# Info on Me262 with the BIG gun in the nose



## Haztoys (Dec 29, 2005)

Newbe here with a strange one..Hope OK to ask  

I've come across only two pics in my travels of a Me262 with some BIG gun in the nose.. Look to be a A/A gun ... Any one know what I'm talking about?? It most hang out 10 feet ++ out the nose ...  

Any info ?? Or pics .... What is it?? .. What was it used for ??? How many rounds did it holed ??? muzzle speed ??? Did it work as it should?? AND ???

Any help on this would be great... If it worked.. It most have been real nasty to the poor pilot in the Me262 and the poor SOB on the receiving end of it.. Thanks 

David


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2005)

Ahem...

One of the strangest variants was the Me 262A-1a/U4 "Pulkzerstörer" which carried an awesome 50mm cannon.... This was intended to be the ultimate bomber-killer... 

Initially, two Me 262`s were modified to carry this new weapon, being flown and tested from Lager-Lechfeld during March and April of 1945....

Only 2 prototypes seem to have been flown...

The Mauser Mk214 cannon was easily one of the most usual weapons fitted to the Me 262. This large 50mm weapon took up the entire nose section with the barrel sticking out some 10 feet! So extreme was the installation that the nosegear was modified to rotate 90° during retraction, enabling the wheel to lie flat as opposed to the usual configuration. A revised wheel well door arrangement was also created to deal with the new layout. Incredibly, the colossal weight and shape of the "phone pole" sticking out of the nose didn't have much effect on the flight characteristics of the jet.

The fitting of the Mk214 to the Me 262 was an effort to create an effective bomber-killer that could attack enemy formations from long range without being subjected to the bomber's defensive fire. It was estimated that a single hit from a 50mm cannon would be sufficient to cripple an Allied bomber. The development, by Mauser, of a 50mm nose mounted cannon was thought to be the answer. The resulting variant was designated the Me262A-1/U4 and was known as the Pulkzerstörer. 

The ammunition cartridges were supplied to the weapon via a belt, from the left of the weapon. The cartridge was released by the ejector, which opened a wedge catch. This catch locked into place whilst the loading platform ran back into its resting position, ready to load the next shell. At this point, the firing sequence for the first shell could take place. Two electrical contacts closed in preparation for shell ejection, and these were activated by the interlocking of the wedge, and also by the loading platform being in its stationary default position. These switches operated the electric ignition of the cartridge, which in turn fired the weapon. At this stage, the ejector opened, and moved the wedge catch, allowing the ejection of the used cartridge. The 2400kg recoil of the weapon was alleviated by a hydraulic damper. The renewed introduction of the loading procedure took place pneumatically.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2005)

very good stuff les, out of interest do they know who wilma jeanne is?


----------



## crowdpleaser (Dec 29, 2005)

damn guys that 50 mm should definetly punch a hole in any bomber!

they never used it in combat bcause the war was almost over but if the war took 1 or 2 years later thing would defintely be different.

i would like to see it fly but ive heard they were pretty dangerous bcause the engines werent stable so the never flew on full speed, here's a pic of 1 flying in belgium.

crowdpleaser.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 29, 2005)

During testing, firing at ground targets, the cannon operated fine but during 2 operational test flights on the 16 April, the cannon jammed. Pilot was Maj. Wilhem Herget

_Wilma Jeanne_ was originally named by S/Sgt Eugene Freiberger of the 54th ADS after his 3rd wife to the capured a/c, WNr 170083, and later flown by Watson's Wizzers. The a/c crashed on the transfer flight to Cherbourg, June 1945, with German test pilot Ludwig Hoffmann who escaped unhurt. The name _Wilma Jeanne_ was changed to _Happy Hunter II_ after Watson's son, Hunter.

The Classic Publication 4 vol series on the 262 has many photos as well as text on the a/c.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 29, 2005)

Great stuff Les and KraziKanuk. Nice pics too crowdpleaser.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2005)

Wow I have never seen those pics before. Good info.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2005)

On a MS flight sim I have, that is one of the Me-262 models. It freaking hilarious to shoot the thing at B-25s or B-26s. But I know, it's just a sim (right Sys?)


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2005)

to add to KK's posting Herget did not test the Me 262 kanonvogel, it WAS used operationally in JV 44 and flown twice against B-26 formations and upon setting up the attack with Willi at the helm, the cannon on both occassions jammed. flying back very pissed Herget felt the unit should be shelved; my opinion as well. Sadly Herr Herget quite the night fighter ace, passed away some years ago


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 29, 2005)

Awesome info and pics! Never knew such an Me-262 existed!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

I new it existed but never saw those pics there.

I wonder how the firing of the cannon effected the flight characteristics.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

> Incredibly, the colossal weight and shape of the "phone pole" sticking out of the nose didn't have much effect on the flight characteristics of the jet.



that's what les posted before but i don't know if that applies for the firing........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

That is what I am wondering. I mean you mount a large cannon on most aircraft and shoot it, it is going to do something, whether that is slow it down or what not....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

well in a -262 i doubt any slowing down will have a last effect and with a gun of that calibre with that RoF and on a plane that fast you're going to get 1 shot per pass pretty much, any effects on your flight path/aim wont really matter.............


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 30, 2005)

I think it may only affect the 50mm round firing out of the barrel if you ask me. The wind pushing against the jet would cause the round to slow down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2005)

It was 15 mph slower than normal versions......


----------



## WEISNER (Dec 31, 2005)

Kind of a moot point considering the cannon would not fire in flight anyway, right?
Kevin


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2005)

Pretty much, but it sure looks sweet...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

Yes it does and I think more development would have made it into a fine weapon for use against Bombers.


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2005)

well it was one of those late war Luftwaffe experiments to make them still on the cutting edge till wars end over every other nationality.

It was a filure and was not going to be pressed further, the prescence of the successful R4M would be treated into mass production had 46 onward happened with a more controllable guided rocket system. Pulling jet mph off was not what the jet pilots wanted nor needed with the superiority in Allied fighters. From what I hae found the Mk 108's would have been pulled off in time and replaced by faster firing 2cm weapons with longer range and a slightly longer fuselage and streamlined canopy for speed and endurance


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 31, 2005)

Another 262 oddball was the one with the glass nose for a bomb aimer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2005)

i don't think they were ever made were they?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't think they were ever made were they?



Well WNr 110555 made 6 flights in Feb 45 and another 10 in Mar, so would say it was built.  On 30 Mar it was flown by a defecting pilot to Schock, near Magsburg, and captured by American forces.

Vol 2, pg289 in the 262 series by Classic even has an in flight pic.

There was also WNr 110484 which first flew on 22 Oct 44. In 22 flights it accumulated 8hr14min of flight time. On Jan 7 45 it went to E-stelle Rechlin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

Hmm cool, I did no know any of those had actually been built.


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 5, 2006)

Hitler had a fantasy of long range large caliber guns mounted on fighters destroying Allied bombers from outside defensive gun range. The Experten of course new this was foolishness. RoF was insufficient and recoil was extreme. Scoring hits from outside defensive gun range was next to impossible.

Consider, to use such a weapon you must sit behind the target, hold your position, and try to sniper them with the long range gun. BUT... the actual range (plane to plane) at 225 mph of the .50 to a target behind the bomber is well over 3000 feet!

In general, any extreme was ineffective. A good balance of RoF, velocity, and hitting power were needed for a gun gun to be truly effective.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jan 6, 2006)

Wow  Big gun...I never knew that model of me262 existed.

I wonder if the '262 would have been more successful if they had mixed armament, such as 2 20mm and 2 30mm cannon


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 6, 2006)

Heh, Hitler and his dreams....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 7, 2006)

The Jug Rules! said:


> I wonder if the '262 would have been more successful if they had mixed armament, such as 2 20mm and 2 30mm cannon


There was a mockup of a 262's nose with 2 MK103s(72rds), 2 MK108s(65rds) and 2 MG151/20s(146rds). Quite the ballistic mix match.

One prototype was constructed that had 2 MK108s and 2 MG151/20s. The 20mm were the upper weapons.

The Me262/U5, WNr 112355, had 6 MK108s with 100, 85 and 65rds per pair.

Another proposal was to mount 4 MK312Cs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

My understanding is that KG 200 used different mixes of armament in the 262 and the 4 20s was the best possible mix.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jan 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is what I am wondering. I mean you mount a large cannon on most aircraft and shoot it, it is going to do something, whether that is slow it down or what not....



Indeed...
A friend of mine told me that he had heard of a beaufighter being fitted with two massive cannons (one on each wing, forgotten the type unfortunately) and the pilot swore that when they fired them, the plane was going backwards...
The plane couldn't get up to speed with the additional weight though, so that kind of reaction was almost inevitable.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 9, 2006)

KG200 Adler? Never came across any 262s assigned to this LW unit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Excuse me you are correct, I meant EK 262. I have been reading a book on KG 200 and it that is why that came to my mind.


----------



## Haztoys (Dec 4, 2007)

I know this is old ..But theres alot of take about BIG guns in aircraft the last day or so...So I dug this up if anyone cares


----------



## HoHun (Dec 4, 2007)

Hi Haztoys,

>I know this is old ..But theres alot of take about BIG guns in aircraft the last day or so...So I dug this up if anyone cares

Regarding the merit of big guns, a German committee on 16.2.1945 prepared a comparison study of the anti-bomber batteries considered by the Luftwaffe at the time.

Their analysis was based on the finding that an average of 0.36 kg of explosives were required to bring down a heavy bomber.

They calcuated the weight of the ammunition required to bring down a heavy bomber for each weapon considered, based on an even 5% hit rate for each weapon.

Then they used 6 barrels for the 15 mm weapons, 4 barrels for the 20 mm weapons, 2 barrels for the 30 mm weapons and 1 barrel for everything bigger, and calculated total battery weight and firing time required for one kill.

Finally, they ranked the batteries according to the product of total weight and firing time for a kill. (If a battery was twice as heavy as another, but required only half the firing time, they were ranked equal that way, so that was just a simple way of making the results comparable).

The resulting ranking (by reciprocal ranking value, best is 100%):

30 mm MG 213/30 - 100%
30 mm MK 108 - 72.8%
55 mm MK 412 - 48.5%
55 mm MK 112 - 47%
20 mm MG 213/20 - 27.2%
20 mm MG 151/20 - 26.2%
30 mm MK 103 - 23%
55 mm MK 214 - 12.4%
15 mm MG 151/15 - 5.6%
50 mm BK 50 - 5.2%

It's worth noting that the different muzzle velocities of the various weapon were deliberately ignored for this study since the findings of this committee were that high-velocity weapons had a higher dispersion than low-velocity weapons so that they offered no practical improvement of hit chances.

The EZ 42 gun sight that was capable of taking trajectory drop into account was (based on combat experience) seen as a better way to increase combat range than increased muzzle velocities or larger calibres. For the MG 151/20, good results had been achieved at 800 m combat range.

The study accepted that the intercepors would inevitably have to spend some time in the range of the bombers' defensive fire, as can be seen by the high priority for short firing times, which would reduce the exposure to defensive fire.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## johnbr (Dec 4, 2007)

Great info.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2007)

Hi again,

>Regarding the merit of big guns, a German committee on 16.2.1945 prepared a comparison study of the anti-bomber batteries considered by the Luftwaffe at the time.

I just found another study, published in Luftfahrt International 15, that compares the low-velocity MK 108 battery installed in the Me 262 with a high-velocity battery consisting of 2 x MK 103 and 2 x MG 151 (15 mm).

However, in contrast to earlier studies, the target considers weapons effect against Mosquito-sized jet bombers capable of a 750 km/h top speed, which the authors figured the Allies might field in the future.

MK 108 and MK 103 were assumed to fire mine shells, while the MG 151/15 was assumed to fire incendiary ammunition for the purpose of the study.

With standard reflector sight:

At 400 m range, the MK 108 battery is superior to the MK 103/MG 151 battery for load angles of up to 30°.

At 600 m range, the same applies as at 400 m range.

At 800 m range, the absolute hit chances drops so low that neither battery can expect a kill with the available ammunition supply.

With EZ 42 computing sight:

If an EZ 42 computing sight is used, muzzle velocity becomes a minor concern. Accordingly, the MK 108 battery becomes even more effective in relation to the MK 103/MG 151 battery.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

Henning ... you're the man!



Kris


----------



## Denniss (Dec 10, 2007)

Why should they have used the 15 mm MG 151 for testing ? AFAIR they used the standard MG 151/20 but it was just called MG 151.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2007)

Hi Denniss,

>Why should they have used the 15 mm MG 151 for testing ? AFAIR they used the standard MG 151/20 but it was just called MG 151.

The report actually specifies "15 mm" throughout. I assume this was due to the desire for a very high muzzle velocity - the MG 151/20 did not reach the high figures of the MG 151/15 in that regard.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2007)

Erich said:


> well it was one of those late war Luftwaffe experiments to make them still on the cutting edge till wars end over every other nationality.
> 
> It was a filure and was not going to be pressed further, the prescence of the successful R4M would be treated into mass production had 46 onward happened with a more controllable guided rocket system. Pulling jet mph off was not what the jet pilots wanted nor needed with the superiority in Allied fighters. From what I hae found the Mk 108's would have been pulled off in time and replaced by faster firing 2cm weapons with longer range and a slightly longer fuselage and streamlined canopy for speed and endurance



I always had the same feeling. Speculatively speaking a faster firing 20mm would have been a strong consideration. The 262s had a hard enough tome scoring with 30mm from close range with the closing speeds.

The 50mm (almost) reminds me of the 75mm gun in the modified B-25. It is only recently that the fire control systems work well placing a 105mm gun on target with the AC-130


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 12, 2007)

> At 400 m range, the MK 108 battery is superior



The Mk108 was an excellent air to air weapon given the targeting technology of the day.

If not the pinnacle of aircraft projectile weaponry in 1945, it was at least very close to it.

The Ta-152C schußwaffenanlage and the Bf-109G umrüstatz 4 schußwaffenanlage all give the Mk108 a point blank zero at 400m.

When one considers that the chances of landing lethal strikes plummets in the 100m from 400m-500m, the Mk 108 was an optimal design for the sights of the day.

According to an RAE study, the chance of landing a lethal hit with any gun system, drop from 55% at 400m to 13% at 500m with a non-CGS sight.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 12, 2007)

> The 262s had a hard enough tome scoring with 30mm from close range with the closing speeds.



Hi Bill,

They definately did have a very hard time scoring hits. 

I tend to think that this is a consequence of the closure speeds and not the weapons. Short of a laser beam or the modern day lead based equivilent, a mini-gun, there is not a projective weapon system that would have faired any better in the 262 IMHO.

This was a problem of the jet age.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> They definately did have a very hard time scoring hits.
> 
> ...



I totally agree, and actually believe the fast firing, ballistically superior 20mm might have had an edge over the Mk103 or 108 30mm with EZ 42 gunsight. There is zero issue in my mind about superior killing capabilty of the 30mm over the 20mm..

My reasoning, not supported by any specific statistics, is that great ballistics and higher rate of combined fire should give the 262 a chance to start firing at 800 yards and close to 300 before having to make a decision about break.

I have no comprehension why the 262 was ever equipped for night fighting with all the issues about closing speeds on targets you can actually see in daylight...


----------



## Erich (Dec 13, 2007)

simplicity really, even Kommando Welter had considered pulling the 4 3cm pieces and replacing them with the 2cm mauser as it was already proven effective with the Ju 88G-6 craft in bomber killing, the 262 then could of had a later or farther start in letting off it's cannon and yet having to place more rounds into the Allied craft the use of 2cm Minen was standard equipment by 1945 ~ HE and HE/I

as to closing speeds believe it or not the 262 was ideal for Mossie hunting, dive from above and then swoop up slightly and let go with the heavy cannon. Yes it was earmarked for the future to engage the slower 4 engines, that was the plan anyway ..... with the twin seater and all the goofy radar hardware in and out the twin seater and external twin drop fuel tanks was quite a bit slower overall than the single seat A-1a used by the 10./NJG 11


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 13, 2007)

Hi Bill,

I think you would be absolutely right if our sighting technology was not the limitation.

It is my understanding that even with CGS sights; engagement ranges were still only practical in the vicinity of 400M-500M.

The only real improvement in aerial projectile weapons, the multi barrel electric cannon, did not exist. The next step in targeting innovation, the radar CGS, did not exist either. So within the limits of targeting technology, I don't think you could get a better weapon system than Mk108 in the Me262.

The weapon itself is immaterial as we are restricted by our ability to accurately target.

If all of our weapons show a similar ability to land hits due to sighting restrictions, we might as well make the hits we do get count.

Here is a portion from the German experience with the EZ40/42 program. The engagement ranges are typical:





Here is the RAE experience with CGS sights. While they do improve a pilots hit chances considerably, there effectiveness dropped steadily with range. At 400M-500M the chances of downing an aircraft were greater than a reflex sight but still not very good.






All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I think you would be absolutely right if our sighting technology was not the limitation.
> 
> ...



I'm still thinking 20mm as primary armament for more ammo and better ballistics for strictly the Me 262 to improve bomber destruction ratios.

No question that neither the K-14 or EZ 42 even nearly as good as the Sperry in Korea but the 262 doesn't seem to get much of a firing solution if it waits to get into 300m? Just thinkin out loud.


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 13, 2007)

> the 262 doesn't seem to get much of a firing solution if it waits to get into 300m? Just thinkin out loud.



Hi Bill,

No you are right, the Me 262 could not get much of a firing solution in 300M when it is closing several hundred miles per hour faster than the target.

I agree that the ballistics of the average 20mm were better at ranges beyond 400M. However it does not make much difference if you can't hit anything at that range with either weapon system IMHO.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Erich (Dec 13, 2007)

but the whole point is that it could with a closer range with the Mk 108 3cm, if it had been four 20mm's you can see easily that destruction may have been greater at a longer range


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 13, 2007)




----------



## Crumpp (Dec 14, 2007)

> if it had been four 20mm's you can see easily that destruction may have been greater at a longer range



Sure I think the 20mm had better range and a better probabiliy of hitting at extreme ranges. The 3cm Minegeschoss shell will always do more damage than the 2cm shell.

However if we cannot accurately target an object at that range it makes little difference. Essentially it becomes, we cannot shoot what we cannot see.

I would have to say that Mtt agreed with this line of thinking on the Me 262s weaponry.

The realities of air to air combat considered, the Mk 108 was one of the finest aerial combat weapon devised in WWII.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> Sure I think the 20mm had better range and a better probabiliy of hitting at extreme ranges. The 3cm Minegeschoss shell will always do more damage than the 2cm shell.
> 
> However if we cannot accurately target an object at that range it makes little difference. Essentially it becomes, we cannot shoot what we cannot see.
> 
> ...



Gene - it IS hard to argue the point.. but a 103 ft wingspan in a K14 (the '42) at 800 yards would look like a P-51 wingspan at 266 yards so it wouldn't be like you couldn't see a Fort out there..

The question then is a.) how stable is the 262 in the ability to hold to pipper on target and b.) how effective (dispersion/CEP) is either the 20 or Mk108 30mm ballistically? Was either significantly poorer than an M2 at 800 or less?

There were a fair amount of 500-600 yard shots from a F-86 onto a MiG (very small sight pic) with the better radar ranging Sperry gunsight and 50's - which is damned good ballistically... and similar gun arrangement with all in the nose... 

You have no argument from me on whether a 400 yard shot is better than 800. - My questions center around theoretical doctrine for a 262 given the 350-400 mph closing speed on a B-17 or B-24 from stern. 

The question I think you are answering is that the EZ 42 combined with a Mk 108 or Mg151 just can't be counted on to hit anything at 800 yards in a Me 262 (or an Fw190 A8)

Works for me. I actually thought the Me 262 was as stable a gun platform as an F-86 and that the Mg151 20 mm was same as or nearly same ballistically as the M2 so that 4 of them in the nose would give a reasonable probability of a hit at 600-800 yards.

And no, I am not proposing that the common range in Korea was 500+ yards - that is still spectacular shooting against the MiG.


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 15, 2007)

Hi Bill,

The reports I have, including the Me 262 Flugzeug-Handbuch convey that the type was stable even in high speed dives.

As a fellow pilot you are aware of the difficulty in spotting another aircraft even at 5NM. 

With a 100mph closure rate we are covering a 5NM separation in about 3.6 minutes. This does not give a pilot much time to locate the target and line up his shot. The 400M is covered in less than 15 seconds.

There is very little time to align/adjust the sight, stabilize the aircraft for the condition of flight, and take the shot.

The problem is not the aircraft. Our pilot and our ability to target is the limitation. This limitation affected everyone and was set by the technology of the day.

None of the CGS's used during the war were very accurate over 400M. This is not to say there were lucky shots or extraordinarily skilled pilots. Dealing in averages though, we are limited to around 400M no matter what weapon or aircraft we are flying.

The difference in the weapons is enough to be noticeable between the M2 and the Mk108 offhand. It makes little difference as we cannot shoot down what we cannot hit because of our sights.



> as stable a gun platform as an F-86



It was probably very similar. However the F-86 has the benefit of radar ranging CGS as well improved algorithms, whereas the WWII CGS was limited to the pilot eyeballing a manual range input.

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> The reports I have, including the Me 262 Flugzeug-Handbuch convey that the type was stable even in high speed dives.
> 
> ...



Gene - I surrender on every point, simply because I don't intellectually believe in 800 yard shots with any cannon (or MG)..in WWII and not even sure today that is good practice

Only on one point will I continue to 'wiggle' - It didn't take much 'eyeball' to find a bomber stream with a couple hundred B-17s, (with a controller's help), and from there, find at least one 103 foot and 3/4inch wingspan to put in a pipper. 

Anecdotally, I was looking at a nice buck this morning in my east pasture - at about 500 yards.. Granted I probably missed 50 before I spotted the one!

If I had a KNOWN range instead of estimated, and a good rest, I could have taken that shot had I been hungry enough.

All good,

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 15, 2007)

> Only on one point will I continue to 'wiggle' - It didn't take much 'eyeball' to find a bomber stream with a couple hundred B-17s, (with a controller's help), and from there, find at least one 103 foot and 3/4inch wingspan to put in a pipper.



There is no wiggle, Bill. You are absolutely right. A large formation would be much easier to spot.

There are also those individuals with exception talent, that "eagle eye". I sometimes can spot A/C before ATC alerts. Most of the time though, I am searching for the planes in the pattern with me!

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> There is no wiggle, Bill. You are absolutely right. A large formation would be much easier to spot.
> 
> There are also those individuals with exception talent, that "eagle eye". I sometimes can spot A/C before ATC alerts. Most of the time though, I am searching for the planes in the pattern with me!
> 
> ...



Me too Gene - but I am reminded that every time i was in a twin in the front with the old man, I NEVER spotted anything first. 

It was more than pattern recognition - he simply had 20/15 or better eyes plus that extra awareness of 'something out of place'.. He told me Henry Brown's eyes were even better and claimed the Brown often would spot something scuttling along on the deck when they were in Escort - so that is a 4-5mi Mk 1 set of eyes if not exaggerated.. I did not inherit those eyes (but my sister may have.)

I've heard Yeager and Anderson speak of each other's eyes the same way..even if 'only' three miles on a single aircraft - that is awesome eyesight.


----------

