a top priority, so it is a wishful thinking "what-if." Fun to think about, but not much impact on real events.

The P-61 had 4 x 50-cal and 4 x 20 mm. And you think the F6F-3N would have been better at defending ships than the P-61? I'm assuming at night and reasonably close to land. The P-61 was a USAAF airplane and was not concerned with defending ships; it was used as a night fighter and was not carrier capable in WWII or ever. So, while the F6F-3N was decent, it wasn't a substitute for a USAAF airplane at any time since it was a Navy airplane. A night fighter P-38 might have been decent and perhaps a bit faster than a P-61, but certainly not better than the P-61 at dedicated night fighting, especially in hitting power ... unless the target was moving at ... say ... 380 mph or faster. The P-61 had someone other than the pilot to operate the radar, too, which was a BIG help to the mission. They still had a dedicated radar operator when the F3D Skynight was deployed in 1951. Dedicated night fighters didn't start to decline until the late 1960s when standard interceptors acquired the ability to fight in all conditions including night and bad weather.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 29, 2021)

GregP said:


> Dedicated night fighters didn't start to decline until the late 1960s when standard interceptors acquired the ability to fight in all conditions including nuight and bad weather.


You mean F86Ds, F89s, F94s, F102s, and F3Hs in the late 1950s weren't all weather fighter interceptors? When we moved off the farm and into town in 1958, our Air Guard was standing NORAD alert 24/7 in F89D hand me downs from USAF, and they were scrambling night or day, rain or shine. I had an AM/shortwave/air/police and fire band radio, (big, clunky, "portable") and I could sometimes catch GCA working the jets down out of the muck when even the airliners weren't flying.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 29, 2021)

Well, they would have had to cancel the XP-75 to get Fisher working on the P-82. And it was not built as a night fighter but as a VLR escort, same as the P-75.

The F6F replaced the P-61 to intercept Japanese bombers over the PI. The P-61 did not climb fast enough to make the intercept. Why they could not hang some drop tanks on it and fly standing patrols, I have no idea; the airplane was designed to do that. Makes you wonder why we did not build a radar equipped P-47. There was a two seat radar equipped P-51D built in the ETO, bu I do not think it was ever used as a night fighter.

As you say, evaluation of the P-38 revealed it was a better night fighter than the P-61 if the target had too much performance. Otherwise the P-61 was a better night fighter. The view for the RO in the P-38N was so poor that he could not help with visual searches. And no one over 5 ft 6in could fit in that spot, anyway.

Butch O'Hare did not have any trouble knocking down Bettys with only six .50 cal, but the lack of radar in his Wildcat is why he died.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2021)

Hi XBe02Drvr,

Yes, the F-86Ds, F-94s, and the like were early "all weather" interceptors. They weren't really very good at it until the smaller sensors caught up with the capabilities of late 1940's radars that had larger antennas. When you reduce a radar's antenna size, you change the signal-to-noise ratio and the detection range is less. I'm thinking that radars on so-called all-weather interceptors weren't really night fighter capable until the late 1960s. That estimate is as an electrical engineer, and I could be mistaken. But I've hear too many stories about early all-weather interceptors from guys who flew them to believe they were all that good at the all-weather stuff. Basically, they made a great contribution to the lifestyles of the pilots, but they weren't really "all-weather" in any sense of the words. They were temperamental and not so easy to read and interpret. The F-94, with a dedicated radar officer, was likely twice as good as an F-86D where the pilot was both flying and trying to interpret the radar by himself.

I remember reading several accounts of guys who were tasked with flying a plane into the air defense zome and being intercepted as a test, only to discover that none of the "all-weather interceptors" could find them. If they did, there was no certainty that they could be shot down. On 16 Aug 1956, a Hellcat outfitted as a drone took off from California. Instead of following the proscribed course, it went elsewhere. It was supposed to have been shot down in a live fire exercise, but instead started wandering toward Los Angeles. Two F-89D Scorpions were launched from Oxnard and tasked with shooting it down. They fired 208 Mighty Mouse rockets at a non-maneuvering WWII Hellcat without effect. Eventually it ran out of fuel and crashed 8 miles east of Palmdale. No one was hurt but there WERE some embarrassed fighter pilots in a couple of F-89Ds who had started several fires along the way with the rockets. Link below, and there are more than just this one to choose from over the years.

The runaway drone that caused a Cold War air battle

Not too sure the 1950s and early 1960s interceptors were all that much better than late WWII airplanes when it came to outright combat effectiveness. They were certainly faster and flashier ... but that doesn't necessarily mean better. Just my two cents worth. Opinions vary. Cheers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 29, 2021)

I recall reading a summary by a F-86D pilot. When scrambled, the typical squadron had a number of airplanes down for maintenance, a number would fail to start (it had an electronic fuel controller that was supposed to manage the start sequence but had to warm up itself), maybe half a dozen would start to taxi, perhaps three would abort during taxi, maybe three would take off, and two would abort after takeoff, leaving one to carry out the mission. For that reason and because it was assumed that a nuclear war would be won or lost in a few hours, the pilots were told to expend their ordnance and then ram. 

In Korea, F-94's with .50 cal guns were launched to intercept Po-2's. One F-94 crashed when it stalled while trying to line up behind a Po-2. One F-94 flew through a Po-2. But the F4U and F7F night fighters did much better. That was where we could have used some P-61's; they likely would have been the best of all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 29, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi XBe02Drvr,
> 
> Yes, the F-86Ds, F-94s, and the like were early "all weather" interceptors. They weren't really very good at it until the smaller sensors caught up with the capabilities of late 1940's radars that had larger antennas. When you reduce a radar's antenna size, you change the signal-to-noise ratio and the detection range is less. I'm thinking that radars on so-called all-weather interceptors weren't really night fighter capable until the late 1960s. That estimate is as an electrical engineer, and I could be mistaken. But I've hear too many stories about early all-weather interceptors from guys who flew them to believe they were all that good at the all-weather stuff. Basically, they made a great contribution to the lifestyles of the pilots, but they weren't really "all-weather" in any sense of the words. They were temperamental and not so easy to read and interpret. The F-94, with a dedicated radar officer, was likely twice as good as an F-86D where the pilot was both flying and trying to interpret the radar by himself.
> 
> ...


It was all about GCI. I took a couple university summer school courses in the summer of 1964, and there were a couple of longtime Air Guard pilots in my classes, leading to some interesting conversations. Their progression postwar was P47, P51, F94, F89. Apparently the interceptor fire control systems were optimized for only one attack profile, the F94 for a low closure rate attack from six o'clock, and the F89 for a 90° lead computing deflection shot. The "sweet spot" for both attacks was relatively narrow in terms of angles and closure rates, making success dependent on the GCI controller's positioning of the interceptor for target acquisition with the proper geometry.
They had a few chuckles over the Hellcat drone incident, saying that the crews should have used the attack profile their system was set up for and let the radar aim the rockets like it was designed to, rather than trying to "play fighter pilot" and aim them visually from behind.
We had some interesting talks and they almost talked me into enlisting in the Air Guard, but at age 17 with a year of high school yet to go and no wheels, that was a non-starter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 29, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> I recall reading a summary by a F-86D pilot. When scrambled, the typical squadron had a number of airplanes down for maintenance, a number would fail to start (it had an electronic fuel controller that was supposed to manage the start sequence but had to warm up itself), maybe half a dozen would start to taxi, perhaps three would abort during taxi, maybe three would take off, and two would abort after takeoff, leaving one to carry out the mission. For that reason and because it was assumed that a nuclear war would be won or lost in a few hours, the pilots were told to expend their ordnance and then ram.
> 
> In Korea, F-94's with .50 cal guns were launched to intercept Po-2's. One F-94 crashed when it stalled while trying to line up behind a Po-2. One F-94 flew through a Po-2. But the F4U and F7F night fighters did much better. That was where we could have used some P-61's; they likely would have been the best of all.


The P(F)-82 did remarkably well in Korea.


----------



## special ed (Mar 29, 2021)

In a1960 orientation with ADC and USAFA cadets, the pilots who had been Alaska based before, told of F-86D planned ops against an actual attack by Tu-4s would be one intercept, fire one tray (12rockets), another intercept, the other tray, the third intercept was the 86 hits the Tu-4. Bail out was optional, but as he said, bailing out over Alaska was the same as riding it in. The F-89 jocks called their birds the "B-89" because of the slow speed and said they would likely get only one intercept at the bomber flight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 29, 2021)

special ed said:


> The F-89 jocks called their birds the "B-89" because of the slow speed and said they would likely get only one intercept at the bomber flight.



I worked with a civilian at Tinker AFB who said he had been a crew chief and that the F-89 was a good airplane from the maintenance standpoint but it was the F-86D that led him to leave the Air Force.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2021)

I have neard NOTHING good about the F-86D but EVERYONE who flew it loved the F-86E and onward, especially the F-86F, and the H model with the bigger turbojet and 20 mm cannons.

I had one friend who flew Meteors, F-86Ks,and F-104s for the Dutch Air Force, and HE had nothing at all good to say about the F-86K, whichw as essentially an export F-86D. He loved the Meteor when both fans were burning but, if one quit burning, it tried very hard to kill you. So, if you flew it like a single-engine airplane, it flew great! The Planes of Fame has a nonflying Meteor Mk V and a flyable Meteor T7.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldGeezer (Apr 5, 2021)

Brig Gen Carroll (Chief of Engineering Division at Wright Field) said in December 1943 about the photo role: "...they are not satisfied with the P-38; they have the range but they want two people.”

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 5, 2021)

Big problem with the F-4, the photo recon P-38, as that the pilot could not look down and see the target very well, and the NLG precluded putting in a sight that would enable him to look straight down.

At the 9th PRS in India they tried a mod where they put in a camera that would allow a long slant range shot of targets that had dangerous AAA, but that airplane had to be sent to China and they did not get to try it out very much.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2021)

How did the CF-100 compare to the F-86D?


----------

