# Most effective nightfighter



## pattern14 (Dec 29, 2013)

Just recently I was setting up the airbrush for my youngest son, who was just finshing a 1/72 scale Heinkel He 219 "Uhu". Although I am not a big fan of conventional luft aircraft, I read the blurb on the side of the box, which gives you some basic deatils and generalised comments on the subject aircraft. It started me thinking about dedicated nightfighters that were operational during WW2, and was wondering if anyone out there had some solid facts about the most effective/efficient night fighters that were operated, on all sides. I realise that most were modified day fighters like the Me 110 etc, but specialised aircraft like the He 219 and P61 Black Widow must rate fairly well. I haven't thought through all the parameters of what would rate a nightfighter being the most effective, but I suppose kills to sorties/losses etc would be a good start. Interested in seeing what comes up....


----------



## davebender (Dec 29, 2013)

I'd hazard a guess these two types accomplished at least 80% of all night aerial kills during WWII. That sort of result speaks for itself.


----------



## stona (Dec 29, 2013)

Good pilots scored whatever they flew. Oblt. Josef Nabrich, Staffelkapitan of 3./NJG1 claimed 14 bombers with the He 219, including 2 Mosquitos. 

The majority of the 'Nachtjagd' 7,308 victories were achieved by Bf 110 and Ju88 night fighters, which were also the most numerous. It wasn't until July 1944 that the Luftwaffe reported that it had 500 serviceable night fighters, from a front line strength of 830. 

German night fighters, even those derived from existing types were very specialised machines. A Ju 88 G-1 could manage 320 mph at 6,000m (near enough 20,000ft) even with all its night fighter equipment and bore little resemblance to the bomber from which it was descended. 

In the realms of 'what if' the Me 262 would probably have proved a very effective night fighter along with the Do 335 for which the He 219 (and Ta 154) would have been sacrificed.

For the RAF there is only the Mosquito in the running. Surviving Luftwaffe night fighter pilots are unanimous that towards the end of the war the Mosquitos which flew to Germany with the raids were the scourge of the 'Nachtjagd'. Many say that by the autumn of 1944 they, previously the hunter, had become the hunted. The Mosquito was a better aircraft and crucially the British had established a significant advantage in the electronic war.

For the USAAF I have no idea 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Dec 29, 2013)

> Me 262 would probably have proved a very effective night fighter along with the Do 335



I have my doubts. 

Me-262 was a small aircraft (I've seen one at USAF museum). There's no internal space for additional fuel and electronic equipment which were essential for successful late WWII night fighter aircraft. 

Do-335 would be better as it has decent endurance. However it also lacks internal space for electronic equipment.

However this begs the question why anyone would even try these experiments? Ju-88G airframe was just right for Luftwaffe needs. More powerful versions of Jumo 213 and/or DB603 engine would keep the aircraft competitive with newer bombers (i.e. B-29) right up to 1950. Ju-88G would almost certainly receive stabilized gun sight and MG213 revolver cannon too.


----------



## Jeff Hunt (Dec 29, 2013)

When one looks at the impressive scores wracked by by some German pilots one cannot rule out the target rich environment that the Luftwaffe nightfighters went into battle against as well as great ground control that got them to the scene of the battle. In addition they were flying against aircraft that they outperformed by a wide margin. ( Lancasters, Halifaxes etc) IMHO, if the 219 and the Mossie were to meet I would wager on the Mossie pilot surviving the majority of the time as I believe it to be not only a superior fighting machine but a better aircraft all around.

Just my 2 cents worth

Cheers,

Jeff


----------



## stona (Dec 29, 2013)

davebender said:


> I have my doubts.
> 
> Me-262 was a small aircraft (I've seen one at USAF museum). There's no internal space for additional fuel and electronic equipment which were essential for successful late WWII night fighter aircraft.
> 
> Do-335 would be better as it has decent endurance. However it also lacks internal space for electronic equipment.



The Me 262 B-1a/U1 was only an interim night fighter. Even so it carried two additional 140 litre tanks, one each side of the second seat, giving a total of 2,070 litres internally. It carried two 300 litre drop tanks and had provision for a towed fuel tank containing another 900 litres though I can't find any evidence that this was ever used operationally.
All the current radio and radar equipment, with the possible exception of the FuG 350 Zc 'Naxos' was fitted to the few conversions completed at Staaken, so there was enough room.
The developed night fighter (B-2a) was to have a 1.5m extension fitted giving more room and an overall length of 11.70 metres. Amongst other changes a taller canopy was to be fitted to accommodate the 'Naxos' scanner.
Another proposed development was for a three seat version of the Me 262 B-2a to be powered by two HeS 011 engines. The aircraft was lengthened again to 12.59 metres and have a completely different canopy,wings and tail planes swept back at 45 degrees. It never made it off the drawing board, but we were talking what ifs.

The Do 335 was also considered large enough for the fitting of all electronics needed for a night fighter. A three seat version was also proposed. The totally equipped Do 335 A-6 prototype (2 seat) was only 90 Kg heavier than the standard A-1. The radar antennae were mounted on the wings rather than the nose obviously 

I would suggest that both types had more room available for the necessary equipment than the Bf 110 which seemed to manage okay.

The RLM and Luftwaffe both thought that the Do 335 night fighter would out perform any current versions, including the He 219, and planned to abandon the others in favour of the Dornier. We'll never know because the war was lost, but the RLM had a habit of changing plans and moving the goal posts.

A developed and reliable Me 262 would have made an outstanding night fighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2013)

Both the He219 and the Ta154 would have been contenders for top Nachtjager if complications hadn't prevented them from serious production.

As far as the Me262 goes, Kurt Welter claimed 25 mosquitos during night interceptions and he wasn't alone, there were several other Experten that did well against night targets. These were done in a standard Me262, not a modified Night Fighter version. So it was very capable of the task.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2013)

Going back to the original question _Discuss Most effective nightfighter in the World War II _ then the Mosquito clearly is one of them. The second I would suggest is probably the Ju88 It had a good enough performance to effectively fight the bombers in the bomber stream, but so did the 110. However the Ju88 also had the range required for a nightfighter, an often overlooked requirement.

Extremely high speed aircraft such as the 262 and Do335 are not going to be at much of an additional advantage. , As the bombers of the time tended to cruise at approx. 200 - 220 mph (even the B29 cruised at 220 mph), a major problem for night fighters was overshooting the target so a max speed of 500 mph is likely to add little to your chances over an aircraft such as the Ju88 which went 320 mph. The Japanese were able to shoot down the B29 with their nightfighters (as did the RAF on one blue on blue incident using a Beaufighter) which shows that you don't need to have an extreme performance. 


So I believe the Ju88 was more than capable, had the performance, range, firepower and easy handling required for the job and it proved itself, in short for me it was the second most effective nightfighter of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Dec 29, 2013)

The He 219 had multiple problems and was not the best night fighter the Luftwaffe had. It was too heavy resulting in too high wing loading and also underpowered (especially at altitude). They couldn't easily do a lot to reduce weight or wing loading (larger wingspan planned for later versions) but got engines with better alt performance in Summer 44. The lack of a defensive gun made operations dangerous in late war with lots of Mosquitoes around.

Nobody knows what the Ta 154 could have delivered, especially with more powerful Jumo 213 engines. At least it looked somwhat promising.

The best allround night fighter was the Ju 88G, especially the G-6.

If I remember right most of Welter's Mosquito kills were day intercepts as the Me 262 was more or less the only type able to catch the damn recon birds at higher alt.


----------



## stona (Dec 29, 2013)

Glider said:


> Extremely high speed aircraft such as the 262 and Do335 are not going to be at much of an additional advantage. , As the bombers of the time tended to cruise at approx. 200 - 220 mph (even the B29 cruised at 220 mph), a major problem for night fighters was overshooting the target so a max speed of 500 mph is likely to add little to your chances over an aircraft such as the Ju88 which went 320 mph.



I don't disagree, The Ju 88 and Bf 110 were the most effective Luftwaffe night fighters of the war. 
The Luftwaffe felt that improved performance would enable the night fighter to deal with the RAF's Mosquito, something that became something of an obsession. It also believed that better performance would enable more of the night fighters to manoeuvre to engage more targets on each mission. This latter point appears in night fighter discussions at the RLM without any explanation or justification. 

There was also the matter of reaching the bomber stream quickly.
During the raid on Peenemunde the Luftwaffe controllers had fallen for a diversionary raid on Berlin and tasked many night fighters to the area. This is why the heavy losses inflicted on the RAF that night occurred mostly as the bombers withdrew and mostly in the Groups that had bombed last. Had the night fighters got there sooner it could have been a lot worse. Some night fighter crews actually saw something going on in the Peenemunde area, well over a hundred miles away which gives an idea how good visibility was that night, and took it upon themselves to fly there. There were many similar failures to intercept in time or sometimes at all.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Dec 29, 2013)

To my opinion the Ju 88 G-6 with Berlin Radar.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 29, 2013)

Denniss said:


> If I remember right most of Welter's Mosquito kills were day intercepts as the Me 262 was more or less the only type able to catch the damn recon birds at higher alt.



Weren't most of his claims bogus?


----------



## davebender (Dec 29, 2013)

Not range. Loiter time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2013)

davebender said:


> Not range. Loiter time.


In a target rich environment such as existed later in the war, no need to loiter.
Range...they were right overhead...how much more range could you ask for?

As far as Welter's claims go, there is disputes as to the actual number, but as it stands, the fact that he was successful in intercepting night-flying intruders in a non-modified Me262 is notable.


----------



## davebender (Dec 29, 2013)

It rarely worked that way in real world. Night fighter aircraft would remain on station until vectored by ground control or until bomber stream was located by another aircraft. After mission is complete you might need to loiter some more until airfield has been declared free of enemy intruders or runway has been patched back to usable condition. 

It was common for short range "Wild Boar" fighter aircraft to run out fuel before they could land. One of the reason the method was discontinued. I doubt low loiter time Me-262s would fare any better.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2013)

Gentlemen the word on Welter has not been written ...........yet and no he did not take out 25 Mossies plus. his claims actually were from several other Kmdo 
Welter pilots, but more on that later in a couple years. the Me 262 had the fuel tanks been internal may have exceeded the loiter time of the Ju 88 series, Welter knew that his band if going to catch and carry out duties against BC bombers the two seater with radar was needed. by spring 45 he admitted the chase of the wooden fighter had been a waste of time.

most effective was the LW Ju 88G-6, the He 219 had a total of 12 Mossies shot down in I./NJG 1, too few and only 1 gruppe can hardly be stated the best the LW had to offer.

the RAF/BC command had the Mosquito in different NF variants and with AI radar could really not be beat.

another point when McKenzie/Boiten release their new series on the Nachtjagd in 2015 you will read more .....


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

davebender said:


> Not range. Loiter time.



Well 2,370 litres was actually flown on the interim night fighter and there was a definite provision for another 900 litres. 3,270 litres would give a reasonable loiter time even for a Jumo powered Me 262. 

Early jets were thirsty beasts. The SFC for a Jumo 004 was 0.139 kg/(N-hr).

Just like the British in 1940/41 the Germans were trying to reduce loiter time with a sophisticated ground control system. Dowding had realised back in 1940 that flying around at night in the hope that something might turn up was a waste of time and resources and the Germans had come to the same conclusion.

The Me 262 as it existed, even the few converted two seat 'interim' night fighters, may not have been the most effective night fighter but given time and development (neither of which happened) it could have been a formidable one.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## yulzari (Dec 30, 2013)

Effective must also mean available. One squadron of super night fighters is not effective but several good ones are.

The only charge against the Mosquito is numbers. The USAAF in the Mediterranean theatre were always pressing for Mosquitos to replace their tired Beaufighters but had to soldier on in the Beaus into 1945 (ironically the night skies over the Adriatic in 1945 could contain Wellingtons and Beaufighters in a re run of 1941).

The Ju88 was a satisfactory mature design that was made in numbers that made it effective. More Ju88s and trained crews would have been a better investment than new designs.

Their environments differed. Mosquitos had to deal with fewer and faster targets (He177s were entering british airspace in 1944 at 400mph in a shallow dive and V1s at similar speeds). Ju 88s had to deal with huge numbers. The Mosquito needed speed and the Ju88 needed endurance.

If we swapped them around the Ju88 would be hard put to engage fast bombers and V1s but the Mosquito could engage multiple slow bombers. When we add in the comparative radars and their effects upon performance the Mosquito has to edge into top spot.

One could look at the performance of Do335s, Me262s or P61s etc but they were not effective at the time simply due to numbers available; whatever their performance. By the Grace of God the war ended in early May 1945. Had it dragged on then the picture might have altered.

So, my vote is for the De Havilland Mosquito and I would have kept them from Coastal Command to make more night fighters (and yes, I would have sympathy for the crews having to use Beaufighters instead).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

The Mosquito wasn't primarily engaging the Luftwaffe's bombers in British air space, though it did. It was primarily engaging the Luftwaffe's night fighters over Europe. 

In both roles it definitely had the edge. Not only was it a better aeroplane, it was also better equipped.

Of operational night fighters of WW2 I'd go, as I did way up the thread, for the Ju 88 and Bf 110 for the Luftwaffe (the former with an edge in the later stages of the war) and the Mosquito for the British. 

If I had to choose one night fighter for all the various roles it would be the Mosquito, hands down, every time. I reckon the RLM would have too, they were continually trying to develop a night fighter to match the Mosquito. It was the standard against which even the Germans were measuring the performance of their night fighters.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 30, 2013)

I agree with Steve's choices for both Luftwaffe and RAF and like Steve, if I was to choose only one; it would be the Mosquito.

For the sake of enlightening Pattern14, it is worth mentioning that from late 1940 to mid 1942 the most effective British night fighter in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed was the Boulton Paul Defiant. Daffys shot down more enemy bombers than any other British night fighter in this period, equipping some 16 RAF night fighter squadrons, although some of which did not fully convert to the Defiant.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 30, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Weren't most of his claims bogus?


 I also wonder at Kurt Welters claims of 20 plus Mosquito's. That would make him the highest scoring Jet ace of all time if true. I have read that he was prone to exaggeration, although there is no doubt that his band definitely bagged a number of Mosquitos'. I had not really thought about the 2 seat nightfighter version of the 262, but it certainly had the performance and endurance ( with drop tanks). The 30mm cannon would shred any hapless target. Does anyone have any stats on the P61 Black widow?


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 30, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I agree with Steve's choices for both Luftwaffe and RAF and like Steve, if I was to choose only one; it would be the Mosquito.
> 
> For the sake of enlightening Pattern14, it is worth mentioning that from late 1940 to mid 1942 the most effective British night fighter in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed was the Boulton Paul Defiant. Daffys shot down more enemy bombers than any other British night fighter in this period, equipping some 16 RAF night fighter squadrons, although some of which did not fully convert to the Defiant.


 Amazing! I had totally overlooked the Defiant. I was not aware that they were still even operational after 1940. You learn something new every day!!!


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I also wonder at Kurt Welters claims of 20 plus Mosquito's.



I don't intend to start an argument and I won't post details. Analysis of any individual's claims almost invariably degenerates into a pointless row, but some of Welter's Mosquito claims must be either bogus or mistaken. Which depends how charitable you feel towards a man who can't defend himself today.
This is hardly revolutionary, the arithmetic simply doesn't add up.

It's worth remembering that by this time of the war pilots would fill out their combat reports and claims (gefechtsbericht, abschusmeldung/zerstorungsmeldung) but that the official claims verification system no longer operated. The forms were signed by a senior officer, usually the Staffelkapitan, and went no further. That does not constitute a confirmation of the claim.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Amazing! I had totally overlooked the Defiant. I was not aware that they were still even operational after 1940. You learn something new every day!!!



I was surprised not that they were in service, but that they apparently shot down more bombers at night than the Beaufighter, a far more advanced aircraft. I could understand it in late 1940 early 41 as the Beau was still entering service, but by the middle end of 1941 I would expect the Beau to easily overtake the Defiant.


----------



## DonL (Dec 30, 2013)

stona said:


> The Mosquito wasn't primarily engaging the Luftwaffe's bombers in British air space, though it did. It was primarily engaging the Luftwaffe's night fighters over Europe.
> 
> In both roles it definitely had the edge. Not only was it a better aeroplane, it was also better equipped.
> 
> ...




There are no stats or experiences, how the Mosquito would perform against hundreds of Allied heavy bombers.

The Mosquito would be in need of "Schräge Musik", because 4 x 20mm are not enough from LW analyses, also the Ju 88 G6 could carry 2.835 l *internal* fuel without any droptanks and the Aerodynamik of the G6 with the FuG 240 Berlin was very much improved.

So how much fuel could the Mosquito carry intern and how would the "Schräge Musik" affect it's flight performance compare to the Ju 88 G-6?


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

DonL said:


> There are no stats or experiences, how the Mosquito would perform against hundreds of Allied heavy bombers.
> 
> The Mosquito would be in need of "Schräge Musik", because 4 x 20mm are not enough from LW analyses, also the Ju 88 G6 could carry 2.835 l *internal* fuel without any droptanks and the Aerodynamik of the G6 with the FuG 240 Berlin was very much improved.
> 
> So how much fuel could the Mosquito carry intern and how would the "Schräge Musik" affect it's flight performance compare to the Ju 88 G-6?



The Mosquito was shooting down the only four engine bomber it had as a target (He 177) with four 20mm cannon. It also managed to despatch the Luftwaffe's night fighters with the same armament. 
I'm not sure that a Schrage-Musik type of installation with two 20mm cannon would have been considered an improvement. Night bombers were not armoured like the US day bombers to which I think your Luftwaffe analyses refer.
How many of the nachjagd's fighters were shrage-musik equipped?

I believe that the night fighter version of the Mosquito carried a standard 453 imperial gallon internal fuel load (2,060 litres) but like the fighter bomber version a further 133 gallons (604 litres) could be carried internally in two tanks in the 'bomb bay' giving a total of 2,664 litres, which compares favourably with the Ju 88. Another 200 gallons (450 litres) could be carried externally. Some intruder types carried extra fuel behind the cannon bay, but they must have removed something to fit that in. 
I have no idea which aircraft's engines were the more efficient, but I doubt that fuel load, being so similar, will be a critical factor between the two.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Dec 30, 2013)

Till summer 1944 35% of all german night fighters were converted to "Schräge Musik".

Since summer 1944 it was part of the mass production of every german nightfighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2013)

sadly....for Welter and his merry band he was prone to drink heavily, though several guy did in the the oversized staffel of jets.

I have stats for the 9th AF 422nd and 425th nfs was a former friend of the US NF asso ciation for years till it's disbandonment. personally the Widow had a poor performance record and the Us crews were not the best at ID of LW craft, but of course reality check: you are flying a t night sometimes through fog and non moon conditions ..........so ...... ? 

PS still much to do on the Lw anti-Miskito book


----------



## Greyman (Dec 30, 2013)

Data sheets for Mosquitos say:

Mosquito II - 403 perm. tanks (range 1,270), 553 bay tanks (range 1,785)
Mosquito XIII - 450 perm. tanks, 513 bay tanks (range 1,520), 613 50gal drop tanks (range 1,860)
Mosquito XIX - 450 perm. tanks, 513 bay tanks (range 1,500), 613 50gal drop tanks (range 1,830), 713 100gal drop tanks (range 2,050)
Mosquito 30 - 450 perm. tanks (range 1,300), 513 bay tanks (range 1,490), 613 50gal drop tanks (range 1,770), 713 100gal drop tanks (range 2,040)


----------



## davebender (Dec 30, 2013)

Mid 1944 Ju-88G. Typical equipment.

Radar 
FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2: metric radar 
FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1: decimetric radar 
FuG 350 Naxos Z: centimetric radar detector 
FuG 227 Flensburg: metric radar detector 

Navigation 
Patin PKS 12: course-steering autopilot 
Peil G6: radio direction finding equipment 
FuBl 2: blind landing radio equipment 
FuG 101a: precision radio altimeter 

Communications 
FuG 10: long range communications 
FuG 16ZY: mid range communications 
FuG 25a: IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) 
FuG 120: data link (provided updated bomber stream data) 


What electronic equipment was carried by typical mid 1944 Mosquito night fighter aircraft?


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2013)

DonL said:


> There are no stats or experiences, how the Mosquito would perform against hundreds of Allied heavy bombers.
> 
> The Mosquito would be in need of "Schräge Musik", because 4 x 20mm are not enough from LW analyses, also the Ju 88 G6 could carry 2.835 l *internal* fuel without any droptanks and the Aerodynamik of the G6 with the FuG 240 Berlin was very much improved.
> 
> So how much fuel could the Mosquito carry intern and how would the "Schräge Musik" affect it's flight performance compare to the Ju 88 G-6?



The range of the Mossie was sufficient to fly to Berlin, loiter and cover the Main force so endurance would me more than sufficient to defend over home turf. Four x 20mm were more than sufficient to shoot anything down, including the B29 mentioned earlier.

So where does the doubt come from?


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 30, 2013)

Yeah, the Mosquito was the best bar none.


----------



## DonL (Dec 30, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Yeah, the Mosquito was the best bar none.



I have my doubts to say this.

The Ju 88 G-6 was the most advanced german night fighter and culmination point of german night fighter development, which includes four years of heavy night fighter experience against very heavy bombers and also to defend against the Mosquito hunters.

On the first view I can't see big or any advantages of the Mosquito nightfighter compare to Ju 88 G-6 with Berlin FuG 240 Radar, also the Ju 88 G-6 could be equipped with Jumo 213E engines, which would give a performance boost.


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2013)

opinion :

in over 45 years of studying the Nachtjagd war the 88G-6 was the best bomber hunter, the Mossie in later NF developments with the updated AI was probably overall the best of the night fighters of either side. ~ XXX variant.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 30, 2013)

DonL said:


> I have my doubts to say this.
> 
> The Ju 88 G-6 was the most advanced german night fighter and culmination point of german night fighter development, which includes four years of heavy night fighter experience against very heavy bombers and also to defend against the Mosquito hunters.



Don,
You will surely know that RAF was also battling LW during the night from 1940 on, with radar-equipped night fighters. Ie. they were operating radar-equipped NFs 12 (or more?) months before LW was able to field radar equipped NFs. 



> On the first view I can't see big or any advantages of the Mosquito nightfighter compare to Ju 88 G-6 with Berlin FuG 240 Radar, also the Ju 88 G-6 could be equipped with Jumo 213E engines, which would give a performance boost.



The Mosquitoes with single stage Merlin were circa 30 km/h faster than Ju-88G-6? They were also been able to receive 2-stage Merlins, the NF.30 was such an aircraft (640 km/h at 7.5 km). Mosquito was also smaller lighter (= more maneuverable an a better climber).
Mosquito NF (with 1-stage Merlins) has been around much earlier than a G-6.


----------



## DonL (Dec 30, 2013)

Hello Tomo,

to my sources the Ju 88 G-6 with SN2 (so without the full enclosed FuG 240) and flame damper was 585 km/h fast without MW50 and 2 x Jumo 213A engines.

Other sources are speaking of 625 km/h with FuG 240, flame damper without MW50 and 2 x Jumo 213A engines.

I think that's very equal to the Mosquito and the G-6 was heavier armed. 

Also knows anybody the ammo equipment of the Mosquito?


----------



## davebender (Dec 30, 2013)

Which brings us back to an unanswered question - What electronic equipment was carried by mid 1944 Mosquito night fighter aircraft? Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6? That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 30, 2013)

Erich said:


> opinion :
> 
> in over 45 years of studying the Nachtjagd war the 88G-6 was the best bomber hunter, the Mossie in later NF developments with the updated AI was probably overall the best of the night fighters of either side. ~ XXX variant.



Mosquito NF.XIXs could be fitted with the AI Mk X (SCR-720) radar or the British AI Mk IX radar. Also the NF.XVII could also be fitted with either AI Mk IX or AI Mk X radars.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 30, 2013)

davebender said:


> Which brings us back to an unanswered question - What electronic equipment was carried by mid 1944 Mosquito night fighter aircraft? Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6? That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn.



AI Mk X radar
Monica (tail warning radar)
Serrate (passive radar detector)
Perfectos (German IFF detector and homing system)
IFF

Don't know about navigations systems, but they did have radios.

Re Perfectos - the German counter-measure for this was, apparently, to turn off their IFF. Which, of course, made them look like enemy aircraft to the ground radar systems - including radar guided flak guns.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 30, 2013)

wuzak said:


> AI Mk X radar
> Monica (tail warning radar)
> Serrate (passive radar detector)
> Perfectos (German IFF detector and homing system)
> ...


AI Mk X:
AI MK X AIRCRAFT INTERCEPTION RADAR
http://www.mossie.org/donated_files/Peter_Verney/Mosquito_NF-30_AI_Mk_X_radar.pdf

Serrate:
Serrate radar detector
BC - Serrate

IFF Mk IIG N:
VK2DYM


----------



## Juha (Dec 30, 2013)

DonL said:


> ...Also knows anybody the ammo equipment of the Mosquito?



Hello Don
According to Gunston's The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft (1976) it was 300rpg. My best Mossie sources are in my attic now, I'll check the ammo ammount when I go there next time, if I remember.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Dec 30, 2013)

davebender said:


> Which brings us back to an unanswered question - What electronic equipment was carried by mid 1944 Mosquito night fighter aircraft? Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6? That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn.



It depends... 85 Sqn intruders carried besides normal equipment AI Mk X radar and were variously fitted with Gee, Monica III, IV, VIII, Perfectos, Type F or Z infrared IFF gear and SCR 274 long range MF radio receivers according to Martin Streetly's Confound and Destroy (1978 )


----------



## Greyman (Dec 30, 2013)

normally 500 rounds per gun for the .303s (if fitted) - 780 rounds possible
normally 150 rounds per gun for the 20mm - 175 rounds possible

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2013)

I believe the Mossie carried 150 rounds per gun. At any rate I believe the Beaufighter with 283 rpg held the record for Allied aircraft. 

I find it strange that 4 20mm Hispano guns are not enough to shoot down heavy bombers and yet the majority of Luftwaffe Schrage musik installations were a pair of 20mm cannon. 

as far as "Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6?That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn." few night fighters did much turning and burning ( and NONE of the pilots of the time used that expression) 

AS far as needed volume goes that rather goes to how effective and how compact the equipment fitted was. Radar got much more effective per cubic ft of installed space as the war went on. 

many German night fighters carried both the FuG 220 and FuG202 radars because the early FuG 220 had a _minimum _range of about 900 meters which was too far for visual pick up. 

The SCR 720 radar used in the late war British nightfighters ( and the P-61) had a usable range of 10 miles and much, much better off axis performance than earlier radars. Many aircraft used the fixed antenna/aerial arrays with rapid switching. the British AI VIII radar used a fixed transmitter aerial with a parabolic reflector that was driven in increasing and decreasing spirals. At a 30-45 degree off angle to the aircraft the range was about 1/3 of the range dead ahead. The SCR-720 radar (AI MK IX) piped the micro waves to the transmitter aerial which moved with the parabolic reflector (always staying centered) which allowed a much, much larger volume of sky to to be swept by the radar.
You could have centimetric radar but the type of antenna could make a radical difference to how effective it was. 
SCR-720 radar weighed 415lbs without cables or radome.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 30, 2013)

> Amazing! I had totally overlooked the Defiant. I was not aware that they were still even operational after 1940. You learn something new every day!!!



The problem with the Defiant is that it is unfairly judged on its performance over a period of three months of a three or more year career as a front line fighter, in a job that it was better suited for than any other single engined aircraft in RAF service at that time. Defiants were still in RAF and RN (yes, Royal Navy used them too) service as target tugs and search and rescue aircraft at the very end of the war.

Comparing it with the more effective and better suited Beaufighter, the Daffy was in service in larger number sin the 1940 to '42 period than the Beaufighter and there had been a few issues with the NF variant, so, until Beaus and Mosquitoes came into squadron service in suitable numbers from mid to late 1942, the Daffy was it.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 30, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I find it strange that 4 20mm Hispano guns are not enough to shoot down heavy bombers and yet the majority of Luftwaffe Schrage musik installations were a pair of 20mm cannon.



Schrage Musik was only partly about increased damage. Hitting an aircraft at a perpendicular angle was generally more effective damage-wise than hitting from direct astern. 

The main benefit was sneaking up on, and attacking two alert gunners who weren't watching or were unable to see a fighter against the dark ground below. Many German night fighter pilots simply left bombers alone that had seen them or even behaved in an alert manner (constant course changes, pilot weaving to give gunners a better view to the sides and below, etc.) The German pilots also liked the system because it let them saddle up underneath and target the fuel tanks in the wing, setting the bomber alight and hopefully allowing the crew to bale out.

With regards to the Mosquito, a test aircraft flew with a full mock up of a turret in 1941. So, if an upward-firing solution was desperately needed I'm sure it was possible.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 30, 2013)

> With regards to the Mosquito, a test aircraft flew with a full mock up of a turret in 1941. So, if an upward-firing solution was desperately needed I'm sure it was possible.



It certainly was - the Defiant's unique solution to night fighter armament meant that night fighter pilots frequently approached their prey's vulnerable underbellies and their gunners aimed their guns forward and upwards.

This mod to the Mossie was as a result of Specification F.18/40 for a turret equipped night fighter to replace the Defiant. it never progressed beyond the mock-up stage and GdeH was strenously against it owing to the drag penalty on the aircraft's performance. A Beaufighter was actually fitted with a Boulton Paul turret and although the aircraft and turret operated successfully its forward speed was only 302 mph; slower than the Defiant it was to replace. Boulton Paul envisaged a bigger Defiant powered by either a Napier Sabre or Bristol Centaurus and a twin boom new design that resembled a small Northrop P-61. The Gloster Reaper twin was also proposed for this spec and prwas inspiring, although without a turret, but Gloster was informed to stop work on it and work on the Whittle prototype. Fairey envisaged a cannon equipped Firefly without a turret. The spec came to nothing owing to delays in getting the projected aircraft ready and the Mossie's performance eventually meant a new design was not necessary.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 31, 2013)

It may have been possible to mount near vertical firing 20mm cannon at the rear of the cockpit.

Another alternative was cannon firing up at a shallower angle.

The Gloster F.9/37 had such an arrangement in one of the prototypes.






The caption says the angle was to avoid the cockpit, but the guns were placed there deliberately to fire from behind and below an enemy.

If combatting bombers was an issue for Mosquitoes, or the standard arrangement wasn't proving effective enough, something similar could have been adoped for them. Though it may have required an additional fairing on the back of the Mossie.


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> Hello Tomo,
> 
> to my sources the Ju 88 G-6 with SN2 (so without the full enclosed FuG 240) and flame damper was 585 km/h fast without MW50 and 2 x Jumo 213A engines.
> 
> ...



At 625 km/h they are still approx. 20mph slower than the Mossie NF XV of 1943 plus of course the FUG 240 was only operational in very very small numbers right at the end of the war. So to all intent and purposes the Ju88 G6 was normally much slower during the war. It was also a heavier aircraft so general performance such as climb and acceleration would be less and general agility.

As for firepower I don't see much difference myself 4 x 20mm Hispano II vs 4 x 20mm 151 are pretty similar and the Schräge Musik seems to be the only difference. That and the need to keep the defensive guns as they were so concerned about the Mosquito NF's. I don't know how much ammo the Ju88 carried do you have that information?

Re the Schräge Musik, it has been pointed out that the RAF were using radar nightfighters well before the Luftwaffe, if they had seen the need for this type of installation then no doubt it would have been used. Its also worth noting that post war no other nation used this type of weapon so it seems to have been of benefit for a limited period.


----------



## stona (Dec 31, 2013)

Schrage music simply exploited a weakness in the RAF's bombers' defensive armament. All the armour was removed with the exception of the plate behind the pilot and virtually no RAF bombers operated with a ventral turret (I'm aware of some exceptions, so no need for a diversion).
The large fuel tanks in the wings of a Lancaster or Halifax were vulnerable from whatever angle were hit
The only four engine bomber the Luftwaffe operated did have ventral gun positions facing down and to the rear and down and forward making a schrage music attack profile much more likely to be seen.
What would be the point of compromising the Mosquito's outstanding performance for a weapons system likely to be less effective than that already carried?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> Hello Tomo,
> 
> to my sources the Ju 88 G-6 with SN2 (so without the full enclosed FuG 240) and flame damper was 585 km/h fast without MW50 and 2 x Jumo 213A engines.
> 
> ...



Thanks - unfortunately, the data covering in depth the performance capabilities of the LW's workhorse seem to be sorely lacking - flight tests, original tables and all?


----------



## DonL (Dec 31, 2013)

Till now I have not seen original data-sheets, that's all secondary sources.

Anyway they are close and in consens to Eric Brown's test flight with a Ju 88 G-6 without Radar and flame damper, but also without MW 50 and after his book he clocked 644 km/h in level flight at optimal altitude.
So to my opinion the late Ju 88 G-6 was far away from being a slow night fighter especially with the full enclosed FuG 240 radar.

Also at this forum a few years ago, was a original articel about a comparison flight between a Ju 88 G-1 and a Mosquito NF at a british air base, which had shown how equal the two aircrafts were at their performance.

To my opinion I agree with Erich, for the hunting of heavy Bombers the Ju 88 G-6 with it's heavier armament and Schräge Musik and a third man was the best night fighter and all other nightfighter roles were filled a little better by the Mosquito, but it is to my opinion a very close race and the Mosquito is as a *nightfighter* not that far in front from a the latest Ju 88 G-6 with it's performance and equippment.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> Till now I have not seen original data-sheets, that's all secondary sources.
> 
> Anyway they are close and in consens to Eric Brown's test flight with a Ju 88 G-6 without Radar and flame damper, but also without MW 50 and after his book he clocked 644 km/h in level flight at optimal altitude.
> So to my opinion the late Ju 88 G-6 was far away from being a slow night fighter especially with the full enclosed FuG 240 radar.
> ...


 I have a couple of Chris Chants books on Luftwaffe aircraft, and he is of the opinion that the Ju 88 also vies with the Mosquito for being the most versatile aircraft to operate during WW2. The fact that both were effective as night fighters appears to back that opinion. On another aspect, the Arado Ar 234 was trialled in the night fighter role, but was deemed unsuitable due to the extensive glazing of the cockpit. The bolt on weapons pack, similar to the He 219 placement, did little to reduce the reflected glare and visual distortion. There were developments in progress to alleviate this problem, but, like so many advanced Luft projects, the war ended before anything was realised.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 31, 2013)

wuzak said:


> It may have been possible to mount near vertical firing 20mm cannon at the rear of the cockpit.
> 
> Another alternative was cannon firing up at a shallower angle.
> 
> ...



I understand the shallow angle was for 'no deflection' firing. At a normal firing distance the bullets would have dropped to such that the point of impact was straight in front. Thus making aiming easier. 

Slightly riding a hobby horse, the Defiant turret guns, turned and fixed forward in a similar configuration, were supposed to be for the pilot to do the same. Hence the pilot having a firing button. However the story got lost and the sights and training never happened.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 31, 2013)

The FuG 240 "Berlin" was an airborne interception radar introduced very late in World War II by the German Luftwaffe. It was the first German radar to be based on the cavity magnetron, eliminating the need for the large antenna arrays seen on earlier radars, and thereby greatly increasing the performance of the night fighters. Introduced by Telefunken in *April 1945*, only *about 25 units saw service*.

It is still not close to a Mossie NF30.


----------



## DonL (Dec 31, 2013)

Nice quote from Wiki, do you have other sources for your claims besides Wiki.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 31, 2013)

By the later stages of the war I believe it was encumbent on electronics suppliers to produce units small enough and light enough to be easily carried by an aircraft in service. The Ju88 may have had more room inside but surely a higher top speed was more preferable.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> Nice quote from Wiki, do you have other sources for your claims besides Wiki.



Do you have sources that dispute what was said in Wiki?

Introduced by Telefunken in April 1945, only about 25 units saw service.


----------



## stona (Dec 31, 2013)

25 saw service?
As far as I know the allies only found 10 aircraft equipped with FuG 240. I wonder where 25 comes from.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Dec 31, 2013)

Greyman said:


> normally 500 rounds per gun for the .303s (if fitted) - 780 rounds possible
> normally 150 rounds per gun for the 20mm - 175 rounds possible



Thanks Greyman, my better sources say more or less same, Simons' Mosquito book 175rpg and Green Swanborough in the AI Mossie fighters article 150rpg.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Dec 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> T...Also at this forum a few years ago, was a original articel about a comparison flight between a Ju 88 G-1 and a Mosquito NF at a british air base, which had shown how equal the two aircrafts were at their performance...



Yes, that the Beaumont's story, can be found from his Tempest over Europe book or in his Tangmere Summer article in an early 1990s AM magazine. Beamont was making his first testfllight with the Ju 88G when he saw a Mossie and guessing that Braham was flying it made a "diving attack" on it, the Mossie pilot was indeed Braham who took the bait. According to Bea he had a slight edge when he decided that the turning fight, which had been descended fairly close to ground, was getting too dangerous and disengaged. Graham would probably have disagreed and it would be nice to read opinnions of onlookers on who was winning or was it a drawn.

Juha


----------



## Greyman (Dec 31, 2013)

stona said:


> Schrage music simply exploited a weakness in the RAF's bombers' defensive armament. All the armour was removed with the exception of the plate behind the pilot and virtually no RAF bombers operated with a ventral turret (I'm aware of some exceptions, so no need for a diversion).
> The large fuel tanks in the wings of a Lancaster or Halifax were vulnerable from whatever angle were hit
> The only four engine bomber the Luftwaffe operated did have ventral gun positions facing down and to the rear and down and forward making a schrage music attack profile much more likely to be seen.
> What would be the point of compromising the Mosquito's outstanding performance for a weapons system likely to be less effective than that already carried?
> ...



It's not just exploiting the weakness in RAF defensive positions, its exploiting the fact that it is harder to see an attacker against the dark ground at night than against the night sky.

The large fuel tanks were vulnerable, yes, but I don't think many folks appreciate the percentage of rounds and fragments deflected by shallow angles of aircraft skin and passing through aircraft structure.

A point about British under turrets; they weren't much help anyway due to being sighted by a periscope. Not the best setup for searching the darkest portion of the night sky for hours. But yeah, no need to get into a Preston Green vs. Frazer Nash diversion.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Dec 31, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> ... Does anyone have any stats on the P61 Black widow?



From what I can find, total number of aircraft shot down by P-61's is 127 and that is counting all theaters. If you add the count of V-1's, I have only found an additional 9 aircraft. I don't know if the two at the end of the war, brought down by Lady in the Dark, is included with these numbers.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 31, 2013)

stona said:


> 25 saw service?
> As far as I know the allies only found 10 aircraft equipped with FuG 240. I wonder where 25 comes from.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



From Gebhard Aders _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_ page 251:



> *FuG240/1 Berlin N-1a* Centimetric AI radar. Wavelength 9-9.3 cm (=3,250-3,330 MHz). Range 5 km-3200 m (3.1 mls-984 ft) without altitude limitation; weight 180 kg (397 lb). Search angle 55°; two circular cathode ray display screens. Developed by Telefunken; 10 sets delivered and completed early in 1945.



Other versions of the FuG 240 planned but not built included the* /2 Berlin N-2*, similar to the /1 but with a single cathode ray display; */3 Berlin N-3* (range 6-8 km (3.75-5 miles) which had search angles of 90° azimuth, 20° elevation using a parabolic reflector which searched in a spiral pattern. Developed into FuG 244 Bremen (1 completed); */4 Berlin N-4* same ranges as N-3. Fixed dorsal dielectric rod radiator aerial which could be rotated 180°, so searched upper atmosphere only.


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2013)

actually 25 Berlin sets delivered is not too far off I have pics of at least 5-6 on 88G-6's. NJG 4 had them including the I./NJG 4 CO had one and in fact he was shot down, so the Allies did not capture all examples as attrition could easily take the 88's out, blown up, wrecked on landings. also NJG 5 had them as well as examples. another piece of important internal equipment in the 88G-6 that has not been mentioned which I covered about 5 years ago with pics and schematics .............. will have to look for them again. as I said the 88 was the perfect bomber killer, 4 man crew, adequate defensive arms, the extra crewman either operated the FuG 350Z Naxos or and was an extra pair of eyes for kill confirmations as well as Mossie watching. tghe berlin 240 could reach beyond 5 miles on operations.


----------



## Ascent (Jan 1, 2014)

The reason 20mm is perfectly fine for nightfighters while the Germans, and only the Germans, were trying to fit bigger guns on the day fighters is the amount of time they had on a firing pass. Against a formation of B17's they were at high speed.with a very short period for firing. At night closing speeds were lower and firing times longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 1, 2014)

Aozora said:


> From Gebhard Aders _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_



That's probably where I got the figure 10 from, though one of the other 'usual suspects' might also have given it. I still have no clue where the ever unreliable Wiki got the figure of 25 from.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Denniss (Jan 1, 2014)

Late Ju 88 G-6 also had FuG 218 or 220 with the "Morgenstern" antenna in the nose, covered with a wooden(?) cone. It was also possible to place the Naxos antenna there.
Junkers performance calculation (from late November 44) of a such-equipped G-7 was 584 km/h in 10.2km and 627 km/h in 9.1 km with MW-50. Without flame damper 648 km/h were possible.

This table also states 3205l of internal fuel. AFAIR this was done by removing all bombing equipment from the rear bomb bay for exclusive use as aux fuel tank. This modification should have been introduced with the G-6, the G-1 still had the stuff with the smaller bombbay tank attached to the bomb release gear.


----------



## Frantish (Jun 21, 2015)

Juha said:


> Yes, that the Beaumont's story, can be found from his Tempest over Europe book or in his Tangmere Summer article in an early 1990s AM magazine. Beamont was making his first testfllight with the Ju 88G when he saw a Mossie and guessing that Braham was flying it made a "diving attack" on it, the Mossie pilot was indeed Braham who took the bait. According to Bea he had a slight edge when he decided that the turning fight, which had been descended fairly close to ground, was getting too dangerous and disengaged. Graham would probably have disagreed and it would be nice to read opinnions of onlookers on who was winning or was it a drawn.
> 
> Juha



Night fighters fighting during the day... 

Good read, though.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 21, 2015)

To add to this quite interesting old thread.

Schräge Music was also used by the Japanese against the US bobmbers that often had belly turrets. I don't think that was because a wish to copy everything German.

Apart from the redused visibility against the ground, one reason was the Close distances many kills were made at. The risk of getting hit by debris was less if one stayed well out of the slipstream.

Also, the sighting was eased as the target was nicely silhuetted (if that isn't a too optimistic expression) against the sky.

i feel the question of the practical use of defensive armament at night is a tricky one. Maybe more often just the extra pair of eyes scanning the relevant part of the sky was more important. With the large amount of awailable targets, it's understandable if many nachtjagd pilots simply ignored bombers the moment they started doing evasive manouvers.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 21, 2015)

IMO - the 262 was barely adequate at night and its speed advantage was so great that it was really only well used as a 'larger diameter' point defense at night against the Mosquito because it could intercept a higher altitude fast bomber like the Mossie and not have to slow down too much as in the case of a Lancaster.

I have a hard time imagining a radar lock and then a visible and effective intercept when it had a tough enough time with very short firing solutions on daylight B-17s and B-24s.

From my perspective the Ju 88G was perhaps the overall 'best'. Despite the implied deficiencies by some, the P-61 was an excellent night fighter - but used as much for night intruder missions around airfields as interception over battlefields in the ETO.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 21, 2015)

drgondog said:


> the P-61 was an excellent night fighter - but used as much for night intruder missions around airfields as interception over battlefields in the ETO.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_P-61_Black_Widow#Specifications_.28P-61B-20-NO.29
It had a combat range of ~600 miles, which limits it to Western Europe, not into Germany; it really wasn't that useful in Europe. Maybe as a defensive night fighter, but with half the range of a Mosquito it wasn't even all that useful.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 21, 2015)

The Me 262 had to approach at daytime fast to keep swarms of enemy fighters away from them, a threat not present at night. They could very well throttle down for night ops and use their superior speed only to reduce time to reach enemy aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_P-61_Black_Widow#Specifications_.28P-61B-20-NO.29
> It had a combat range of ~600 miles, which limits it to Western Europe, not into Germany; it really wasn't that useful in Europe. Maybe as a defensive night fighter, but with half the range of a Mosquito it wasn't even all that useful.




If you see something that is too good to be true on wiki (your favorite plane has a tremendous speed/climb/range or a plane you don't like as really poor speed/climb/range) then it probably isn't true. 

Another source says the P-61B at a take-off weight of 32,100lbs had a range of *610 miles at 339mph at 25,000ft using max continuous power*. That is 2550rpm and as close to 49.5 in of manifold pressure as the engine could pull at that altitude (engine chart says wide open throttle). 
This is equivalent to trying to "cruise" a P-47C at 360mph at 25,000 ft and claiming it has short range because it will only go 450 miles. Throttling the P-47 back to 337mph cuts the fuel burn by 45 gallons an hour and adds 100 miles to the range. Cutting the speed to 300mph at 25,000ft drops the fuel burn to 1/2 what "max continuous" used and stretches the range to 750 miles. 

I wonder what kind of range the P-61 could have gotten cruising at 300mph at 25,000ft and taking off with a pair of 165 gallon drop tanks???

Or lets put it in perspective. A P-61 could *cruise* for 1 3/4 hours at a speed within a few mph of what a JU-88S-1 bomber could do for a few minutes without GM 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 21, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> If you see something that is too good to be true on wiki (your favorite plane has a tremendous speed/climb/range or a plane you don't like as really poor speed/climb/range) then it probably isn't true.
> 
> Another source says the P-61B at a take-off weight of 32,100lbs had a range of *610 miles at 339mph at 25,000ft using max continuous power*. That is 2550rpm and as close to 49.5 in of manifold pressure as the engine could pull at that altitude (engine chart says wide open throttle).
> This is equivalent to trying to "cruise" a P-47C at 360mph at 25,000 ft and claiming it has short range because it will only go 450 miles. Throttling the P-47 back to 337mph cuts the fuel burn by 45 gallons an hour and adds 100 miles to the range. Cutting the speed to 300mph at 25,000ft drops the fuel burn to 1/2 what "max continuous" used and stretches the range to 750 miles.
> ...



Good to know, thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2015)

For the P-61, the 'America's hundred thousand' gives 1000 mile range on just internal fuel (646 gals), 1400 miles with 2x165 US gals drop tanks and 1900 miles on 4x165 US gals drop tanks (available from late -B models; the earlier models could carry 2x310 US gals drop tanks instead of 2x165). All for 10000 ft altitude, zero wind and no fuel reserves. One could expect how much for the combat radius - 450 miles at 15000 ft? Can go from Kent to Ruhr, Berlin is out of question?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2015)

The effectiveness of a night fighter was more to do with the electronics it carried than its actual performance, thjat was the difference between the mosquito and Ju88.

Operation Steinbock showed how the relative marques performed when the roles were reversed.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 22, 2015)

It's hard not to admit the Mosquito made the best night fighter as an aircraft nor not to admit that it had the better radar. 

It was so fast it could intercept any opponent and it was faster than any radar armed opponent. When microwave radar was added it had the a radar that was difficult to jam , worked low and did not impact speed excessively. It had excellent range.

(though the single stage supercharger variants struggled with the Me 410 unless Nitrous was used)

Arguably it might have been inferior to the Ju 88G in one area, the ability to carry 3 or even 4 crew members and the equipment to cope in an environment of heavy electronic counter measures using a wide range of sensors and navigation equipment measures yet the Mosquito carried some of these as well though not simultaneously.

Had the Ju 88 received the equivalent of the FuG 240 Berlin radar in early 1944 rather than 1945 I might be arguing differently. A lot more RAF bombers would have been intercepted.

1942 marks a watershed era for the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. Karl Rottgerate of the Telefunken company cancelled development of a new generation of radars operating at around 25cm instead of 50cm that were in use. These were based around disk triodes such as the LD7 rather than a magnetron. Lorentz was 80% complete productionishing a radar operating at the same frequencies as well and cancelled further work when they perceived they would not get an order. Hence German radar development, due to a pressing need to produce existing types, cut itself of from advanced developments. They were not poised to jump to 9cm frequencies as the allies were but 27cm or so that would have sharpened their beams so much that jamming would have been much more difficult, in fact unlikely. halving wave length sharpens the beam by a factor of 2 and thus concentrates radio enrgy by 4 and deflects noise by a similar factor.

The new disk triodes were in fact capable of operating at 9cm/16kW easily competing with the 1st generation magnetrons though they were left behind as power levels went up. They were however highly competitive at around 25cm in power, a frequency known for its ability to penetrate moisture in the air and achieve long ranges.

Had they not made these decisions their ability to reproduce the British technology would have been greatly enhanced as much of the skilled technical work force was drafted into the Army (a common practice).

It's estimated that perhaps 100-200 microwave radars may have entered service. Rotterheim FLAK radars, FuMO 81 PPI radars for the German Navy and maybe a couple of costal batteries and some FuG 240 radars for Ju 88G6 night fighters were delivered.

The Luftwaffe probably had as good a night fighter as it was going to get with a microwave radar equipped Ju 88G7 (the G7 had the 2 stage supercharger). They had a improved versions and a 3cm version in development and the Ardo 234P would have made an excellent night fighter sometime in mid to late 1945.

Bombing wrecked much of their plans, a factory that made permanent magnets (Heraeous Vacuum) was destroyed and this forced the development of electrogmagnet based magentrons greatly delaying deployment.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> For the P-61, the 'America's hundred thousand' gives 1000 mile range on just internal fuel (646 gals), 1400 miles with 2x165 US gals drop tanks and 1900 miles on 4x165 US gals drop tanks (available from late -B models; the earlier models could carry 2x310 US gals drop tanks instead of 2x165). All for 10000 ft altitude, zero wind and no fuel reserves. One could expect how much for the combat radius - 450 miles at 15000 ft? Can go from Kent to Ruhr, Berlin is out of question?



Rough thoughts:
Tomo - the Parasite drag of the P-61 was a little higher than the P-38, and in turn (IIRC) about 10% greater than a P-47D. The 646 gallons is roughly twice the internal fuel of the P-47D until the -25 ramped up to 360 gallons from 305 gallons. The R-2800's should have nearly the same burn rate as the P-47D but use ~2x fuel per mile.

I would first test the notion of cruise settings at 20,000 feet (clean) delivering about 15% gallons per hour less than a P-47, at 275mph. The P-47D hit about 3 miles per gallon clean at 300 mph at optimal settings. [So theoretically a P-47 could travel ~900 miles with 300 gallons. If 15% greater fuel consumption is nearly right due to increased drag]

If so, with no takeoff and climb,at 275mph 640 gallons/2 x (3mpg/1.15) = 834 miles, straight line burning 640 gallons in 3 hours at 213 gallons per hour at Cruise settings-Clean. 

Absent flight test reports I would do the following to get a rough cut on:
0. MP fuel consumption at 2X Cruise = 426 gph, 106.5 gallons in 15 minutes
1. MP consumption for takeoff and 15 minutes to cruise altitude - dirty = 106 gallons from the wing tanks leaving 537 gallons external. Be conservative and travel zero distance during climb to 20,000 feet.
2. Cruise settings for remainer of outbound leg - dirty ----> 213gph for 537 gallons = 2.5 hours at.75(275mph) = 515 miles before punching tanks assuming all warm up, take off and climb was from the 4x160 gallon external tanks.

At 515 mile combat radius

640 gallons remain internal.
1. 15 minutes of combat = 206.5 gph x 2/4= 103 gallons burned before turning home. 640-103= 537 gallons remaining at mile marker 515.
2. Cruise 515 miles at 275mph = 1.87 hours. 1.87hours x 213 gph = 398 gallons. 

Approximately 139 gallons or 139gallons/213 gallons per hour = 39 minutes of cruise consumption to find field, let down and land.


So, SWAG says 500+ mile combat radius with 4x160 gallons external tanks for the assumptions above. For west France airfield the P-61B can easily play around Berlin for say 30 minutes. For East Anglia - no.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe probably had as good a night fighter as it was going to get with a microwave radar equipped Ju 88G7 (the G7 had the 2 stage supercharger). They had a improved versions and a 3cm version in development and the Ardo 234P would have made an excellent night fighter sometime in mid to late 1945.


Was there any real point to the emphasis put on high altitude capabilities of LW night fighters? Aside from the high altitude USAAF night bombing threat that never materialized, there wasn't really any incentive for it. The standard BMW 801 rated altitudes fit well for RAF bomber heights, as did the DB 603A. (and Jumo 213A)


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 23, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Was there any real point to the emphasis put on high altitude capabilities of LW night fighters? Aside from the high altitude USAAF night bombing threat that never materialized, there wasn't really any incentive for it. The standard BMW 801 rated altitudes fit well for RAF bomber heights, as did the DB 603A. (and Jumo 213A)



I think the main reason would be flexibility and preparedness. At some point high altitude raids above 20,000ft might commence. A Ju 88G7 with Jumo 213E was not as suitable as a Ju 388J due to the lack of pressurisation but in an emergency it would work. The RAF only need fit two stage Merlins to their bombers and the Luftwaffe might have a problem.

I believe the standard Jumo 213F or E engines of Fw 190D13 designed to carry torpedoes were thought to be a poor fit to the low altitude requirement and were instead to be given a low altitude optimised Jumo 213A.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Was there any real point to the emphasis put on high altitude capabilities of LW night fighters? Aside from the high altitude USAAF night bombing threat that never materialized, there wasn't really any incentive for it. The standard BMW 801 rated altitudes fit well for RAF bomber heights, as did the DB 603A. (and Jumo 213A)



Mosquito Pathfinders.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jun 23, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The RAF only need fit two stage Merlins to their bombers and the Luftwaffe might have a problem.


It was never going to happen; much is continually made of the Lancaster's "inability" to climb above 18,000', but the Air Ministry didn't want that, anyway. Contrails start at around 20,000', and the authorities didn't want each bomber to trail four pointing white fingers as an invitation to any nightfighter, when they were supposed to be trying to hide in the cloak of darkness.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jun 23, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The RAF only need fit two stage Merlins to their bombers and the Luftwaffe might have a problem.


It was never going to happen; much is continually made of the Lancaster's "inability" to climb above 18,000', but the Air Ministry didn't want that, anyway. Contrails start at around 20,000', and the authorities didn't want each bomber to trail four pointing white fingers as an invitation to any nightfighter, when they were supposed to be trying to hide in the cloak of darkness.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It was never going to happen; much is continually made of the Lancaster's "inability" to climb above 18,000', but the Air Ministry didn't want that, anyway. Contrails start at around 20,000', and the authorities didn't want each bomber to trail four pointing white fingers as an invitation to any nightfighter, when they were supposed to be trying to hide in the cloak of darkness.



They modified 9 B.IIIs to B.VIs with Merlin 85s/87s, but these had technical difficulties and while most of them were used operationally in Pathfinder units they were withdrawn from ops in Nov 44, maybe partly for the reason you gave.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 23, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Mosquito Pathfinders.


Were any of the aircraft in question even fast enough (with high alt engines or GM-1 boost) to actually make the effective against Mosquitoes, especially the 2-stage merlin powered ones? 

It doesn't seem like the Ju 88 or even Me 410 fit the mosquito chasing role very well. (the Ar 240 might have had potential to do so -especially with DB-605s or 603s, the Fw 187 probably would have worked as the basis for that too once compact enough radar was available -or much earlier in terms of countering daylight Mossie operations)


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 23, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Were any of the aircraft in question even fast enough (with high alt engines or GM-1 boost) to actually make the effective against Mosquitoes, especially the 2-stage merlin powered ones?
> 
> It doesn't seem like the Ju 88 or even Me 410 fit the mosquito chasing role very well. (the Ar 240 might have had potential to do so -especially with DB-605s or 603s, the Fw 187 probably would have worked as the basis for that too once compact enough radar was available -or much earlier in terms of countering daylight Mossie operations)



What about the Arado 240/440 with Jumo 222's, or would it just have been best to give them to the Ju 88's?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Were any of the aircraft in question even fast enough (with high alt engines or GM-1 boost) to actually make the effective against Mosquitoes, especially the 2-stage merlin powered ones?
> 
> It doesn't seem like the Ju 88 or even Me 410 fit the mosquito chasing role very well. (the Ar 240 might have had potential to do so -especially with DB-605s or 603s, the Fw 187 probably would have worked as the basis for that too once compact enough radar was available -or much earlier in terms of countering daylight Mossie operations)


The He219...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The He219...



....couldn't really catch Mosquitoes either.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 24, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The He219...



... had the same engines as the 410 on a heavier airframe.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 24, 2015)

wuzak said:


> ....couldn't really catch Mosquitoes either.


It also started development much later and was larger and heavier and had fewer advantages over the Me 410 and Ju 88. The Ar 240 and Fw 187 were both early/pre-war designs with a great deal more potential for developing into effective combat aircraft in a timely manner had there been the support/interest from the RLM.

The Ar 240 already did well with DB 601Es and certainly should have improved with 605s. 603s might actually be less useful given the added weight, drag. and greater usefulness of those engines on the likes of the Do 217 and Fw 190. (while avoiding the Me 410 entirely) Jumo 211s might also be useful.

Actually getting counter-rotating engines in production might have been significant as well. (useful for all twins, but with the Ar 240 in particular, counter-rotating engines might have improved some of its handling problems)




SpicyJuan11 said:


> What about the Arado 240/440 with Jumo 222's, or would it just have been best to give them to the Ju 88's?


Too heavy and bulky for the aircraft. DB 603s might have been OK but given how well it did with DB 601s, it seems like DB 605s or later Jumo 211 models would be more suitable. Sticking with refining the basic Ar 240 design also seems more sensible than switching over to the larger Ar 440. (admittedly, I'm not sure how much of the design carried over, but the implications seems to be it was a significant redesign and at least somewhat larger and heavier)


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 24, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> It also started development much later and was larger and heavier and had fewer advantages over the Me 410 and Ju 88. The Ar 240 and Fw 187 were both early/pre-war designs with a great deal more potential for developing into effective combat aircraft in a timely manner had there been the support/interest from the RLM.
> 
> The Ar 240 already did well with DB 601Es and certainly should have improved with 605s. 603s might actually be less useful given the added weight, drag. and greater usefulness of those engines on the likes of the Do 217 and Fw 190. (while avoiding the Me 410 entirely) Jumo 211s might also be useful.
> 
> ...



The 440 was quite different than the 240 (longer fuselage, heavier armament, DB 603's, four bladed props, larger wing area), and AFAIK corrected the 240's handling woes, but still had enough in common to show that the Arado 240's design was workable.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 24, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> The 440 was quite different than the 240 (longer fuselage, heavier armament, DB 603's, four bladed props, larger wing area), and AFAIK corrected the 240's handling woes, but still had enough in common to show that the Arado 240's design was workable.


Looking at this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/ar-440-a-734.html

It appears the sole Ar 440 prototype was converted from the 4th preproduction Ar 240 (Ar 240A-04), it was some 3000 kg heavier (9200 vs 6200 kg empty) though max takeoff only managed less than 2000 kg greater than the Ar 240A-0. 
while having the wing span and area increased from 13.34 m to 16.3 m, the area only increased from 31.3 m^2 to 34 m^2, so aspect ratio would be higher but wing loading would be significantly higher as well.

The whole transition seems to be a waste of time and resources compared to refining the existing Ar 240 design. The 440 was significantly faster but it seems to have achieved this partially at the expense of even greater extremes of the same sorts of compromises made for speed on the previous Ar 240 while also having the advantage of engines with substantially better altitude performance than the 601E. (not to mention being larger and more costly/resource hungry -including using those DB-603s)

It seems like deleting the defensive armament and focusing on addressing the remaining handling issues would be most important, along with adapting more powerful DB-605 and/or Jumo 211 engines. And it should still make a better fast, tactical level/(shallow)dive bomber than the Me 410 ... or Me 262, likely Ar 234 as well (though the latter should still make a better recon aircraft) while potentially ready for service considerably earlier than any of those. (or at least modestly sooner than the Me 410, perhaps more in line with the initial introduction of the Me 210 ... or sooner had as much resources been allocated to Arado's program as the 210 got)

The Ar 440's larger wing might have been more useful applied to a high-altitude variant of the smaller 240, particularly once DB 605AS engines became available.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 24, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Looking at this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/ar-440-a-734.html
> 
> It appears the sole Ar 440 prototype was converted from the 4th preproduction Ar 240 (Ar 240A-04), it was some 3000 kg heavier (9200 vs 6200 kg empty) though max takeoff only managed less than 2000 kg greater than the Ar 240A-0.
> while having the wing span and area increased from 13.34 m to 16.3 m, the area only increased from 31.3 m^2 to 34 m^2, so aspect ratio would be higher but wing loading would be significantly higher as well.
> ...



Could the 240 have been a better escort/heavy fighter than the Fw 187 if it deleted the second crew-man, tried to save more weight, and have larger wings? Or did the Fw 187 still outclass it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Could the 240 have been a better escort/heavy fighter than the Fw 187 if it deleted the second crew-man, tried to save more weight, and have larger wings? Or did the Fw 187 still outclass it?



A escort/heavy fighter has to be able to duke it out, at least somewhat, with the single engine, single seat interceptors. Starting with a large, heavy airplane and trying to cut it down just means a lot of work for little result. A 240 weighed about 1/2 ton more empty than a late model P-38. And empty means no guns (although mounts are there) Gross weight clean was well over a ton more than the P-38. And the P-38 was no great shakes against 109s and 190s for a good part of the war. 
By the time you cut down the cockpit, ditch the turrets, install forward firing guns and change the wing what have you kept except the engines, landing gear and the name?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 24, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> A escort/heavy fighter has to be able to duke it out, at least somewhat, with the single engine, single seat interceptors. Starting with a large, heavy airplane and trying to cut it down just means a lot of work for little result. A 240 weighed about 1/2 ton more empty than a late model P-38. And empty means no guns (although mounts are there) Gross weight clean was well over a ton more than the P-38. And the P-38 was no great shakes against 109s and 190s for a good part of the war.
> By the time you cut down the cockpit, ditch the turrets, install forward firing guns and change the wing what have you kept except the engines, landing gear and the name?



Oh my, yes I didn't realize how heavy the Arado was


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 25, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Oh my, yes I didn't realize how heavy the Arado was


Indeed, more in the class of the single stage engined fighter-bomber Mosquitos, but with smaller wing area. The weight also makes its climb performance rather mediocre (again somewhat like the Merlin XX powered Mosquitos with combat load) so probably wouldn't make a great interceptor either. (even with fighter escort the poor climb would slow down interception as well as making it more vulnerable to enemy fighters)

Or at least assuming wiki's climb figure is accurate. (seems reasonable given the power/weight and wing loading, though it would obviously vary by altitude I assume it's initial climb as is usually cited -not always best climb, but with the DB's power curve, probably not far off)

The Fw 187 was never tested with DB 601Es (or Ns for that matter) and the DB-600s it was tested with were fairly low altitude engines as well as using surface cooling in the wings (so another odity of reduced drag but also less power or altitude performance than DB 601s were offering). I believe there was one prototype later refitted with DB 601 engines though the cooling arrangement seems in contention (it was either an early example of pressurized cooling with conventional, retractable radiators or again using surface cooling). I forget the exact speed, but the 601 powered prototype managed over 400 MPH at altitude. (I want to say it was around 415 MPH, but I'd have to find the quote again to be sure)

I think it's fairly safe to assume that with a combat load similar to the A-0 models (either still a 2-seater or a more heavily armed single seater, possibly with more fuel and armament -and added weight from self sealing tanks in either case; plus reasonably low-drag embedded or retractable radiators) it seems safe to say that with DB-601E engines (or Jumo 211Fs) it could have still managed above 400 MPH top speed at best altitude. Faster than the Ar 240 with those engines and a great deal lighter (and should climb significantly better). It should also be somewhat lighter than the P-38 of around the same time.

The A-0 models themselves might have been a bit faster if not for the switch to bulkier fixed radiators. Their speed was only slightly better than the lighter single-seat prototypes with less powerful engines. Even with the second crewman, it should have been a bit faster with more streamlined radiators. (and it STILL was slightly faster than the Bf 109E up to the Jumo 210G's critical altitude, but that was several thousand feet lower than the 109E's)


But again, the Fw 187 wouldn't work as a (radar equipped) night fighter until late war with more compact radar. (similar to the case for the P-38M)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

