# Which was the best night fighter?



## d_bader (Apr 25, 2006)

Which do you think was best and why?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

I used to think the P61 was the best purpose built night fighter, but it was kind of slow (by 1945 standards).

I would say the Mosquito's were better, simply cause they were faster.

Ive seen some figures for a two man P38 night fighter that was quite fast and had a radar intercept system that was quite effective.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 25, 2006)

Ju 88 G 6 and G7

Due to good speed, maneuvrability and shrage musik

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 25, 2006)

mosquito.


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2006)

actually there was no 88 G-7 the last variant was the G-6 and there were no sub link G-6's like a b or c.

The G-6 was the best Germany had to offer in twin engine prop. P-61 was too bulky and could not turn and was popped on occassion by Bf 110G-4 and 88G-6's. The biggest fault was sadly to the crews, German bombers and their rear defences like th He 177 and the Ju 87D-5 at night.

overall the Mossie XIX and XXX was the best Allied craft, the best of the best was the Me 262A-1a in my opinion due to speed, firepower but adversely ineffective in long range running battles with RAF 4-eninge heavies, though this is why the twin seat radar equipped B-1/A-1a was developed and at a later date the B-2 would of entered to bring a new look at night warfare plus smooth nosed Ar-234's

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

Erich said:


> .......P-61 was too bulky and could not turn and .....



Are you sure about that? The P61 used the zap flap setup and was surprisingly nimble for its size.

In 1944, there was an account of a 5th AF P61 out turning a Japanese "Dinah" in a night fight. That indeed is quite an acomplishment considering how nimble the Japanese aircraft were.


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2006)

I was thinking more along the lines of meeting Axis night fighters. The P-61 in the Pacific did well, the guys in the ETO really had a problem with confirming ID of their prey, shooting down several Allied craft by mistake anf ailure of the enborne AI radar was very common in the 414th, 422nd and 425th nfs.

Although nimble and it was big for the time like the He 219 Uhu, it had the speed, but according to ETO crews it could not stop on a dime like previously thought when stalking Ju 87D's from the rear, though even a P-38 could not nor a Mossie ...........

there was a problem with glare as well since the canopy was multifaceted and during the 1945 low level crossing bombings many pilots were blinded for short periods of time with strange refelctions within the ****pit, not sure if this was ever reasoned out


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

Erich, I'm curious why the He-219 didnt get your rating of best night fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2006)

ah I have stated elsewhere in older threads but ..........

He 219 a dog in sheeps clothing, totally non-supported by the Luftw high command. I./NJG 1 the only unit to fly the Uhu operationally. . . a few craft go to experten pilots of II./NJg 1 who found the craft standard and not up to par. Ju 88G-6 filled the bill ........... 1 to NJG 5 for tests, not impressed, I./NJG 3 towards wars end had a bout a dozen and were not impressed, 3./NJGr 10 the testing unit had two and both a/c had broken backs one of the problems with the bird besides it's front unercariage. Twin engines has been ill proven in combat and week powered. No defensive rear armament, non standard Schrägwaffen position, non standar rear warning radar which like the Bf 110G-4 made them Mossie fodder in 45. Limited nose section and could not house the FuG 218 Neptun nor Berlin 240- AI radar sets. cockpit standard and too similiar to the cramped Bf 110G-4 layout, limted space means limited optics. Ejection seats failed numerous times resulting in the deaths of fine crewmen of NJG 1.

wing mounted 2cm cannon caused eyesight problems with side blindness, the underweapons tray was sufficine as proven in the Ju 88G-1, I./NJG 1 crews removed excess 3cm weapons in favour for four 2cm weapons, one in each wing and 2 in the lower fusealge mounting .......... 

the sucker in I./NJG 1 killed 12 Mossies and that was it, so much for the vaunted Mossie killer as it was not ..... Bf 109G-6/AS and G-14/AS besdies the Me 262A-1a did much more

a few thoughts

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

P-38M or Mosquito.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 13, 2006)

Mosquito NF.XXX. Although, I do reckon the Me 262 would have been superior in the night interceptor role had it been deployed in numbers. 

What was the A-20 like at night? I know it was used, and I do have a picture of a A-20G in the 422nd NFS.


----------



## Erich (Aug 14, 2006)

Plan :

Night ground attack work only, even with tests of using several forms of radar, the ordnance was different than it's cousins the P-61's in the same unit's

E


----------



## davparlr (Aug 14, 2006)

If the P-38M is considered, then so should the P-61C. At 430 mph and a ceiling of 41,000 ft, the P-61C was considerably faster and higher flying than the Mosquito and faster than the P-38M. However, its heavier design probably did impact manueverability. Apparently it did have speed brakes to prevent overshoots. From what I understand, neither the P-61C nor the P-38M performed any night fighter operations in WWII.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 14, 2006)

You are correct, the P-38M never did any night fighting missions in WWII.


----------



## v2 (Aug 14, 2006)

Mossie NF.XXX


----------



## Wurger (Aug 14, 2006)

I agree with V2 - Mosquito NF.XXX


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

I go for the Ju-88G-6 or the Mossie.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I go for the Ju-88G-6 or the Mossie.



I don't think that I can argue against these being the best nightfighters in the war, however, they both would have shortcomings. It seems the main complaint against the P-61B was not manueverability, but was top speed, ceiling, climb rate, and speed brakes. The top speed of the P-61B was 366 mph, very comparable to the Mossie (378) and Ju-88G (around 356 - 390, I don't have top speed of the G-6 so the data shows G-1 and G-7). Ceiling of the P-61B was 33kft with both the Mossie and G-6 below at 28k and 29k respectively. So, some the very complaints against the P-61B (speed and ceiling), as pointed out as a concern in the Report on Joint Fighter Conference, would have also applied to the Mossie and Ju-88. Also, the sole reason for the P-61C was to correct these deficiencies so they were considered pretty significant. I think that nightfighters were for the most part compromises and that a really great nightfighter did not exist.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2006)

I don't think a lack manouverability would be a strike against a night fighter what you need is IMHO a steady platform so the AI or air intercept guy can get a target on his primitive display if you are flinging about the sky the AI is not going to be able to tune in his set . Playing with gains and such would require a steady platform .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bullockracing (Aug 15, 2006)

I can't remember the test pilot that did it, but the demonstration pilot for the P-61 would take off, go vertical at the end of the runway, and pull through a loop and double back vertically at the opposite end of the runway to show off the capabilities of the Black Widow.

P-61 still gets my vote. Vote for skill of crew goes to the Germans, though...


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2006)

if you have data for the G-7 then you have it for the G-6 Junkers, there was no G-7 completed nor on operations it was only a G-6, and there were no sub-designations due to different radar sets either like the a, b or c which is all bogus. P-61C did not operated either in Ww 2 it was used soon after the war and based for the imminent probs in Korea or so it was to be supposed......

you are probably right about NO really great night fighter as all types wer upgraded throughout the war, the He 219 poor in my opinion was going through it's own problems of too much experimentation of variants even with rocket assisted take off, rear gunner or not to have one, rear warning radar or not to have one, and on it goes for that poor a/c


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 16, 2006)

I agree with Syscom, I think the Mosquito was the best


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 16, 2006)

I'll have to agree with the forum here and also say the Mossie XXX was the Best Night Fighter...

However, if I had my choice of which to fly and fight in, I'd pick the Ju 88G-6 with Schräge Musik.... Ju 88 night-fighters destroyed more Allied night bombers in WW2 than all other fighters combined...

Erich, there is no truth to the below quote????

"The final production G series model was the Ju 88G-7, powered by two Jumo 213E engines with MW-50 power boosting to 1,800 hp on take-off. The Ju 88G-7a had FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 radar, while the Ju 88G-7b had FuG 218 Neptune V radar with either the standard 'toasting fork' aerials or a Morgenstern array enclosed in a pointed wooden nose cone. The G-7c had FuG 240 Berlin N-1 centimetric radar with the scanner enclosed in a plywood nose cone. Only ten G-7c were completed, before the end of the war."


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2006)

there were no designations in German for the difference in radars equipped in the Ju 88G-6. No a, b or c guys ............sorry it is all afterwar myths created within publications. the JU 88G-6 had MW 50 and I have some interesting escape stories associated with the craft and the Mossie NF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 17, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I'll have to agree with the forum here and also say the Mossie XXX was the Best Night Fighter...
> 
> However, if I had my choice of which to fly and fight in, I'd pick the Ju 88G-6 with Schräge Musik.... Ju 88 night-fighters destroyed more Allied night bombers in WW2 than all other fighters combined...



Yeah but how many were lost to allied fighters and door gunners?


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 17, 2006)

I would go for the Mossie (MKXXX) as well with the Ju-88G6 in second.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 21, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I The top speed of the P-61B was 366 mph, very omparable to the Mossie (378) and Ju-88G (around 356 - 390, I don't have top speed of the G-6 so the data shows G-1 and G-7). Ceiling of the P-61B was 33kft with both the Mossie and G-6 below at 28k and 29k respectively. .


The top speed of the Mosquito NF Mk 30 which first entered service in June 1944 was 424 mph at 26,500ft, operational ceiling was 35,000ft.


----------



## RAFster (Jan 10, 2007)

What about the P-82 Twin Mustang?
It replaced the P61 as the Air Force decided it outperformed and was a better solution.

David
RAFster


----------



## Erich (Jan 10, 2007)

never flew on ops in WW 2 that is why it is not considered


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 13, 2007)

Hello to all. Just enrolled, will take a while to go through the threads.
Have read some fairly, to me anyway, informed posts on the many topics.

For my first post, may I appeal for help in finding sources/photos about the four US Beau squadrons? I've written a book on the 417th NFS which comes out in Feb 07 (how's that for a plug?), but am starting one concerning all four, 414th-417th. Of special note would be photos of the 416th's Mossies.

Any guidance out there? I've a trip planned to the USAF Historical Research Agency planned for the spring, but any help now would be appreciated.

v/r,
brickhistory


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 15, 2007)

Has no one mentioned the Heinkel He 219? Easily the finest, by a mile. 


In my view!


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2007)

IMHO is 
The best was Mosquito NF Mk 30
And very good number two was Ju 88G-6
P-61 had very good radar but was rather slow and not a great climber.

Juha


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2007)

YakFlyer said:


> Has no one mentioned the Heinkel He 219? Easily the finest, by a mile.
> 
> 
> In my view!



Read back through the thread and you will see that it isn't as good as it is made out to be. The pilots prefered the Ju-88G6 to the He-219 (Erich has a lot more on this - some of it in this thread).


----------



## Erich (Jan 15, 2007)

yak why do you state the uhu was hot stuff especially with such a limited record only with I./ NJG 1 ?

read my comments on the first page; I see the myths about this a/c are still in effect for some members .....


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 16, 2007)

My apologies, however I have heard some amazing stories, I must get hold of the book of a pilot who flew one of them, and shot down 7 (or 8) Mosquitos and Lancasters in one night, anyway, trivial.

Regards,
Andy


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2007)

5 Lancasters by NJG 1 pilot Werner Streib in 1943. Still wonder if these are truly confirmed. will have to wait for Boitens massive volume on the Luftwaffe NJG pilots/crews this spring for the answer


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 16, 2007)

Dear Erich,

Would you concur that the 422d's and 425th's efforts with the SCR-720 might be due to inexperience vice unreliable equipment?

The four US Beau squadrons, although they didn't see much 'trade,' seemed to do fairly well in completing intercepts up to, and including, the visual. Of course, they had over a year's head start compared to the 422 et al.

My interviews with numerous crews and the radar maintenance shop chief and the squadrons' records seem to bear this out. Any thoughts?


----------



## Erich (Jan 16, 2007)

yes I would agree with that. The 422nd and the lesser 425th nfs had the contacts but the problem that I observed through interviews was ID'ing the wrong a/c with at least two at the wrong time. A-20 and a RAF Mossie shot down by P-61's. The winter in Europe of 44-45 caused much grief with limited resources for the two squads including the small portion of the 414th nfs.

Random blips, failed AI and no contacts due to a large array of problems, some due to weather and low fog, cloud and smoke visibility. Luftwaffe night fighters played cat and mouse but were used essentially in the ground attack game and lost more NF's in December 44 than any month of the war. The 422nd was real active as well as the 425th that month and funny by looking over the microfische of both units some of the claims of shot down Luftwaffe a/c are interesting .............. He 111 and Do 217 during the time period


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 17, 2007)

Hi Erich:

Is there a date for the mossie? Been looking for that one for a while.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2007)

my friend, greetings ! yes there was a date or two, it is actually confusing and will have to check back in the microfische of both US nfs as I (hopefully) marked the date. On at least 3 intercepts in the fall winter of 44-45 the 422nd nfs chased Mossies by accident

E ~


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 17, 2007)

Just as an aside, chasing 'friendlies' was an occupational hazard for all night fighter crews, not just Widows and not excluding Mosquitoes The trick/skill was properly ID'ing the 'bogey.'

The squadron I'm most familiar with, the 417th NFS, once had one of its Beaus shot up when it intercepted a US B-25 at night. The Beau broke off after determining type (this usually meant that the interceptor had to get in fairly close and stay there for a fairly long time (considering it was potentially deadly to get that close due to return fire.)), but the B-25 crew opened up and shot out a Beau engine and the crew limped home. The B-25 crew claimed a Ju-88!


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2007)

weird things happen, have the 415th and 416 nfs microf..........

now I have to check I might have the 417th nfs as well..........where did I put that. The squad histories were so limited that at least 2 of them are on one reel of film

let's face it for any RAF or Luftw as 2 examples Id'ing the enemy target is even bad enough on a cloudless night and even with a night fighters moon. Ace P. Spoden told me this as they would just put down 4-motor in their Flugbuch if it could not be properly confirmed as to the RAF bomber ID


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 17, 2007)

You're right about the paucity of the squadrons' histories! The microfiche of the 414th is very spare, the 415th and 416th a bit better, and the 417th is pretty good.

I found all of them on different reels at the USAF Historical Research Center. Hope to have words here eventually on a book about these four squadrons.


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2007)

I'd be interested in your book when published if you are committing to writing. Say what is on the 414th nfs reel if I may ask ? just their time of service in the Med or inclusion or seperate and in the ETO with the 422ndnfs ?


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 17, 2007)

The reels contain the squadron's histories (sometimes written and dated after the fact!), usually in 6 month increments.

Some stuff that I can recall (I have it stored while I finish a Wild Weasel book) is a copy of the order establishing the squadron; daily reports in training; a chronology from their start in Florida, to shipping out to Britain via New York/Camp Kilmer, NJ, crossing on the QE, landing in Scotland.

Then the splitting of the various specialties to various RAF bases in the UK - pilots/crew chiefs to one base to convert to the Beau from the P-70 they trained on in the US, R/Os to another to learn from RAF instructors, the doc and medics to various stations to help out.

Monthly reports from North Africa, including sortie reports and aircraft accidents/losses, etc.

The period of crews going to augment the 422 in Belguim during Dec 44/Jan 45 is covered. Incidentally, 'my' guys, the 417th, also went there for the time frame but saw no action.

The microfiche also had some photos which are in the original files still at Maxwell; I hope to get copies later this summer.


----------



## Erich (Jan 17, 2007)

looking forward to your findings .......... .

another question if I may : the number of the micro reel contained at hist. research center for the 414th or does it only come in sections of 4-6 units per micro reel ? Photos as well that is excellent !

Erich


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 17, 2007)

I've only seen reels with numerous units on them.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 18, 2007)

Erich said:


> my friend, greetings ! yes there was a date or two, it is actually confusing and will have to check back in the microfische of both US nfs as I (hopefully) marked the date. On at least 3 intercepts in the fall winter of 44-45 the 422nd nfs chased Mossies by accident
> 
> E ~



Heyas Erich:

I'd be grateful if you could have a squizzo when you get a spare second or two. 

I was actually "fishing" a little bit, to see if you had anything which matched up with this tale:

BBC - WW2 People's War

Hmmm, link doesn't appear to work well - full story (from a 305 Sqn. pilot) is:

Back to night operations again on 8th April. My aircraft was unserviceable so I flew Mosquito Letter V 'borrowed' from F/Sgt Earie who was on leave (he never ceases to remind me that I lost his brand new aircraft) Details of this operation: after briefing we took off to patrol Leipzig, Berlin, Magdeburg, Braunsweig area. Owing to the distance from base and the length of time for the flight we had to carry wing tanks with extra fuel. On patrolling the Berlin Magdeburg road we saw some movement, circled round and dropped flares on what was enemy transport. We attacked with machine gun and cannon fire. Transport stopped and appeared damaged but the flares went out before we could assess the extent of the damage. Returning at economical cruising to save fuel and flying at 4,000 ft, at about 2.00 am we were attacked by a night fighter. It fired a long burst of cannon fire and I immediately took violent evasive action, however the port engine caught fire. Tony operated the fire extinguisher and I feathered the propeller. A further burst of gun fire and the starboard engine caught fire. I throttled back and operated the fire extinguisher, but as the fire did not go out, ordered Tony to bale out. He clipped on his parachute, jettisoned the door and successfully abandoned the aircraft. During this manoeuvre the aircraft was losing height rapidly. I struggled out of my seat, having some difficulty getting my left leg passed the control column, and pulling the seat pack of my parachute clear of the bucket seat, at the same time trying to keep on an even keel. With some difficulty I reached the door and dived through the opening. I pulled the rip cord as soon as I was clear of the aircraft and I hit the ground almost simultaneously.When Tony {Rudd} arrived back he was able to provide some interesting details of our last flight. He was able to pinpoint the location and time of our being, shot down. A US P61 Black Widow night fighter put in a combat report claiming to have shot down a JU88 at precisely the position and time of incident. British intelligence proved that there were no enemy aircraft in that vicinity at that time. The A.O.C., Air Vice Marshall Sir Basil Embry, was not happy that one of his aircraft had been shot down by 'friendly fire'. (Reg Everson)

Of course, I've no idea if the gent's memory is accurate or not ...

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 19, 2007)

my fav. is the He219.
the mossie and the beaufighter been nice aswell.
i dont know much about japanese NF.
if you have more info about the operational history of the yokosuka p1y and the nakajima j1n,i would b glad.i know its not about NF but im also interested in
the heavy fighters like the Toryu or the ki.102'Randy' and their success or losses.


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2007)

something is strange here.........why the Uhu He 219 ? nobody has a positive answer except from believing the myths created about this machine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2007)

The He-219 was underpowered and had a very heavy wing load which meant poor maneuverability and turn radius.

The Ju-88G while not as fast, was certainly a better night fighter than the He-219.

I like the way the He-219 looks though, she a beautiful plane.


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 19, 2007)

if the uhu entes production earlier and not only a few hundreds are equppied in only 4 NJG's, it would probably inflict heavier losses to the RAF. On the 'test flight' it shot down 5or7 Lancs if im right. the plane crashed while landing but the crew left unharmed. it was a nice introduction in my eyes. it scored against mossies aswell.i do not believe any myths ,only facts. if its put in service earlier,and not fallin as victim of unnecessary argues, its problems would surely fixed and it would become an even more lethal opponent for night bombers.immagine it in the hands of aces like lent or sayn-wittgenstein.at all the ju88g been the backbone among with me110's,true,but because both been a solid,tested,prooved construction,free of surprises.i dont say the uhu been invulnerable or superb. but if it hasnt an unlucky birth,probably many cities would escape their faith of turning into ash.its a beautiful plane.


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2007)

sorry you are talking myth .................a huge what if. If it had been put into production earlier, but it wasn't simply. Streibs acct may or may not be true due to cross checking of RAF bomber losses.

it was only operative in I./NJG 1 only. NJG 3 had them but did not use them. NJGr 10 had 2 and they both had their backs broken. the stab had an a/c flown on 2 occassions but no kills. only 12 mossie kills by the Uhu not a very good standing especially when 10 (N)./JG 300 scored many more than that in their Bf 109G-6/AS's from August to November 44's end before they became II./NJG 11.

Imagine getting shot down by a Mossie nf and having to trust the ejection seats and hopeful your canopy blew off before you were catapulted through it which happened sadly several times to crews. Or having to try and bail out manually with those forward engine props turning evily on your sides ........ no thanks. Most of the Uhu's did not even have re-warning radar so were Mossie fodder

well on it goes, the Ju 88G-6 was well proven and worked rather well, the Bf 110G-4 was old news by 1945 standards


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 19, 2007)

Traut, trust me when I say this and learn something new... The information Erich is giving u ARE the facts, and his word and detailed information have a 100% standard...

That being said, the bird did not produce the desired results planned, nor was it a safe kite to fly... As Erich stated, the 88G-6 was the crem dela crem in 1945....

However, Schnaufer went on to acieve some remarkable results with the 110G and his Schräge Musik....


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2007)

the Bf 110G-4 yes still did serve a purpose and Stab, II-IV./NJG 1 used the unit till wars end. Schnaufer was given the chance several times to used the Ju 88G-6 while in Stab./NJG 4 as the unit was equipped with the Junkers. Schnaufer carried over his 110G though and admitted not freely that he was afraid of the larger Ju a/c

I will admit as others here that the Uhu does have a mean look about it

but still think the Ju 88G-6 had a look as well


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 19, 2007)

i trust you all,and id like to learn more,thats why im here.) thanks


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 21, 2007)

Hiyas again:

Had another look at the books. If it was a P-61, the 414th detachment at Straßfeld would appear to be the culprit, as they apparently claimed a Ju 88 that night. The Mossie came down at Olpe, about 80km ENE of the USAAF base. No location for the P-61 claim given in my sources.

Anything on the 414th microfiche which might help? Brick?

Cheers,

Mark

Edited due to directional challenges - good thing I was never responsible for navigation ...


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 21, 2007)

in my opinion the black widow isnt THE best NF since it entered service too late to play a significant role,just like the Me262B1/U1 or the Uhu. i consider the whole war,so planes which definately had a major part of night fighting been the mossie and the beau on the allied ,and the bf110g and ju88g on the axis side.


----------



## brickhistory (Jan 21, 2007)

Unable to help re the 414th claim for the date of the Mossie shootdown.
The microfiche is at the USAF Historical Center; I do not have a copy of it (yet). Will be going this summer, hopefully.

Questions about the 417th, I can answer; about the others, I'll have to defer to those much more knowledgable.

Related but off this particular issue: reading a book "The Sky Suspended," RAF gent describes flying the radar-equipped Boston/Havoc night fighter in combat (not the Turbinlite). Since this is essentially what the P-70 was, one wonders why the USAAF still sent the 6th NFS to the Pacific with the P-70?


----------



## Erich (Jan 21, 2007)

you bring up a good point Mark, probably was the 414th nfs. just looked over the copied 422nd m.f.

the same 414th crew that claimed a Ju 88 claimed a Me 410 the night before which is somewhat doubtful

8/9 April 1945 # 305 Polish Moissie Squadron Mosquito NT187 ........ SM-V shot down between Warburg and Köln at Olpe in the Sauerland.

the 422nd put up 4 a/c that night and 1 of these may have been a P-61 of the tag along 414th nfs

3 P-61's operated in the areas of Hoxter and Munden and probably all along the rivers for anything they could find- air or ground attack. hours from 2129 to 0310


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 21, 2007)

Erich said:


> the Bf 110G-4 yes still did serve a purpose and Stab, II-IV./NJG 1 used the unit till wars end. Schnaufer was given the chance several times to used the Ju 88G-6 while in Stab./NJG 4 as the unit was equipped with the Junkers. Schnaufer carried over his 110G though and admitted not freely that he was afraid of the larger Ju a/c
> 
> I will admit as others here that the Uhu does have a mean look about it
> 
> but still think the Ju 88G-6 had a look as well



Was just about to mention the 110G, there is a good book around on Schnaufer, do plan to get it at some stage, looks like a very good read, what was his total no. of victories? Certainly in the hundreds I recall. 
Under the cover of darkness, even a bad dogfighter can look good.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 23, 2007)

Thanks gents.


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

Maybe to me the best Night fighter was the P-61.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2007)

Why dont u read the whole fuc*ing thread rather than just voicing ur u uneducated opinion and learn something kid????


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

Hey Mod, read the title of this thread.

see my post below yours, Lt. whomever, why the P-61 ?


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2007)

Les we just may have a young one that is padding his count ......... a big no-no. The P-61 may have been the best all around for the US but that depends on what US nf crews you interview as some flew the Mossie and the Beau in the Med


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2007)

mereel said:


> Hey Mod, read the title of this thread.


Hey sh!tforbrains, what doesd the title of the thread have anything to do with the fact that u have no idea wtf the best Nf was....

Read the threads, dont just post un unelightened opinion everywhere on my Forum.....


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

I will mod, sorry for the off topic moment here.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2007)

Dont edit ur posts like that meatball, trying to make urself sound better....

U need to sit back and read for a few days kid, not spout off... R E A D.... L E A R N.....

Opinions are like assholes... Everybodys got one...


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

wow i dont remember editing that post, now can we stop spamming and get back on topic.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2007)

Are u actually telling me what to do???

Are u that retarded that u dont ever rmember editing a post 10 minutes ago???


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

look who it is edited by.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2007)

Ah ha, my apologies...


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

thats alright.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2007)

I edited your post since you are still padding it.

Luftwaffe Me 262A-1a, Ju 88G-6

RAF 100th group Mossie XIX, XXX

US ........ nada a big fat 0. the P-61 in my book does not even stand a chance not the A-20 although made a nice low level night harassment bomber in 44-45

Soviets, never had any except in their own minds


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

Gotta agree with Erich. The best night fighters were the Mossie and then the Ju-88. I could post many reasons but so many other people here have allready done it.

Lt. whoever the hell you are (14 year old kid, prettending ot be an officer in the military which is a disrespect to me and all the other people who have served or are serving), you really pissed some people off in the other thread.

All I can say is dont run off, dont quit, but learn... Get with P38 Pilot, he can talk to you.


----------



## joebong (Feb 2, 2007)

I think those before me have listed the difinative machines. Its interesting though that even the lowly Bf110 was a blight on bomber command when coupled with an imaginative tactic. Like the one (Forgive me for not remembering its name.) that fighters loitered in 3D spaces, along anticipated RAF paths. Then vectored to targets as command I.D.ed the bomber streams crossing the channel. Its stuff lke this that makes the subject so fassinating. Also like P 61.s, P38.s were masters in the P.T.O. and treated harshly by
their rivals in Europe, at least while the Luftwaffe could put trained airmen up to counter them.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2007)

the technique of circling or flying in pre-scribed boxes using ground control was early war through the Tame Boar period it was then led for twin engines to fly in a course towards the bombers usually on the flight out from the target with each crew taking on whatever it could "see" or pick up on radar and Naxos.

single engine 109G's would fly individually on take-off hardly ever seeing anyone in their staffel, following burning fires on the ground and searchlight patterns. Few were equipped with radar but this was just something else the pilot had to take care of while flying so more of a hindrance than something of benefit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

> Also like P 61.s, P38.s were masters in the P.T.O. and treated harshly by
> their rivals in Europe



I'd hardly call the P-38M a masterful night fighter in the pacific, she didn't even shoot any aircraft down at night as far as i'm aware, and that radar operator's position _had_ to be the smallest, most cramped position in any WWII aircraft...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 3, 2007)

Ventral posistion on the Avenger??


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

you didn't have to stay there for the whole mission though........


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2007)

the P-38 used was the standard day fighter version and not the radar equipped which never flew on ops, just as a test piece from what I have been told in the old and now de-funct US night fighters association


----------



## brickhistory (Feb 3, 2007)

Correct, the P-38M never made it to operations. It arrived in the Phillippines in late July/early August 1945 and didn't fly operationally until after the two a-bombs were dropped.

They later flew in Japan as part of the American Army of Occupation forces. Gradually, the radars were removed and they flew as 'vanilla' -38s, often times as hacks by the 421st NFS who had P-61s.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi guys, as You can see I am new on the forum

Ju 88 the best Lw nightfighter ? 


I would say the best Lw nightfighter was the light weight He-219A-6, 11.900 kg (mossie hunter) with the DB 603L engine. The 219A-6 was specifically designed as a NF. 110's and 88s were pressed into this role since the Lw didn't have any NF's. If I recall correctly, it was due to English testpilots after the war, who had difficulties flying the 219 and made these rather negativ comments in regards to handling and speed. It is true that the initial performance of the fully equipt 219 wasn't much better then that of a Ju 88 or Bf-110, but this didn't apply to the 219A-6,
Not only did Major Werner Streib knock down 5 Lancasters in one sortie, in the first six sorties of his unit 20 planes were shot down.

But Germany's chance would have been the Me-262, does anybody have information on the performance of the Me 262 B-1a/U1 in night action?


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2007)

Both the F4U and F6F were used as night fighters in the Pacific in WW2 and the F4U-5N had quite a bit of success as a night fighter and night intruder in Korea.


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

ah Wespe a slight correction the Uhu A-6 never flew in action. Streib flew an A-0 experimental and his RAF kills are all not confirmed so far.

you can read about the 1 kill with the Me 262B in Kommando Welter in my future release


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

The He 219 and - since Erich told me - the Ta 154 are probably the two most overestimated night fighters ever. 
The He 219 could have been an excellent night fighter but it need much more power, preferrably the Jumo 222. 

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Erich said:


> ah Wespe a slight correction the Uhu A-6 never flew in action. Streib flew an A-0 experimental and his RAF kills are all not confirmed so far.
> 
> you can read about the 1 kill with the Me 262B in Kommando Welter in my future release



Hi Erich

Thanks for setting that (Uhu) right.  Kommando Welter "your" future release?
Please tell me more, more, more

Wespe


----------



## Erich (Feb 16, 2007)

we are covering the Moskito-jagd from the start with single engine fighters finally into Kommando Welter. We have been fortunate to know some of the pilots of Welters Kommando and will cover their stories and the use of the Me 262A-1a and the twin seater jets. Publishing maybe in another year as we have taken a leave from the work for at least a years time to collect more data and literally taking a break for the buzz in our heads. We will correct many mis-conceptions about Kurt W. in the book.

E ~


----------



## Civettone (Feb 16, 2007)

Erich, which books carry your name by now?



Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Hallo Erich,

had a look on your hompage. Well done, very informative. I saw that you did some research regarding Hptm. Huy - so I post some pics of him, maybe you don't have them.

Gruss Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe, perhaps I looked over this, but who was your uncle again?




Kris


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I'd nominate the He 219 Uhu.It has Lichenstien radar and a Schrage Musik cannon!Nice for blasting bombers undersides.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

And it was not the most successfull in "blasting bombers undersides".


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

As has been gone over many times in quite a few different threads...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 11, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> As has been gone over many times in quite a few different threads...



Even in this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Yes....

Talk to Erich about it. He is pretty much our Night Fighter expert.


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 22, 2007)

u hear very little these days about allied night fighters (sadly)

the bf-109 seemed to be the only one in documentrys and that. but i do belive that the p-38 was good along with the p-61 and mossie. 

i agree that the me-262 would have been sucessful in the night fighter role in the numbers.

(i herd that the p-61 had severe flight issues and was reported falling out of the sky thats how it got the name "black widow". feel free to correct me as ive done little research)

cheers


----------



## twoeagles (Jun 22, 2007)

blu3y4 said:


> feel free to correct me as ive done little research)



No kidding!


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2007)

The P-38M was never operational.
P-61 got it's sobriquet from being painted in balck all over and was a very good plane (deadly to the enemy rather than to it's own crew). But IMO the best allied nightfighters were the Mosquito NF XXX and the Beaufighter MkVI.


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

chatting with several 425th nfs pilots it appeared to me that the P-61 was a bit bulky, the AI radar frequently was down, the fighter had enough power and manueverability to take out LW bombers but night fighters was another story as they frequently banked hard and were able to hit the deck. At least in the ETO the ID from the P-61 crews was not the bst either as there were at least 2 RAF a/c shot down by mistake.

The He 219A was lets just say it was hopeless for all the effort put into it, even though the project was axed

The Mossie XXX was the ultimate for the Allies

The Bf 109G was the token a/c for earlier 1943 Wilde Sau missions, the Fw 190A to some extent but too heavy with it's arms package and vertical aerial arrays - Neptun.

the P-38 used in the Pacific was the plain ol day fighter version for night missions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2007)

blu3y4 said:


> (i herd that the p-61 had severe flight issues and was reported falling out of the sky thats how it got the name "black widow". feel free to correct me as ive done little research)


You are corrected, now do some research...


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You are corrected, now do some research...



thanks for the support..............


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You are corrected, now do some research...



hey guess what, i did!!. a certain book i found says the P-61 had enogh major poblems to prevent full production. the fuel system, tail unit and flaps all had to be modified. 

"the troubles were all due to the fact that there was so much to go wrong; for example there were 229 design changes to the cannon installation alone between early 1942 and 1944"(Aircraft of WW2)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2007)

blu3y4 said:


> hey guess what, i did!!. a certain book i found says the P-61 had enogh major poblems to prevent full production. the fuel system, tail unit and flaps all had to be modified.
> 
> "the troubles were all due to the fact that there was so much to go wrong; for example there were 229 design changes to the cannon installation alone between early 1942 and 1944"(Aircraft of WW2)


The P-61 was a very advanced aircraft for its day and featured many things considered state of the art. Even in service many times the turrets were removed to save weight and in essence just weren't needed. With that said any new aircraft especially one featuring new and innovative features will have problems and continual design changes are a continual event in production aircraft.

In the end the "Black Widow" name of the P-61 wasn't given to it because operational issues.


----------



## brickhistory (Jun 23, 2007)

Erich,

It's interesting seeing different perspectives regarding the P-61. As your interviews with 425th and, I believe, 422d NFS crews shows, they were less than enamored with its performance.

My interviews with 417th NFS guys showed they REALLY liked the Widow.

I wonder if the difference in views was either experience levels - 422/425 were new units introduced directly into the 'big leagues' vs the 414-417th guys who flew the Beau for 18 months or so in North Africa and Med theatres and had a chance to gain experience. This includes the crew chiefs and other ground trades as well as the radar technicians. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2007)

I think in this case Brick the ETO 422/425th had only the P-61 and nothing else to compare, as to MTO units they had Mossies and the Beau, so it could just be simply in their minds................the Widow rules ? !


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-61 was a very advanced aircraft for its day and featured many things considered state of the art. Even in service many times the turrets were removed to save weight and in essence just weren't needed. With that said any new aircraft especially one featuring new and innovative features will have problems and continual design changes are a continual event in production aircraft.
> 
> In the end the "Black Widow" name of the P-61 wasn't given to it because operational issues.



thankyou


----------



## brickhistory (Jun 24, 2007)

Erich said:


> I think in this case Brick the ETO 422/425th had only the P-61 and nothing else to compare, as to MTO units they had Mossies and the Beau, so it could just be simply in their minds................the Widow rules ? !



Yep.

I'm thinking that by the time the 12AF units finally got US equipment and there was support - parts, etc - for said equipment, they were just relieved to not be orphans anymore........


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2007)

In the PTO, the P61 was used effectively, and generally the crews like the plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2007)

Best in my opinion are the Mossie NF.30 and then the Ju-88G.

Both served for all or most of the war and served with great distinction and many other capacities as well. 

Both were used effectively, and the crews did like the planes .


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 24, 2007)

Heinkel He-219 by far, radar, range, speed, firepower, ejectable seats.

One pre-series aircraft shoot down 5 enemy bombers in his first sortie


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Heinkel He-219 by far, radar, range, speed, firepower, ejectable seats.
> 
> One pre-series aircraft shoot down 5 enemy bombers in his first sortie



How can spiral painted prop spinners spoil the aim of a bomber gunner when the fighter is flying at night and couldn't be seen clearly anyway?


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2007)

CB the He 219 was trouble from the start clear to it's demise, the Ju 88G-6 was superior in almost every way, the arms though the heaviest of any German nf was reduced to 4 2cm weapons by NJG 1 crews in I. and II. gruppe. Ejection
seats did not operate half the time thus the two crewmen were sent into oblivion and glass with broken necks and on it went, most a/c did not have rear warning radar and were Mossie fodder. I won;t alk about the enignes or other bulky matters but I have listed most in other threads on this bird


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 24, 2007)

The Uhu is the choice of the mis-informed everyone... If u think it was the best, go read up on it and educate urself... We have been over this time and time and time again....

As Erich stated, the Ju 88 was the Germans unequivocal Nf....


----------



## brickhistory (Jun 24, 2007)

And now for something completely different....................


During my US Beau research, I came across many listings in the squadron's histories for UFOs, dubbed 'foo fighters.' Other Allied aircrew also saw weird/goofy things over Europe and most were thrown in the foo fighter category.

Does anyone know of German reports of the topic? A search here didn't get any hits.

(No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Just interested in how two sides might differently interpret the same thing.)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2007)

More than a few B29 crews flying night missions over Japan reported strange things falling under the "foo fighter" category.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 25, 2007)

Ju-88g is too slow for my taste but...wathever.

And yes I need to read more.


----------



## Erich (Jun 25, 2007)

slow ....... ? not with the MW 50 injection it wasn't


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 25, 2007)

Oh just a sprint, What was the max speed with that ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> How can spiral painted prop spinners spoil the aim of a bomber gunner when the fighter is flying at night and couldn't be seen clearly anyway?


I was thinking the same thing.

Unless light is shining right on the aircraft it shouldn't make a difference. I've been in formation with a 172 that had an alternator failure. To save the battery for the landing lights and radios when we arrived at our home airport my buddy shut off the master switch. We kept flying into the night and without nav lights I was barely able to see him when there was say 1000 feet between us. His plane was white and red trim....


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 25, 2007)

Probably in the same way carrots would enhance your night vision


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Probably in the same way carrots would enhance your night vision


 Maybe....


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Probably in the same way carrots would enhance your night vision



Well at least that's true in some cases.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 28, 2007)

Marcel:

Check my reply in your "Plane crashed at Hedrik Ido Ambacht The Netherlands" thread.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## fat flyer (Jun 30, 2007)

Erich,

I am very interested in learning more about the ejection seats on the He-219.

1) What was the reason for failure?
2) Was it a common problem that was shared by ejection seats of other German planes?
3) Can you provide any sources, especially via internet for further reading?

Thanks in advance.

Also, did the Do-335 which also had ejection seat actually become operational as a nightfighter? I do not believe so, but at another forum someone selected the Do-335 as the best nightfighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2007)

fat flyer said:


> Also, did the Do-335 which also had ejection seat actually become operational as a nightfighter? I do not believe so, but at another forum someone selected the Do-335 as the best nightfighter.




No it did not. At most the Do 335 became operational only in defense of the factory but it never saw combat.


----------



## Heinz (Jul 1, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Probably in the same way carrots would enhance your night vision




I actually read in a book recently that the whole carrot thing is a crock.

Was a propaganda thing staged by the RAF saying their Nightfighters ate lots of carrots.

Australian nightfighter pilot said this in the book called FLAK. 

This may also be old news to you all, if so sorry guys,


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 1, 2007)

Carrots contain a high amount of something called beta-carotene, this is converted into Vitamin A (retinal) by our bodies. It is then converted to a molecule called retinal which essential for a protein called rhodopsin to work. Rhodopsin is found in rods in your eyes and it converts light into an electrical gradient.
It's more a case of eating no carrots and not getting any beta-carotene causes night-blindness.

I knew my degree would prove useful somehow


----------



## Heinz (Jul 1, 2007)

Ah,

very nice 

Carrots are a very average vegetable when it comes down to it though.....


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 1, 2007)

I quite like them myself
Anyway, back on topic:
If The Luftwaffe had Mosquito's, would they have operated as well as, worse or better than the Bf110s and Ju88s in service?


----------



## Heinz (Jul 1, 2007)

Mossies easily would have performed better than the Bf 110 if the Luftwaffe had them.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> Carrots contain a high amount of something called beta-carotene, this is converted into Vitamin A (retinal) by our bodies. It is then converted to a molecule called retinal which essential for a protein called rhodopsin to work. Rhodopsin is found in rods in your eyes and it converts light into an electrical gradient.
> It's more a case of eating no carrots and not getting any beta-carotene causes night-blindness.
> 
> I knew my degree would prove useful somehow



Ah another Biologist.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2007)

Heinz said:


> Mossies easily would have performed better than the Bf 110 if the Luftwaffe had them.



I disagree, I think the whole nightfighterconcept in WWII depended a lot on the system and less on fighter performance. I you can't find the bomber, you cannot shoot it down. If you're on his tail, performance doesn't matter, just shoot the bastard. In the LW, nightfighters were guided to their targets by ground radar. The bombers usually never knewe what hit them, so no fancy flying.


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2007)

Whilst you are right in saying that success in WW2 depeded to a large degree on ground control I believe the LW would have been better served with the Mosquito instead of the 110.

The Mosquito had three almost priceless advantages over the 110.

Range. The Mosquito had it in spades and would have made the aircraft a much better nightfighter for the German Defence

Performance. The LW found it very difficult to shoot down aircraft of the Mosquito's performance. Obviously the Mosquito had the performance to shoot down any intruder. 

Independence. The Mosquito had the performance, range and equipment to operate against German N/F over Germany away from ground control enabling them to 'hunt' the 'hunters'. Can you imagine the damage that could have been done if the LW aircraft like this operating over the UK on a regular basis, when bombers were taking off, forming up and returning to base?


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2007)

Well, the LW started doing these intruder missions back in 1941, using Ju88's. Unfortunately Hitler didn't like it and told the Nightfighter command to stop this. IMHO one of the greatest blunders of the war!
As far as I know, in Germany the nightfighters were controlled by a system called "Himmelbett". Although this was a nice system, it had some serious backdraws in that it could only controle one plane in one sector and this plane could also not been taken over by other sectors. So long range didn't do much good. I still think Mossies wouldn't have made a difference.


----------



## marlin (Jul 2, 2007)

Did night fighter pilots rate speed and altitude as especially desirable in a night fighting aircraft ? Before he died I was fortunate to be able to work as unpaid secretary to Wing Commander John "Catseyes" Cunningham and he always rated other factors as being more more important. Chiefly amongst these I would rate good radar installation, effective weaponry, maneouvreability and crew comfort. A bloody good navigator/radar operator ( and he had one in Flt.Lt. Rawnsley ) also is of critical importance. Sure height and altitude cannot be ignored but, other than early in the war, most aircraft used as nightfighters had both of these factors in sufficiency.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2007)

When you think about it, unless the nughtfighter can find its target at a long enough range to be able to maneuver for a shot, everything else becomes secondary.

The radar system and a good radar operator is the most important.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> When you think about it, unless the nughtfighter can find its target at a long enough range to be able to maneuver for a shot, everything else becomes secondary.
> 
> The radar system and a good radar operator is the most important.



Exactly, so that's why I think either mossie, Bf110, Blackwidow or Ju88, doesn't matter as long as the radar and the ground system is good.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2007)

Speed would be important since all attacks at night would be from astern so yo have to have spped to overtake


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Speed would be important since all attacks at night would be from astern so yo have to have spped to overtake



I agree with this. Its important to have sufficient speed or you will not catch the target, extreame speed would I have thought been more of a problem than a help.

In the books I have read on nightfighting overshooting the target has often been a problem.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Speed would be important since all attacks at night would be from astern so yo have to have spped to overtake



Okay, good point


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2007)

The Ju-88 is the best night-fighter IMO.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Ju-88 is the best night-fighter IMO.



Good choice but any explanation?


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2007)

The Mossie is the best in MHO


----------



## Soren (Jul 13, 2007)

The Ju-88 is the best IMO because of its high speed, excellent maneuverability responsiveness for its size, high ceiling and excellent armament detection equipment. Its either the Ju-88 or the Mossie, they're VERY close - the Ju-388J is better than both though, but it didn't go fully operational.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2007)

Since the Lancs were flying below 20,000 ft, any comparisons between the Mosquito and JU88 should be done below this altitude.

It doesnt matter what the high altitude performance was for either if there wasn't allied bombers flying up there.


----------



## brickhistory (Sep 3, 2007)

Sep 13th, 8pm Eastern, History Channel's "Dogfights" will feature a show on night fighters.

I, hopefully, will have a small bit in there about the Beau. Taped it back in July, have not seen any of it, so A) don't know how good/realistic the show will be or B) if I made it past the editing room floor.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 3, 2007)

Hi Brickhistory,

>During my US Beau research, I came across many listings in the squadron's histories for UFOs, dubbed 'foo fighters.' Other Allied aircrew also saw weird/goofy things over Europe and most were thrown in the foo fighter category.

>Does anyone know of German reports of the topic? A search here didn't get any hits.

I never read anything about Foo Fighters from the German side at all. My working hypothesis is that the Allied crews were confused by the flare rounds apparently fired by the Flak units of Luftwaffe nightfighter bases at regular intervals and in regular patterns to help their pilots locate the bases.

In difficult lighting situations and with no reference for distance or size, the regular patterns flare rounds probably could look very strange to the Allied pilots who did not know what they were for.

Just think back how many of these Foo Fighter reports go something like: "We were patrolling in the vicinity of the Luftwaffe night fighter base at ..., when suddenly a string of bright, coloured disks appeared below us and came up to our altitude at a tremendous rate of climb."

That's just my personal impression of a possible "non-UFO" explanation, so be careful - I might be wrong  I think a contemporary suspicion was that the Germans were operating some kind of rocket weapon against the night fighters, but I'd think we'd have confirmation of such a weapon from the Luftwaffe side today.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2007)

Flak was firing scare-crow rounds.

also RAF crews swore they witnessed jet flyable He 219's as well as Me 163 Komets at night plus the Me 262 was supposed seen flyable and operable during late summer of 44 at night............nonsense but we have the reports anyway of all the above


----------



## HoHun (Sep 3, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>also RAF crews swore they witnessed jet flyable He 219's as well as Me 163 Komets at night plus the Me 262 was supposed seen flyable and operable during late summer of 44 at night............nonsense but we have the reports anyway of all the above

Roger that  The thing is, the "impossible" aircraft sightings were most likely mis-identified real aircraft, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that the "impossible" flying disks of light might have been mis-identified flare rounds.

But as I said, it's just my personal hypothesis ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2007)

impossible probably but who knows what can actually play during a winter or summer nights eve with bizarre weather conditions, pilot/crew fatigue of many missions. As I mentioned illuminated Flak rounds in the form of 88 and 105mm were standard ,

One to use during wilde sau missions for the benefit of the LW night crews.
Two to blind RAF crewmen of the heavies
Three ........ I'll think of soemthing


----------



## 16KJV11 (Oct 8, 2007)

Was it really necessary for the Americans to develop an effective night fighter?


----------



## 16KJV11 (Oct 9, 2007)

Didn't the Japs try their hand at nightfighters with the Gekko?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2007)

Yes. They tried a couple of night fighters but none were equiped with radar IIRC. 

Kris


----------



## brickhistory (Oct 11, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Was it really necessary for the Americans to develop an effective night fighter?



In hindsight, perhaps not, for the ETO. Since the British,by agreement with the US, shouldered the bulk of the night fighting duties there, and did a great job of it.

An effective, carrier-based night fighter for the Pacific was a necessity, I believe.

However, at the time of first go-ahead, 1941, yes, it was a prudent decision to develop the P-61 and the SCR-720/Mk X AI radar that went in it (and most British night fighters of the late and post-war periods as well).


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

Ju 88 it is the best night fighter certainly, well this is my opinion


----------



## fer-de-lance (Nov 11, 2007)

> Yes. They tried a couple of night fighters but none were equiped with radar IIRC.



The standard radar equipment for the Gekkō was the Toshiba FD-2 (500MHz, 4-yagi array, range 3km against aircraft with 0.3deg resolution).


----------



## luftlover (Nov 11, 2007)

this is my first post, and I hope I haven't posted on a dead thread. hello all.

I'll admit from the start I like the he 219(perhapes to much for my good) so if I'm biased toward the aircraft I hope you'll understand. But I will challenge the ulmighty erich in his posting "the he 219 uhu was a dog in sheeps clothing"(and Ive edgucated miself as much as posible on the subgect, thnk you) 

I do find most information on the he 219 never mentioning a fault with the aircraft, which is a little disconcerting. but some of Erichs arguements on pg 1 of this disscusion do not make sense

for one he says that the side 20mm caused side blindness. Why would they? They're mounted behind the pilot. admittedly the tracers came close to the pilot, but compared to the mosquito that had 4 MG right in front of the cocpit(can't spell) and the me 110 that had 2 30mm cannons right in front, it cant be worse (the later misq. had them deleated to make room for radar)

2, engines were unreliable, DB 603 powered many aircraft, including the Do 217 N&M, Do 335, Me 410 and Ta 152C. Underpowered, in later models, yes. the never-put-in-production B model was to be powered by Jumo 222(an engine with a troubled history), apparently an A-7/r6 reached 435 mph on this engine

3, later models did have the FuG 218 Neptun radar (not sure on which, perhapes source error). 

4, in reference to 2, reliability issues, the first in action were pre production model A-0, which is sure to have issues. the A-5 was the first main production model. AND 6 uhu's were assembeled _in the field_. how could the reliability be that much of an issue when they can actualy assemble them from spare parts? the uhu was liked by both pilots and matenence crews:quote

5, Luffwaffe non-acceptance=milch non-acceptace. He wanted emphasise on models already in production. this was more timely, and doesn't seem to reflect on bad performance of the he 219 (he also had a personal grudge against henkel). he empasized production on the FW misq. and ju-388, none of which reach opperation. 

overal it was faster, more heavly armed, and more manuverable then the ju-88G. The ju made up for the speed issue by having increadible range though. And one of the best reasons it was a good nf was its ability to accept more equipment without effecting handeling/performance. but one argument is that the ju-88 had a rear fireing gun. WHEN HAS A HAND AIMED REAR FIRING GUN BEEN EFFECTIVE? tail warning radar should do the trick(personal oppinion)
the uhu did have an issue with high wing loading, but the lanc flew under 20,000 ft, and it made it quite manuverable. Ex. a stirling had high wing loading and could out turn a ju 88
I agree the uhu in later models was overloaded and definatly not a misquito killer, but I believe it was better then the ju-88G 

now that i've lobed my few arguments, i shall now seal the hatch, retreat to my bunker, and await with trepidation the coming bombardment.


----------



## Erich (Nov 11, 2007)

your stepping in the quicksand man ..........

geez just read what I have written and accept it. The real reason why the German craft is still thought of as the hottest thing since buttered toast is because of it's looks. When I got interested in and before I knew I had a relative serving in the German LW night fighter force I had a luv for the He 219A as I thought the same as you and in fact since 1964 it was the top dog in my book for about 10 years until I furthered my pursuit in Germany


----------



## luftlover (Nov 12, 2007)

jee, whats the point in argueing if the other person won't argue  

have a relitive in the night fighter force, man, wish my family history was as interesting as that. My trump card (and only card) is i have one relitive that flew a b-29. to bad he was shot down.

anyway, before we start swapping war stories I WILL accept the he 219 wasn't top dog IF you start offering proof. Looking up the He 219, it looks like you against the world.

now I dont want you to rehash the same old thing over and over, and if you could direct me to where this has been posted before, I would be most grateful

probably in my mind the uhu will trump all others do to its looks8) and I will readily admit the ju 88G was a fine airplane, but I'm stubborn and willing to admit it

come on erich, I know you have the artillery to blow me in to sub-obit. why do you hold your fire, man, why?

I reject your reality and subtitute my own.

Quicksand! dang hatch won't open, nooooooooooo!

sorry, to much fun


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2007)

luftlover said:


> this is my first post, and I hope I haven't posted on a dead thread. hello all.



Welcome



luftlover said:


> for one he says that the side 20mm caused side blindness. Why would they? They're mounted behind the pilot. admittedly the tracers came close to the pilot, but compared to the mosquito that had 4 MG right in front of the cocpit(can't spell) and the me 110 that had 2 30mm cannons right in front, it cant be worse (the later misq. had them deleated to make room for radar)[/quoe]
> 
> I am not sure if this is the reason why or not but even if hte cannons are behind the pilot the flash can cause blindness at night.
> 
> ...



How is emphasis on aircraft that are allready in production more timely?




luftlover said:


> and doesn't seem to reflect on bad performance of the he 219



Please show how the performance was up to par at all alltitudes.



luftlover said:


> and more manuverable then the ju-88G.



Negative the He 219 had high wing loading and its maneuverability was not that great. The Ju 88G also had a better turn radius.



luftlover said:


> the uhu did have an issue with high wing loading, but the lanc flew under 20,000 ft, and it made it quite manuverable.



How does flying under 20,000 ft make it more maneuverable?



luftlover said:


> I agree the uhu in later models was overloaded and definatly not a misquito killer, but I believe it was better then the ju-88G



That could very well possibly be true, however the He 219 was a *would have, could have, should have but did not aircraft*.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2007)

luftlover said:


> jee, whats the point in argueing if the other person won't argue



No need to roll eyes at someone and start becoming insulting. Especially when you just joined the forum. 



luftlover said:


> anyway, before we start swapping war stories I WILL accept the he 219 wasn't top dog IF you start offering proof. Looking up the He 219, it looks like you against the world.



How about you show some actual factual proof and try and change our minds. You have not done that yet.


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

there are at least 2 threads this being one were I gave proof.

your # 3 is not correct as the He 219 in all variants never topped out above the FuG 220d set. rear warning radar was not standard equipment on the He 219 like the Ju 88G-6. I can tell you the Uhu crews wish they had it a their ratio of flights to being shot down by Mossie intruders were terrible.
the uhu also did not have a rear facing mg 131 and again the two man crew wish they had it. there are confirmation of Mossie being shot down if not driven off by the effective fire of the .50 cal in the Ju 88G and even the twin MG 81's of the Bf 110G-4's.

I./NJG 1 had the heavier 3cm in most cases removed from the UHU as it had already been proven that 4 2cm was effective enough. ace O. Fries had 4 2cm only on his A-2. he destroyed 3 Lancasters on the night of November 6, 44 his last victories. Also his crew, including himself ejected a minimum of 2 times, his BF 3 times the most of any NF crewman.
The a/c and I am going over this again was of extreme danger to bail out from, do I really need to say why with a forward cockpit and at times the ejection system malfunctioned sending the crew through the canopy......
The a/c was long and it was wide, a very characteristic form in flight at night, the maneuverability of the craft was not good, the engines were still have teething probs even into 1945, in fact there were no kills at all for the gruppe in the last year of the war that I can find in their claims listing from Germany.

there are other things as well but do I need to include them ........ go through the archiv's here or reread the whole thread


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2007)

I am sure that was a typo Erich. The Ju 88 never had .50 Cals. That was an American weapon.


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

Chris I was making the change over as an equivalent only the 13mm was equal to the .50 in range and effectiveness


----------



## HoHun (Nov 12, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>their ratio of flights to being shot down by Mossie intruders were terrible.

That's interesting. Do you have comparative figures for the ratio of the He 219 and other types?

>The a/c and I am going over this again was of extreme danger to bail out from, do I really need to say why with a forward cockpit and at times the ejection system malfunctioned sending the crew through the canopy......

It's not like bailing out from conventional aircraft did not cause any losses ... so do you have any quantified evidence on the survivability of He 219 ejctions versus bailouts from other types?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

to your questions yes and yes.................go do some research as it is available on the net

guys I am getting real tired of answering over and over again, maybe it's this cancer bull **** that I am fighting I don't know.

if my Moskito-jagd über Deutschland was printed out you would all get your answers on what kind of a/c the LW put up and the figures in comparison to loss and kills against the RAF Moskitos both nf intruders and the bombers besides the RAF 4 engines


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm very tired today but want to be a nice chap so here is a link to ponder

2005

not all ejections are listed due to accidents which in effect were not carry through ejections, both crew or one being killed.

in any case an excellent link and you will find more on the page covering 1945

I have losses and bail outs due to accidents, malfunctions and aerial combat including Mosquito Beufighter kills but they are much too long and would take me weeks to months to sort through time I do not have


----------



## HoHun (Nov 12, 2007)

Hi Erich,

Sorry to hear about your illness - I hope you feel like supplying a link to turn my research into a useful direction once you feel better.

I'm just recovering from a rather painful illness myself, and I had some very bad days too, so I feel with you.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## brickhistory (Nov 12, 2007)

Erich,

bummer news about the 'c' word.

Fingers crossed, prayer said for you.


Good luck...


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

thanks guys am having withdrawls today from past experiences ............ not a good one especially since I have been trying to console a dear friend whose husband just left her this morning.

life is fickle eh, I'll be ok

E ~


----------



## luftlover (Nov 12, 2007)

I emerge from my bucker and look at amazment at all the destruction...

school (a nessisary evil the teachers tell me) interfered with me posting earlier, sorry about the delay

About the rolleyes, I apologize, I ment it more as light humor. My insulting remarks were mostly due to having a post that I put time and effort in and having a response of "take my word for it". Again I don't meen to insult anyone, and I was out of line. And Erich, sorry, I know you have to go over this again and again and it must be frustrating, but in my defence I literaly don't have the resources to look up units opinion on an aircraft (my sources are limited to library and internet, both of which can be easily false and are almost always dilluted) and time is limited due to sports and homework.

However, Adler, thanks. now for the counter questions/response 
1.The night blindness no matter where the gun is revealing, but wouldn't it be worse if the guns were in front of the pilot, and in your oppionion how much worse if so
2.the high wing loading=manuverable perhapes was a bit to much guesswork on my part. As I said, the stirling bomber had a high wing loading and could out turn a ju 88, and the stirling bomber is a good size larger then the he 219(the stirling was refered to as "the fighter...bomber"). Also, wouldn't the roll rate almost certainly be faster?
3.About the bombers flying high, there was a post earlier the said the lanc flew under 20,000 ft. was this false? I looked up the lanc that said service ceiling 24,500ft. Did they tipically cruise this high? bombing accuracy must have been horrible that high(although the british prefered area bombing). A quick search on the internet I found nothing, I'll try to find where the lanc. tipacly cruised and the performance of the UHU at that alt.(that might take a while, I want to say the lanc. cruised around 16,000 ft, but not sure)
4.Performance at different altitudes I understand, info on the DB is either simple minded or a bombardment of mathimatical terms. thanks for telling me its alt. performance was not inspiring, I thought it was only due to the high wing loading
5.About the units in production being more timely, well, your already tooled up for production is the major reason I would think. The Ju 88 and Me 110 was already in full scale production(and had been for a long time)
6.the 6 UHU assembled in the field, according to the source, was due to the desperate need for night fighters. I mostly put it in to prove the ease of maintnence
7.I understand the jumbo 222 was never in service(the A-7r6 was a prototype by my understanding), but _what ifs_ permiate(spelling again!) the UHU's history. I did it to reinforce the fact that it was underpowered and the designers knew it.

My PROOF, per say, is from memory on books at the library and from the internet. If you google he 219 few of the websites have anything bad to say about it. And the books say german nf pilots REALLY wanted the plane, something erich says is bs. I really don't know who to believe(currently leaning toward erich, ejection seats that failed often does not make for a popular plane)

Alright, i know perhapes I expect to much you people, but this is the first time i've come across evidence that the uhu isn't all its cracked up to be. I thank you for making me question my belief the the He-219 was the best german night fighter

And Erich, best of luck, and I thank you most of all

Cheerio


----------



## Erich (Nov 12, 2007)

man I just heard that a relative of mine has 17 % kidney power besides and anerism that could burst anytime. I think I need a vacation from life

to answer your question about blindness it would of been far better to have the four gun set up under the fuselage like the Ju 88G series than any in the wings but that just did not happen with the Uhu except to reduce the belly arms as they were not all needed. this is of course to lighten the load which the Uhu or any other German nf needed to catch the RAF 4 engines or the Mossie in it's forms. the pilots we have interviewed from Kommando Welter all said the same thing when firing the nose mounted 2-4 Mk 108's they all got a shook from the blinding light momentarily added with the fact they closed so fast with their quarry they had not time for a second shot(s) and had to be careful they did not plow through the debris of the Allied a/c - explosions.

all LW a/c lacked quick performance at higher alt.s above 20,000 ft but so did Allied a/c in the night air. and as you gt into winter air even more sluggishness due to air density-cold, wet

5 and 6 are inter-related the Uhu projhect had been shoved into the hole sadly as it would of been the best replacement for the aging Bf 110G-4. extra machines and or set pieces were to help bolster for only the use of keeping the existing I./NJG 1 gruppe in business or further experimentation with a host of derivatives which there were many considering the Uhu was suppose to be a rocket ship NF. I do not question the loyalty of the I. gruppe to the Uhu they preferred it but for a variety of reasons the unit could not get into the air or just did not perform as well as it's sister gruppen of NJG 1.

the engines in my estimation were a continual feat for bugs of all sorts to keep them running and the tri-cycle undercarriage was not fool-proof as well as Me 262 units till wars end still had problems with crack-ups.

what could of been for the Uhu just never happened, the resulting program was stopped it was tested by NJGr 10 with several ops and 1-2 sent to NJG 5, several to NJG 3 whom never used them


----------



## HoHun (Nov 12, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>2005

Good site indeed!

>not all ejections are listed due to accidents which in effect were not carry through ejections, both crew or one being killed.

Unfortunately, even the listed crew escapes are often not definite on whether the ejections seat were used, so it's hard to draw reliable conclusions.

With regard to survival rates for conventional bailouts, the only data I have is from Galland's comment on the "Big Blow" plans (as reported in Toliver/Constables biography, p. 278 of the German edition) which expected a success of 400 - 500 Allied bombers downed at the price of an equal number of German fighters lost, with 150 Luftwaffe pilots killed. 

That would indicate a loss ratio of about 33% KIA per shot-down fighter, though I'd expect an additional percentage of seriously injured pilots to come on top of that. From small samples of various action reports, I had derived the rule of thumb that very roughly 50% of bailed-out pilots were not able to return to duty immediately (or at all).

Of course, these are day fighter figures, and the night fighter situation might be different, but these number provde the basis for my idea that even a less-than-perfect ejection system might be preferable over no ejection system at all. If the chances of getting out alive and unhurt increased from 50% to 75%, the system would be worth it even if it had some malfunctions.

Unfortunately, I have never found any in-depth analysis of this topic so far - I had seen the ejection seat site you linked before, and I definitely agree that it's a great resource, probably the best I have seen on this topic. I've been keeping my eyes peeled for survivability data for a couple of years now and come up almost empty-handed, so every bit helps!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2007)

luftlover said:


> 1.The night blindness no matter where the gun is revealing, but wouldn't it be worse if the guns were in front of the pilot, and in your oppionion how much worse if so



That I honestly do not have much of answer to. I do not think it would really be any difference. If you have seen flash at night it is rather bright.



luftlover said:


> 2.the high wing loading=manuverable perhapes was a bit to much guesswork on my part. As I said, the stirling bomber had a high wing loading and could out turn a ju 88, and the stirling bomber is a good size larger then the he 219(the stirling was refered to as "the fighter...bomber").



That is because the Stirling had a thick wing. It also limited the bomber to very low ops. Less than a year after the Stirling entered service 67 of the original 84 had been lost to enemy ops.



luftlover said:


> Also, wouldn't the roll rate almost certainly be faster?



Not necessarily as the Ju 88 had a better turn rate.



luftlover said:


> 5.About the units in production being more timely, well, your already tooled up for production is the major reason I would think. The Ju 88 and Me 110 was already in full scale production(and had been for a long time)



An aircraft that is allready in production will take longer to produce or upgrade or modify than an aircraft that is not in production. How can it be more timely that one that is still being developed.



luftlover said:


> 6.the 6 UHU assembled in the field, according to the source, was due to the desperate need for night fighters. I mostly put it in to prove the ease of maintnence



Building aircraft in the field however is not an advantage and does not necessarily prove ease of maintenance.



luftlover said:


> 7.I understand the jumbo 222 was never in service(the A-7r6 was a prototype by my understanding), but _what ifs_ permiate(spelling again!) the UHU's history. I did it to reinforce the fact that it was underpowered and the designers knew it.



You are correct which is where I go to my point that the He 219 was lacking in high alltitude ops. Unfortunatly my battaries went dead in my camera or I would have taken a picture of a Jumo 222 in Munich last weekend.



luftlover said:


> I thank you for making me question my belief the the He-219 was the best german night fighter
> 
> And Erich, best of luck, and I thank you most of all
> 
> Cheerio




The He 219 was not a terrible aircraft and could have developed into a fine night fighter, but as Erich pointed out in earlier posts it is what if situation.

Certainly overall it was a better aircraft than the Ju 88 but the Ju 88 was a better night fighter historically speaking.


----------



## luftlover (Nov 12, 2007)

Oh no, I still think the he 219 is a fine aircraft8) , but no longer do I think of it as the night equivlent of the me 262

I think part of the alure to the UHU was its potental that was never fully developed. The non stadard equipment and bewildering array of sub types as far as I can tell was henkels attempt to get past milch's veto on the project.

aircraft that "with a little more development" probably get more attention then the workhorses of the war unfortunatly(now I need to catch up with my info on the Ju-88G )

And to answer adlers question on production, we're looking at the difference of making a few changes to the production line, delaying production 1 or 2 weeks, to essentailly redoing the entire line, probably having 1-3 months where no planes are coming out of the factory(this is a personal est.) And you have to remember that the ju-88G fighter was already in production, with no need for modifications to the line. so, 3 months of lost production of a darn good nf to replace it with one designed by a guy you had a personal grudge with(you can almost understand milches desicion here). But if the plant was bombed, then I see no problem

As far as matenence, I have to take your word for it (you know more). but assembling 6 in the field has to at least show how good germanys unsung heroes were aka the mechanics 

And about the roll rate, having a tighter turning circle does not nessisarily(cliche) mean a faster roll rate, the P-47 when first introduced had the fastest roll rate of any american fighter.

Alright, I conceed that the ju-88 was the best german night fighter, by a narrow margin(stubborn, remember?). BUT I think the UHU wins the award of nf of any country with most potental, right 
(in other words trying to recover my sense of dignity here )

but I will (try to)come back with those performance figures, and that I hope that will make or break the Ju/UHU arguement

And for all the supporters of the UHU out there, I hope I at least put up a good fight


----------



## HoHun (Nov 13, 2007)

Hi Luftlover,

You have to consider two factors here:

1) The Heinkel He 219 was a very controversial aircraft even in WW2. You will have a hard time finding contemporary accounts that are not biased and serving a purpose. Of course, that doesn't make it any easier to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the aircraft.

2) You have to separate airframe qualities, engine qualities and operational qualities for an analysis. One aircraft that is the best in one aspect is not necessarily the best in all aspects.

Oh, and with regard to field-assembled aircraft: The 6 Heinkels were not assembled at frontline units but rather at a Frontschleuse (operational maintenance centre).

Regards,

Henning (Hohun)


----------



## lastwarrior (Nov 13, 2007)

I'll go for the Me-262B night fighter. Get well soon Erich.. hope you'll be just fine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2007)

luftlover said:


> And to answer adlers question on production, we're looking at the difference of making a few changes to the production line, delaying production 1 or 2 weeks, to essentailly redoing the entire line, probably having 1-3 months where no planes are coming out of the factory(this is a personal est.) And you have to remember that the ju-88G fighter was already in production, with no need for modifications to the line. so, 3 months of lost production of a darn good nf to replace it with one designed by a guy you had a personal grudge with(you can almost understand milches desicion here). But if the plant was bombed, then I see no problem



It would still be quicker to modify a line that was allready in production that to start up a whole brand new line. I dont even think that production would stop on a line allready in progress to change anything.


----------



## Erich (Nov 13, 2007)

and that is what the LW production crews did made the Ju 88G better and better, it would of been replaced in time by the Me 262B-2 and some Arado 234 variants but that was too late in the game, so cram as much hard/software into your existing Ju 88G-6, another crewman for a pair of eyes, all the electronics you can think of some of them never jammed and go after the 4 engine big boys.

The Uhu never was able to prove itself with an increased better version in the A-7 line as the program was sacked. it did not have the noteriety with other NJG's as they used them as test pieces and were not overly fond of the craft as there was not enough mission time on those rigs better to stay with what had already been proven in and up to 1945 even with the junk heap Bf 110G-4.

E ~


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2007)

Can I ask someone to tell me why they believe the 262 would make a great nightfighter.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Does anyone have data on the early war years? (1940 - mid '42?) How did the Me110 fare as a night fighter compared to the Beaufighter or Blenheim?


----------



## Erich (Nov 13, 2007)

well the single seat 262 already proved it self against the Mossie of the LSNF during late 44 till wars end. the range was the problem to be solved eventually with the two seater B-2a


----------



## luftlover (Nov 13, 2007)

well, adler, are we argueing for no point? your last post looks like it agrees to my point. or perhapes I'm just confused 

The me 262B-2a, havent heard much, but didn't it replace a fuel tank with the radar operator, reducing range? and, this was brought up in the uhu discussion, wouldn't the cramped cocpit prevent advanced radar being instaled?(I think erich said limited room for optics) 

I personally think the Me-262 would have been scary to be in if they were closing on a very slow bomber. fireing time would almost certainly be next to nothing due to the short range of the Mk-108 and high speed, and the vaunted "slanting music" couldn't be installed. not to mention that, although invincable due to its high speed, it would be asoundingly visable due to the exhaust(perhapes not true, but considering every prop nf had an exhast shroud...) and a bomber in a corkscrew is not an easy thing to track at night. 

but the arado 234 I don't see as many problems (beside the visable part)

cheerio


----------



## Erich (Nov 13, 2007)

thh B-2a was not used and was in the tes phases at wars end. everything we reconditioned and streamlined, the radar was to be the Berlin 240 AI or something newer. the fuel nacelles were to be on the outside and armor plated of the fuselage, all the latest equipment, no-more stupid front end drop tanks to increase anymore as it was carried within to extend range far and wide of Germany. Granted it is still going to be slower than the vaunted Helle nacht single seat 262 but at least now radar fitted and an extra pair of eyes, and yes you are correct the Halis and Lancs could be spotted by exhaust flames, the darkness of night the shadows were still plainly visible


----------



## luftlover (Nov 13, 2007)

jee, does every great german night fighter have to be in the prototype stages


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2007)

In nightfighting going to fast when approaching a target was a major problem, it was often better to come in slow so the additional speed would be a significant problem, not a benefit.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 13, 2007)

I agree with u Glider although one significant benefit of speed is that the interception can occur further from the target.

.


----------



## Erich (Nov 14, 2007)

hold on are we talking just about the Me 262 or ? think there is some confusion here over the tactics involved and no not all nfs were prototypes, and that is something am not sure where that came from either...

A little background and it will be covered all in my book in time. The Me 262A-1a was designed to intercept the Mossies of the RAF flying over Berlin on nuisance raids and they were quite successful for the few jets that flew on missions.

The Kommando run by Kurt Welter was formed for just that task in December of 44, Kurt knew full well by early spring of 45 that Mossies were only making a dent in the war effort and asked for acceptance of converted twin seat B-1a's fitted with radar and foul weather gear became the B-1a/U1. At least 5 ops were untertaken maybe more and only 1 Mossie was intercepeted and shot down though others were sighted and due to mechancial failures more than crew failures the Mossies were not chased or shot down. Due to the bombing at Burg which nearly blew the unit away by US B-17's this even put a further damper on interceptions as the unit was dived into 2 parts and the low profile from grass fields that the unit had to take almost completely kept them from the heavier bomber engagements


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

luftlover said:


> well, adler, are we argueing for no point? your last post looks like it agrees to my point. or perhapes I'm just confused



No I think we are just shooting past each other here. In your original post your made it seem that a new aircraft would be quicker than existing ones, which is why I asked you how that could be. And that is what I have been argueing.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

I am astound by the comment of the speed of the Me 262 becoming a hazard at night. First of all, it's perfectly possible to slow down with a Me 262. It does have a throttle, really it does...

Second, it would make every jet night fighter a hazard when intercepting slow moving targets. Just think of the Meteor NF. 

And I still feel a depreciation for the MK 108. If you have 4 of them you really don't need many seconds to shoot down a heavy bomber. 

Kris


----------



## Glider (Nov 14, 2007)

Damn difficult these Jerries, fancy putting a throttle on the aircraft.

Seriously. Its a simplification obviously but generally range is of high importance in a nightfighter and the 262 had at best an average range, but compared to most nightfighters Ju88, Mossie, Beaufighter, 110, it was on the short side. Max speed isn't that important in a NF as you almost invariably are stalking an aircraft that is going at cruising speed.
Obviously the NF will need to be able to overtake its quarry but extreme speeds are of limited benefit. If you somehow miss the target or they see you first, you can be sure that they will pour on the coals and evade like stink.
With the limited range of WW2 radars and if they are in your 'zone' then there is a good chance that you will overshoot as they will still be evading. Its far more likely that there not in your zone, then you have probably lost them and you will ever see them again.

I would trade range and low speed agility for extreme speed. Even a Lanc or a He111 could be a difficult target if it saw the attacker first.


----------



## luftlover (Nov 14, 2007)

sorry adler for misleading you, I assure you not deliberate

About the prototype thing, I ment is as the germans seemed to be only a few months away(or a little more resources ) from some truly amazing NF, the Do 335, he 219, the me 262, the Ar 234 are the ones I can think of, something the allies could have found difficult to deal with(but, come to think of it, the p-82 could have been _really_ scary) 

the speed is important(isn't it always?) because you can intercept aircraft much quicker, personally making up slightly for the me-262 range deficet(can also climb to altitude faster)

however, like glider said, the final interception still had to be done by eyeball, and the whole visibal thing i brought up was that the bomber crew would see the me-262 far before it saw the bomber. A corkscrewing bomber I've heard is hard to track at night, and considering the bomber could go into manuvers _before_ the me 262 could see the bomber, well, it would be difficult (hey pilot, see those twin fireballs heading toward us? I think it would be prudent to go into evasive manuvers now )

as well, throttals only help so much, the me 262 was not know for it's acceleration, and considering the bomber in a corksrew was changing speed, hieght, and direction, it would be hard to keep with the bomber. the me 262 was also not known for its low speed agility

the metor nf was intcepting buzz bombs, very visable, flying near 400mph on a straight and level course, no where near the same as intercepting a bomber (they had to firewall the throtal just to catch the bloody things) 

And as far as the Mk 108, I love the weapon myself, it's just that those shots need to hit, and that I'm not sure about wether that could happen (tajectory doesn't help matters, the one glaring fault of the weapon) but for your benifit, I doubt any other weapon would do any better, and the hiting power is a big +.

given these factors, I doubt the me 262, B-2a or not, would have been astondingly effective against heav bombers, but in the end the ability to outrun those pesky misq. (and shoot them down ) was probably in the minds of many pilots worth it wieght in gold


----------



## Erich (Nov 14, 2007)

the B-2a would of blown RAF bombers out of the sky. you also forget the typical attack by the LW was from underneath and in the case of the effective 10./NJG 11 the searchlights shown the Mossies and 4 engines quite easily long before they spotted a 262. Mk 108's would of been kept maybe only 2 instead of 4 and also possibly four 21cm instead of the short range 3cm which blew off to big a hunks of bomber, and without belly turrets as standard .........well you can figure it out


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2007)

I understand where you are coming from and you are correct but if your going after the heavy bombers then a Ju88 would be a better bet as it can stay in the air longer.
As for the mossies a number had rear warning equipment which could make life very difficult

PS I would prefer the reliability of the Ju88 engines. Landing a 262 at night with one engine would scare the heck out of me!!


----------



## HoHun (Nov 15, 2007)

Hi Luftlover,

>And as far as the Mk 108, I love the weapon myself, it's just that those shots need to hit, and that I'm not sure about wether that could happen (tajectory doesn't help matters, the one glaring fault of the weapon)

You have to realize that it's not really the absolute curvature that counts, but rather the curvature in relation to the sight line. For harmonization, you can simply depress the sight line so that the trajectory intersects the sight line at the range of your choice.

For the Bf 109G-6, intersection occurred at 80 m and at 400 m, with the greatest height of the trajectory being 64 cm above the sightline at 250 m out.

This meant that you could simply put the crosshair centrally on a fighter-sized target and expect solid hits (if it kept flying steadily) out to 450 m. At 500 - 600 m, you'd have to compensate by aiming slightly high (at the tip of the vertical stabilizer).

Beyond 600 m, the trajectory dropped so quickly that the problem of range estimation prevented hits in my opinion. 

(The MK108 trajectory would have allowed depressing the sightline even more to give "boresight" hits out to 500 m, but as realistic combat ranges regardless of the gun type were usually half that figure, that would not have made much sense. The rule of thumb in air combat was that the number of hits for a given number of rounds was inverserly proportional to the square of the range.)

The strong point of the MK108 was not only firepower, but also low dispersion. As it was an advanced-primer blowback weapon with short barrel and low muzzle velocity, it didn't suffer from barrel oscillations in rapid fire mode as badly as weapons with higher muzzle velocity, resulting in a very dense pattern.

However, for night fighters, all of that is academic anyway since as far as I can tell, the combat distances were usually 100 m and less.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

Yet another magnificent post Henning. I seem to learn something from you each time. Respect! 
Really interesting about that sight line.
But yes, it wouldn't be important for close range night fighting.




luftlover said:


> however, like glider said, the final interception still had to be done by eyeball, and the whole visibal thing i brought up was that the bomber crew would see the me-262 far before it saw the bomber. A corkscrewing bomber I've heard is hard to track at night, and considering the bomber could go into manuvers _before_ the me 262 could see the bomber, well, it would be difficult (hey pilot, see those twin fireballs heading toward us? I think it would be prudent to go into evasive manuvers now )
> 
> as well, throttals only help so much, the me 262 was not know for it's acceleration, and considering the bomber in a corksrew was changing speed, hieght, and direction, it would be hard to keep with the bomber. the me 262 was also not known for its low speed agility
> 
> the metor nf was intcepting buzz bombs, very visable, flying near 400mph on a straight and level course, no where near the same as intercepting a bomber (they had to firewall the throtal just to catch the bloody things)


You have to be kidding me. Meteor NF was intercepting buzz bombs??????????

And what about those twin fireballs heading towards the bombers?? How does that work?? Since when do jet engines look like fireballs? 

Kris


----------



## luftlover (Nov 15, 2007)

as usual forced to defend myself

erich, yes, they did attack from below, but did the b-2a have the upward firing guns(scorage muzic or something), it doesn't seem likely looking at the trainer 2 seat versions, and given this they would have to attack from behind, where the tail gunner would see them. I know that they could pull up below the bombers, but this was dangerous due to 1, falling debris and 2, if you screwed up you were a sittling duck for the gunners. and searchlights?...thats reinstaling the whole "wild boar" thing, good, but not great(were searchlights THAT reliable for finding bombers, radar seems to be better) and I think most admit even without jets if a bomber is in the searchlights the liklyhood of it not making it increases dramaticly 

and civi, the fireballs are coming out of the jet engines, the flickering of the exhust In other words, perhapes not a fireball _per say_ but it sounds better then 2 big red lights

and about the meteor, as far as I know... what else was over england at the time?????? If it came across a few planes, fine, but how many? overal the metor was not a very sucessful fighter in any role, only intercepting buzz bombs because it could catch them, but so could the top piston engined fighters. and, on a second thought, this is the first time I've heard the metor was used as a night fighter. was it equiped with radar at all? no radar operator... 

hohun, great info on the mk 108(darn fine weapon dontcha think ), but on a sub-note, in day fighting hitting a target beyond 300m was rare, and although accurate, it still has a low rate of fire, it just made up for it by haveing the hitting power. the 20mm was still prefered for destroying fighters, the 30mm for blasting bombers(this is all refering to day fighting)

altogether the me 262 was flying at about 500 mph and lanc about 250mph, I don't think anyone can convince me that won't create problems of some sort(to what degree is debatable, and if I hear 1 comment about the throttle...)


----------



## Erich (Nov 15, 2007)

I shall no longer respond to the Me 262 except by saying wait for my book and you will find out first hand what really went on ...........


----------



## luftlover (Nov 16, 2007)

aaaawww, come on, no spoilers 

yeah, probably argued enough, like beating a dead cat, but fun nevertheless

but, gee, you must be really sick of the me 262 to be saying that 

when will your book come out do you think? I'm impatient, the youth of this nation have beter things to do then wait, but if its worth it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

luftlover said:


> as usual forced to defend myself
> 
> erich, yes, they did attack from below, but did the b-2a have the upward firing guns(scorage muzic or something), it doesn't seem likely looking at the trainer 2 seat versions, and given this they would have to attack from behind, where the tail gunner would see them.



The word you are looking for is Schräge Musik which is a German term used for Jazz Music. Schräge actually stand for tilted or slanted.

The 262B-2 was designed to be fitted with Schräge Musik but none were built.


----------



## luftlover (Nov 16, 2007)

ah, thanks adler, could never spell it 

well that helps matters a lot, I guess the bomber crew could see them getting into position, but far, far less likely. maybe erich is right about the b-2 slaughtering bombers then(maybe, just maybe )

I heard an interesting article that suggests that if the british had built large numbers of misquitoes it would have been a lot beter off, it cost only a 1/3 as much as a lanc, carried half the bombload to berlin(_half_... i'm not sure about _that_), had only 1/10 the lose rate, and only required two crew. it sounds interesting, after all the misq. could outrun anything in the night sky. the article also sugests that used as a day bomber it could have been a lot more sucessful then the b-17, quoting modern bombers rely on speed and low alt hill hopping to survive.

what do you think would happen if this came about. would the luftwaffe be able to even compete in such a situation?

the day part is really hard to believe, given the fighters could still catch them and could take their sweet time blowing them up, but the night part is, well, far more plausable

hears the site. De Havilland Mosquito

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

Definatly the Mosquito as it had a sting. 4 20mm cannon and 4 .303 machine guns, mixed with the Night radar


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

sorry if it causes fuss


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

The BF-110 had a Schräge Musik? As they shot down the lancs and everyone but the mossies. Also, JU-88's had them


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2007)

instead of multiple postings why don't you put your ideas edited all on one post ?

yes the Bf 110G-4 had the Schragwaffen and the 110 also shot down Mossies besides the Ju 88G's


----------



## luftlover (Nov 26, 2007)

just curious...(and saving a dead thread I hope )

what 1946 nf would have been the best

germans had their jets, new radars coming into service(the ones without the radar ariels) and for kicks lets say they finally worked out the bugs on there piston engines(note, early 1946, no wacky futuristic space age stuff)

the british misq. was the best in 1945, what about 1946? what plans were they cooking up for it?

and america, this one scary, the p-82. fast, rediculous range, decint firepower, manuverable, good radar...

my votes for P-82, but I dont know much about british plans, and germans, well, I have my doubts about jets in a night fight, and they were behind in radar

and also, which would be the best destroying bombers, and which would be best fighting one another(the night infiltrater role the misq. became lengendary for)


----------



## luftlover (Nov 27, 2007)

but... about our old friend the he 219 

WW2 Warbirds: the Heinkel He 219 Uhu - Frans Bonné
A-7/r1
416 mph at 22965 ft
Initial climb rate 1,810 ft per min.

Heinkel He 219 Uhu Night fighter
Maximum speed at altitude 7000m (22,966ft) 665km/h (413 mph) 

from wiki(suposedly sourced from janes fighing aircraft)
616 km/h (333 knots, 385 mph) , but no altitude given 

Ju 88G, Heavy Night Fighter, Luftwaffe
Specification Ju-88G 
Ju-88g-6 535km/h 6000m

alright erich, 130km/h faster then the ju-88/G-6 at 1000m higher.
confession, i'm inclined to believe 385mph, the 413mph is probably without the drag of radar, but....
still a good 80km/h faster at a higher alt.

the argument once again rages over the he-219 
will it ever RIP


----------



## Civettone (Nov 27, 2007)

Don't believe everything you read luftlover. IIRC there were no He 219A-5s or A-7s build, except for a couple of prototypes after production was stopped.

the standard He 219 didn't reach 600 kmh.

kris


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 27, 2007)

Yes the 413/6mph speed was obtained with a striped plane. From what I can remember the antenna was removed, the exhaust shrouds were removed, and there was a decrease in the armament among other stuff.


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

I do not think I need to reeat in this long thread my ideas about Ju 88G-6 comparison and the He 219A do I ? please do not ask again any of you........ the He 219 was not proven the Ju 88G-6 was. you can go to 12 oclock discussion and note that Jukka tired to call me out but was nearly butt kicked right off the forum as he tried to defend the Uhu to no avail. Some of you think I am alone in my ideas but that is flat out wrong.

yes there were A-5's and A-7's issued to I./NJG 1, and the Ju 88G-6 on ops could bust out faster than 385mph. big deal, the Junkers had all the latest arms, radar details and rear warning radar plus another 1-2 crewmen the Uhu did not..........that should be enough to end this silliness


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2007)

BTW Erich, whats the big secret???


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

you are on top if it friend........ 

~~ the future book I just uncovered some very cool stuff on Kurt Welter and his stint NJGr 10, NJG 11. It has been buried in my files for over 10 years and while I was cleaning for putting up Christmas lights.........yeah we start real early .......... also found some things on Fritz Krause with NJGr 10 and NJG 11 I have had forever..... so yes it has been a well kept hidden........shhhhhh it's a secret !


----------



## HoHun (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Al,

>Yes the 413/6mph speed was obtained with a striped plane. From what I can remember the antenna was removed, the exhaust shrouds were removed, and there was a decrease in the armament among other stuff.

According to the Heinkel documentation reproduced in Luftfahrt International issue 16, the top speed of the He 219A-2 without antenna and flame dampers (but otherwise fully equipped, including nacelle fuel tanks and Schräge Musik) was 605 km/h (376 mph) @ 6.3 km using Climb and Combat Power. 

The projected speed of the He 219B-2 with a DB603 with high-altitude supercharger for 13 km (42,650 ft) full throttle height was 660 km/h (410 mph, properly converted), which is close to the figure you quote. However, I don't know of any extreme-altitude DB 603 ever taking flight.

I suspect the 413 or 416 mph figure you quote is probably rather an inaccurate conversion of the B-2 topspeed than the result of a stripped-down prototype test. However, that's just a suspicion that perhaps can be proven wrong.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

and if true H.H. slower than a fully loaded Ju 88G-6 with all the goodies


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

just a note in reply to some of the remarks given by me and another poster from a forum whom tried to pry me out by using my name ........

M.H. I would consider an expert at least with in regards to vets who flew and maintained the He 219 in I./NJG 1

hth

Hello friends,

As an 'airfield Venlo' and I.NJG 1 buff, I am not in a position to compare the quality and efficiency of the He 219 with the Ju 88 and Bf 110 variants. I have my doubts about the value of such debates because we all know that changing operational conditions during WW 2, must have had its impact on the suitability of nightfighter types. Seeburg-Lichtenstein tactics and Himmelbett orientated nightfighting was ideal for the (rather) short range Bf 110 though we all know that as soon the four engined RAF bombers arrived, the NJG's had a lot of difficulties to catch up with the Bf 110. When the Zahme Sau tactics were developed, types as the Ju 88 and He 219 had many more advantages above the Bf 110.

Therefore I can only present some facts of the He 219 with the I.NJG 1:

1) in an early stage of the He 219 design, it was exclusively constructed for the night fighter arm though other versions were planned as well
2) in that light, the comments of Martin Drewes about the design of the He219 (I know: technical quality does not always catch up with designs  ) makes sense: several wellknown nightfighter pilots like Streib and Lent were involved during the design process of the He 219. Martin Drewes' is clearly appreciating this influence
3) the I.NJG 1 got their first He 219's (3 prototypes) in May 1943. Streib flew the first combat mission with a He 219 (still a prototype!), shot down 5 bombers and crashed the bird in a landing in Venlo. The remaining He 219's and (later) some newly delivered He 219's obtained a further 7 kills. The total for 1943 is therefore is 12.
4) in 1944 the steadily growing number of He 219's in the I.NJG 1 made it possible to increase the operational range: as one of the frontline units, the I.NJG 1 were involved in Zahme Sau (Tame Boar) operations and for this the He 219 had the appropriate range (but not always the endurance because of many technical malfunctions). The I.NJG 1 was one of the few units capable of shooting down Mosquito's. The total of He 219 victories for 1944 was 122 (including 7 Mosquito's)
5) The I.NJG 1 score for 1945 was just 10 victories

Of the 638 victories of the I.NJG 1, 144 were obtained with the He 219, mostly in 1944 when the 'glory days of nightfighting in 1943' were over. My impression, made during the many years of historical research about the I.NJG 1, is that several advantages of the He 219 were severely hampered by productional problems and technical innovations which did not work properly. The GL/C meetings and Heinkel Archives do reveal many of such shortcommings but contain also many enthousiast reactions of I.NJG 1 flying personel. Many technical difficulties, described in the KTB I.NJG 1 and even more some diaries of pilots and Bordfunkers arouse mixed feelings: good fighting opportunities were blocked by early returns because of malfunctions, but on the other hand pilots were proud to have a plane that was able to intercept Mosquito's.

Another, perhaps revealing question would be why the introduction of the He219 with the I.NJG 1 was much more smoothly then with the II.NJG 1, both units were used to fly the Bf 110. In that respect I do regret that we never will know the impressions of pilots like Werner Streib, Manfred Meurer or Heinz Strüning (they had nocturnal victories with the Bf110, Ju88 and He 219) thought of these aircraft. Even then, their subjective tastes could blur our opinions.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>and if true H.H. slower than a fully loaded Ju 88G-6 with all the goodies

I have to admit that I haven't seen good data on the Ju 88G-6 in full nightfighter trim.

What I have is a data sheet on a Ju 88G-7 with Jumo 213E engines and streamlined Morgenstern nose. Due to the different engines, it seems reasonable to compare speeds at sea level: The Ju 88G-7(N) achieves 435 km/h at Climb Combat Power, the He 219A-2 460 km/h (with antennae and flame dampers).

While the DB603A may have had slightly more power than the Jumo 213E at sea level, the Heinkel He 219A-2 appears to be aerodynamically superior by a certain margin. If the Ju 88G-6 is fitted with external antennae (I'm not sure it was), this margin would increase.

As the Ju 88G-6 appears to have been powered by Jumo 213A engines, at medium altitudes the DB603A would have given the He 219A-2 a slight superiority in available power over the Junkers, and in combination with the better aerodynamics, I'd expect the He 219A-2 to be the faster of the two aircraft at altitudes around 6 km.

However, I'm not a nightfighter expert and relying on that single data sheet simply because I lack documents on earlier Ju 88 night fighters that have the required level of technical detail.

(For reference: With antennae and flame dampers added, the top speed of the He 219A-2 dropped to 560 km/h (348 mph) @ 6.3 km.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

Ho-hun I think there were no G-7's in operation what you are speaking of is the Ju 88G-6 with the FuG 220d in a streamlined nose cone thus a streamlined form of aerials and the FuG 350N is also housed in the nose. External aerials of the FuG 220d and even the FuG 218 antler array still gave the sped as 385mph. due to weather conditions in a clear bright night skies and altitude the Ju 88G-6 could kick it up to 400mph and over


----------



## HoHun (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>Ho-hun I think there were no G-7's in operation what you are speaking of is the Ju 88G-6 with the FuG 220d in a streamlined nose cone thus a streamlined form of aerials and the FuG 350N is also housed in the nose. 

I'm actually speaking of the G-7, as that's the one described by the data sheet (in the Waffenrevue Night Fighter issue). Quite possible that it didn't see service any more, the magazine only lists 4 prototypes (V112 to 115) which were converted from G-6 airframes.

However, considering that the data sheet probably sums up the best knowledge of the Junkers engineers at the time, it's possible to arrive at an estimate of G-6 performance from that sheet and to use it for a Climb Combat Power performance comparison to the He 219A-2.

The higher speeds you give most likely result from the use of Special Emergency Power (with MW50 injection). In that regime, the Jumo 213A might have held the advantage over the DB 603A, but that is not a certain conclusion. (Detailed power data on the latter engine is a bit scarce.)

Engineering documentation on the G-6 could probably tell us more, but unfortunately I've never seen anything like the G-7 sheet for earlier variants.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2007)

Like I said there was no G-7 variant or experimental test variant in my books. the G-7 was posted as an after war notation for the several Ju 88G-6's that had different radar sets. MW 50 gave a performance increase for 10-15 minutes for each engine so yes if used to blast away from the sudden mossie night fighter, yes that is possible if the crew were sharp

can you post a sampling of the Waffenrevue article HH ?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>the G-7 was posted as an after war notation for the several Ju 88G-6's that had different radar sets.

Ah, being night-fighter ignorant, I wasn't aware it was considered an obscure designation. I have attached a scan showing the Junkers Dessau definition of the G-7 - not only the radar, but also the engines were (to be) different from the G-6.

>MW 50 gave a performance increase for 10-15 minutes for each engine so yes if used to blast away from the sudden mossie night fighter, yes that is possible if the crew were sharp

Roger that. As the Heinkel data I quoted is for the 30 min power setting that could be sustained without the use of MW50, I tried to find Ju 88G data achieved on the same 30 min power setting (considered Climb Combat Power in German terminology).

>can you post a sampling of the Waffenrevue article HH ?

Roger, will do! However, I have to correct myself: It's Waffen-Arsenal, not Waffen Revue as I thought. Author of the magazine (which is all about German night fighters) is Manfred Griehl.

Below the data sheet I am referring to (from Griehl's Waffen-Arsenal, "Nachtjäger über Deutschland 1940 - 1945"). It's more like a book than like a magazine, but it's externally in magazine format. Not sure how you'd call it - it's not even a softcover, just the kind of slightly stronger, glossy paper also used for magazine covers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Denniss (Nov 27, 2007)

The "datasheet" may be projected data, on top in the Beschreibung (description) field you see "Kobü-Entwurf-Leistungsdaten"

The He 219 A-2 should have been equipped with the altitude-optimized DB 603AA. The DB 603A did have 1580 or 1590 PS, the 603AA 1510 PS climb and combat power at sea level.


----------



## luftlover (Nov 27, 2007)

hello all, and erich, unfortunatly I shall ask again. meaning this in the best possible respect.

no, i do not believe everything I hear, thank you very much. I took that data from 3 different websites and cross-checked. prehapes I don't have credibility, but I think I did a fair amout to check if it was a fluke. That said, thanks for telling me the stripped down version traveled at 413mph. I was doubtful, that was compareable to many single engined fighters of the day

still, Eric said the pilots were proud to have an aircraft that could outrun a misq., out of curiousity,was this the stripped down A-6 version for misq. hunting? it traveled at 404mph, my impression being this wasn't a mainstream type, the A-5 and A-7 were

arodynamicly, my very unprofessional eye says the he 219 was quite a bit better, but that doesn't count for much 

erich pointed out something interesting that the he 219 replaced me 110 units, which I'm pretty darn sure the he 219 is better then the me 110...(its that blasted ju-88 thats bugging me )

I asked this earlier, but what altitudes did the lancaster cruise at? this is the altitude all german night fighters probably should be compared at. I know this is working off of the "ideal world" concept, but...

another ideal world concept, what was the sortie/kill ratio of the ju-88 and he-219(probably mid-1944 ish)? that could really settle matters, and an incentive for erich, once done you never need argue this point again. really, if you got that, somebody would have a hard time going against it, (but matenence...why is it always so hard to pin down best anymore? just to many factors...) and I would like to meet this (guy)(I am editing your post out of protection of certain individuals) you seem to imply we have many similar qualities...(did he suffer any emotional breakdowns?wait..... on second thought, don't want to know)


he 219 fans, I live, but a misq. hot on my tail...


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2007)

luftlover I need to correct you on some details, the first the posting above on the he 219 was not by me but from an expert on the he 219A that i was having a discussion of sorts but not really on another forum //

I just got off some real late meetings which were pretty intense so want a clear head on the morrow that I may respond inteligently to your questions. one of them deals with the anti-Mossie Uhu the A-6, this was tested but never put into any prduction with field line units.

more to come


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 28, 2007)

fat flyer said:


> Erich,
> Also, did the Do-335 which also had ejection seat actually become operational as a nightfighter? I do not believe so, but at another forum someone selected the Do-335 as the best nightfighter.



The Do 335 probably would've been the best night-fighter, if it had become operational (which it didn't); the two-seat variant, the Do-335A-6, would've had the advanced FFO FuG-217J Neptun radar, having triple "trident"-like antennas (hence the name "Neptun") on the fuselage and wings, but only a prototype was completed. However, if it had been built, it probably would've been the most successful (and advanced) night-fighter of WWII.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 28, 2007)

Hi Denniss,

>The "datasheet" may be projected data, on top in the Beschreibung (description) field you see "Kobü-Entwurf-Leistungsdaten"

Quite possible, but with the Jumo 213A-engined Ju 88G-6 in regular service, it would be easy to make an accurate projection on the speeds for a Jumo 213E-engined Ju 88G-7.

If the G-7 tops out at 627 km/h (390 mph) at 9.1 km with MW50, I don't see how it would be possible for the G-6 to achieve 385 mph in the much denser air down at at 4 - 5 km. I'd have to run a calculation before I can be certain of that, but spontaneously I'd say, "No way!" (Trouble is, the data Junkers used for the 9.1 km data point doesn't seem to fit the Jumo 213E power graph I have, so it's a bit confusing.)

>The He 219 A-2 should have been equipped with the altitude-optimized DB 603AA. The DB 603A did have 1580 or 1590 PS, the 603AA 1510 PS climb and combat power at sea level.

The data listed in the Heinkel description is given as 1750 HP take-off power, 1510 HP at full throttle height. As the decription was prepared at the beginning of the series production, it might not take a different engine into account. Do you happen to have a data sheet for the DB603A, by the way? I only have those of the DB603E-F, G-M and L, and a closer look at the powers would be very useful for our discussion.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## monsieurmonkey (Nov 28, 2007)

Nobody ever talks about the Bristol Beaufort, which, with 4 50 calibers in it's nose and wing mounted guns was had more fire power than anything. With twin engines and lots of weight it wasn't maneuverable, but it was legengenary for coming home with pieces of the plane and the pilot covering the fuesalage. It was a legendary NIGHT FIGHTER, which was importan b4 the Mustang showed up.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 28, 2007)

monsieurmonkey said:


> Nobody ever talks about the Bristol Beaufort, which, with 4 50 calibers in it's nose and wing mounted guns was had more fire power than anything. With twin engines and lots of weight it wasn't maneuverable, but it was legengenary for coming home with pieces of the plane and the pilot covering the fuesalage. It was a legendary NIGHT FIGHTER, which was importan b4 the Mustang showed up.


I think you are confused.

Bristol Beaufighter was a fighter bomber and night fighter having 0.303" mgs in its wings besides 4 20mm cannon under the nose. The Beaufort was a bomber and had no mgs in its wings. The Bristol Blenheim was used as a night fighter. What P-51 was used as a night fighter?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2007)

luftlover re-read the whole thread and I mean the whole thread, every post and you will have your questions answered including what M.H. mentioned about the Uhu in his posting to me, you some thing confused. the He 219 replaced the Bf 110G's in I./NJG 1 only for operations. I./NJG 3 had Uhu's but refused flying them on combat ops, Stab and 3./NJGr 10 had some but very few ops were flown and the equipm,ent really were wasted away and blown up

SoD the Me 262 B-2 and beyond would of replaced everything in the LW aresnal as this was the wave of the future not the Do 335 nf.


----------



## luftlover (Nov 28, 2007)

erich, I don't know, on previous posts already discused my doubt about the me 262b-2a(visability being primary issue) but, alright...(I seem to have hit a brick wall, already discused)

the do-335 was an impressive plane, don't know bought best, but certainly up there, comparable to the p-82 in many respects

eric, rereading posts now........(darn, 16 pg worth )


----------



## Erich (Nov 28, 2007)

no there was no problem with any Me 262 visibility wise. The B-2a was not operational before wars end it was in the test phases with state of the art electronics, the radar was AI and fully enclosed enough of that stupid wind drag antlers of the other twin engines


----------



## luftlover (Nov 29, 2007)

erich, reread _every_ post please...

visability issues concererning exhust coming out of the jets, their prey could see them coming , an issue with piston engines as well(you didn't think they put the exhaust shrouds for nothing)


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2007)

I think you are very very confused. the RAF never saw jets coming nor hitting them. the jets attacked always from the rear, do you actually think any RAF bomber gunner or the forward crew in a Mossie of the LSNF or Intruder could see what was coming up from behind them at 400-500mph, let off a 2-6 sec burst and then be gone in time to react and fire their Brownings ?

c'mon thnk about it, there were NO visibility issues in the existing Me 262A-1a or B-1a/U1 according to the crews


----------



## luftlover (Nov 30, 2007)

If I'm confused, well, darn, I thought you were 

could the exhust not be seen from the front?(logic says no, but...in truth, I was refering to the Schräge Musik attack, they could see them sliding in for the attack) and even if not, the speed at which your talking about would leave little time for aiming. at night at that speed you would only have a few seconds to see the target, let alone shoot it. what was the min. range on the radar going to be used anyhow?

sub note:the power operated turret in the back was dangerous till the end, slowing down for more time was not an option(well, it was, but...).

2nd sub note:what about that pesky tail warning radar?

night fighting as far as I can tell was a backstabbing affair, sneaking up to blast your prey. most died without even knowing what hit them. your talking about hit and run tactics, used to deadly effect during daylight, but I doubt that's aplicable to night fighting in ww2.

the big question is, would it be worth giving up the Schräge Musik, the most gosh darn effective bomber killing tool in the entire luftwaffe arsenel

dont forget the most reliable and effective tool in the RAF arsenal, the mark 2 eyeball :


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2007)

LoL, you have no clue luftlover..

I wonder when luftlover realizes he's talking to a writer who's main studies are around aerial nightfighting during WW2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 30, 2007)

I was wondering the same thing.... Erich is a researcher/writer who has contributed to many of the modern books regarding the Luftwaffe and the USSAF.... Several websites post his name as a contributor...


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2007)

seriously I am about to give up on this

what do you mean see a SM attack coming.....? go read some more books on the night air war, you are posting so many contradicting questions, you pose a question then answer it yourself distortedly with non-facts


----------



## luftlover (Dec 1, 2007)

gee

I post my veiws and are insulted for them

how are my comments distorted?


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 1, 2007)

You've not been insulted. Grow a skin.


----------



## Erich (Dec 1, 2007)

luftover as Mark said no-one is insulting you, why would we, you have come up with questions and or statements that you are answering but you are mixing up the LW night fighter aircraft. please refrain from trying to crack a joke and if you post serious enough for me to take it that way I will answer as well as others.

The SM attack was not seen except at a distance usually when an RAF heavy bomber was already on fire. the LW night fighters used an ammo of phosphor for quick fire effects and it was called glimmspur meaning it was very very faint tracer not seen clearly even up close. Generally speaking the aces could come from underneath at a great distance seeing the profile of the RAF bomber and could get underneath the heavy without being noticed while it was more of a danger for the LW pilot/crew if he chose the forward firing arms, some LW crews preferred not to use nor had it installed at all on the aircraft.

does this help explain abit ?

E


----------



## HoHun (Dec 1, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>the LW night fighters used an ammo of phosphor for quick fire effects and it was called glimmspur meaning it was very very faint tracer not seen clearly even up close. 

Was the Schräge Musik loaded with any tracers at all? I vaguely remember reading that tracers were (sometimes?) left out in order not to alarm the enemy in the case of a miss.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Dec 1, 2007)

HH

that is what glimmspur is ~ faint hard to see tracers, the LW crews swore by them and in fact several notable crews used the upward firing arrangement exclusively on every mission, but as I mentioned some crews did not like it and had it removed from their arsenal.

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2007)

Heinz Schnaufer used the Shrage Muzik to horrendous effect... Saddle up underneath, undetected, aim for the wing root, boom............

If a night fighter was spotted and fired at, the pilot usually abandoned that attack and commenced another unseen delivery....


----------



## HoHun (Dec 2, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>that is what glimmspur is ~ faint hard to see tracers, the LW crews swore by them and in fact several notable crews used the upward firing arrangement exclusively on every mission, but as I mentioned some crews did not like it and had it removed from their arsenal.

I'm familiar with Glimmspur, but it was my impression that it was the standard night tracer, not exactly hard to see but dim enough not to blind the attacker. (Even day tracers sometimes had a delay before the illumination ignited in order not to blind the pilot.)

So carrying tracers in the forward firing guns, but not in the Schräge Musik is what the practice was according to what I read. I wasn't talking about removing the entire Schräge Musik, just about tracers not being used with it as they were fired at point blank range anyway where the gunsight would be good enough, and the side-effect of tracers - the enemy could see them, too - was unwanted.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Dec 2, 2007)

tracer rounds were standard in the Schrägwaffen arms according to Ju 88G-6 crews in 44-45


----------



## HoHun (Dec 2, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>tracer rounds were standard in the Schrägwaffen arms according to Ju 88G-6 crews in 44-45

Thanks a lot, I didn't know that before! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## B-17engineer (Dec 9, 2007)

I say the Ju-88 because of it's speed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2007)

B-17engineer said:


> I say the Ju-88 because of it's speed



Mossie night fighters were faster....


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2007)

depends on the variant for both


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

Greetings....
A few blue moons ago I'd have said the He-219 but today? Nope! It probably had potential to be developed further, better radar, rear defence, more powerful engines, but the war come to an end before that happened. It's a great looking bird, but good looks doesn't shoot down enemy planes....

As for the P-61, I'm not sure about her either actually. Not nimble enough for night stalking 109's and 190's...maybe occassionally rumble with the 88, 110 and the 217. Didn't a few of them nail a number of V-1 bombs?

The 110, old school I'd say but still working, but in the hands of an experienced crew....lethal.

The 217, too slow and too heavy...was it as bad as I remember it to be? What was her main drawbacks....wingload, underpowered, range?

And I can't decide between the Mossie or 88G-6. Probably depends on the quality and experience of the crew who wins this one...


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 1, 2008)

Lucky, the P-61 was very nimble surprising American s/e fighters in the 1944 fighter test.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

I stand corrected... But did they come into turning fights with 109's and 190's though?


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2008)

no ops against 109's but against ground attack night Fw 190's and of course Ju 87D-3's and D-5's there were no D-7 or D-8's, the books have that stated incorrectly. I have some interesting side-lights from personal interviews of the C.O. of the US 425th nfs as well as a couple of pilots in that unit for one of my future book projects


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks Erich....


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Besides the Me-262 the Ar-234 B-2N was easily the best nightfighter, sadly for the Germans however only two ever saw service.


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2008)

Soren still not proven in combat as the weapons belly pack was used in the Austrian/Italien alps for ground attack work. several important NJG 100 aces from the Ost front moved into Bonnows small band of 2-3 Arado's It would of had to been redesigned and it was during 45 with a completely new front/nose and different radar set-ups including AI


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

How many units used the 2x MG151/20 belly pack for ground attack purposes ?


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2008)

1 Soren the only nf unit using the Arado, the first commander was killed flying one.

here is a neat first hand acct, just a few minutes ago while I was out in the cold pruning Roses

It is a fact that jamming of radar and jamming of radio-frequencies increased very much at the end of war. These fellows came with more than 800 aircraft in different streams accompanied by 80 or more mosquitos, which were hanging over our airports before we took off. We took off at unlighted airports, staying very low after take off because we knew the area. Same for landing, in other words the hunters were hunted.

In Ju 88 we had 2 radio-operators who were playing, one on the radar set, the other on radios. In SN2, we could use alternate frequencies, which worked sometimes. Another method, clever radio-operators found out, was to look for maximum of interference: some bomber crews shipped out the "windows" like paper leaflets and produced a trail which a good radar operator could follow and give the pilot instructions to find the bomber stream.

I had a good Funker who worked perfect on the radar with Naxos. H2S,as you know, sends signals down like a cone, a good Funker can see this cone on Naxos and let the pilot fly upwards, flying in the cone until at the top of the cone the pilot sees the shadow. I talked later on to RAF pilots who thought they were hit by Flak fire but it was a nightfighter from below with "Schräge lMusik". The Lancs had no weapons below.I think I got more than 10 by Naxos. I dont remember any jamming of Naxos. We only lost exact Naxos radar guidance when H2S was switched off by RAF crew. But then we were already close to bomber stream. 

So good so far on this first day of 2008, this e-mailing makes me thirsty

Prosit Neujahr

Peter


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2008)

Wasn't the Arado flown by Bonow and he felt the large amount of glass was detrimental to the nightfighting capabilities because of glare? He then preferred the Me 262. If not Bonow I may be confusing with another NJG ace.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

I think the Ar 234 always had the best potential as a World War II night-fighter. The Me 262 always struck me as a little small for the job (the nf equipment was massive in those days)


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the account Erich, excellent!


----------



## Erich (Jan 2, 2008)

Njaco you are talking about ace Kurt Welter who formed the Kommando with the 262 with Stamp originally, then on his own with full a-ok's from the great "FAT ONE", this will all be covered at great length in our Moskito-jagd über Deutschland.

Frankly the single seater 262 was limited in range and that was it's primary draw back. nothing could catch it nor was it vulnerable to any Allied nf. Crashes were all due to accidents usually of pilot errors. Several RAF 4 engine crews claimed victories over the jet but they are bogus claims


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks, Erich. As I typed that I thought I got the name wrong and was just to lazy to check.  Its the first name that gets me!

Can't wait for the book!


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 9, 2008)

Ju 88, as a fighter, the mosquito all around for flying over 400 mph, and carrying a 4000 lb bomb-load to anypart of Germany, and night patroling German aerodromes preventing a second sortie or destroying planes on their landing approach


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Ju 88, as a fighter, the mosquito all around for flying over 400 mph, and carrying a 4000 lb bomb-load to anypart of Germany, and night patroling German aerodromes preventing a second sortie or destroying planes on their landing approach



You do realize that the Mossie could not fly 400 mph when it was carrying 4000lb of bombs right?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

Hi guys

This is an impressive thread. I would just say that to me, the best single volume account of Night Fighting is "Night Fighters-A development Combat History", Bill Gunston , Stevenage printing 1976.

If this publication is anything to go by, speed, and manouverability were not as important as detection. The allies had a massive advantage in their Mk Vii and SCR-720 sets. But in terms of passive detection, at least until July 1944, the germans had a big advantage with their passive detection systems. After July, Gunston asserts that the last of the NJG advantages were peeled away, and from that point on, the British NF escorting the bomber streams (using the term "escort" in a very loose way) had the upper hand.

Am I mistaken to trust gunston so implicitly. his argument makes sense at least. What was the true nature of night fighter development.....did the allies get the upper hand or not?????


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize that the Mossie could not fly 400 mph when it was carrying 4000lb of bombs right?



This is true, but as opposed to any other aircraft, when bombload was dropped, their speed wouldn't exceed, nor allow them the versatility as 428 squadron had to drop bombload, and instantly convert to a night fighter. Perhaps the only other plane to carry 4000 bomb-load and be able to accelarate to over 400mph, was a corsair, done once by Charles Lindberg, carrying a 2000 and 2x1000 on a special test, with modified bomb-rack built to accomidate load...I believe the heaviest payload carryied by a single engine plane...but could be mistaken...then again the range and fire-power was not equal to the mosquito ...Lindberg quote from his biography

bf109 Emil


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2008)

They could do 405mph carrying 2000lb bombs, but I don't know how fast they could go with 4000lb. 

Back to the Arado 234, I have never heard of the NF version but I would have thought that (assuming that its still a single seater) the workload would be too much over Germany. There were single seat NF's in the Pacific but in the confused airspace over Germany with all the allied counter measures to deal with I just don't see it being practical.
If it was a two seat machiine then just ignore this posting.


----------



## Hop (Apr 11, 2008)

> You do realize that the Mossie could not fly 400 mph when it was carrying 4000lb of bombs right?



According to 8 Group the Mosquito B XVI was capable of 408 mph at 28,500 ft with a 4,000 lb bomb load, and 417 mph after the bomb was dropped.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2008)

Very Impressive. I knew the Mossie was good, but not that good. How sure are you of this stat????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2008)

Hop said:


> According to 8 Group the Mosquito B XVI was capable of 408 mph at 28,500 ft with a 4,000 lb bomb load, and 417 mph after the bomb was dropped.



Yeah for very short periods of time maybe.


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2008)

The attached is a performance test on a B Mk IX giving the speed of 405mph. 
In the report it is stated that these performance figures were less than expected!!!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/lr495.pdf


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Well taking (non existing or let me rather say not extensivly developed) modells such as the 262, 219 or Arado into account, the 335 would probably have had the highest potential as a nightfighter of all the above mentioned aircraft.

Practicaly it was the Ju 88 IMHO. However I would tend to support the idea that the Luftwaffe pilots would have optioned for a Mossie if they would have been given a choice. 

If this applies the best nightfighter would be a Mossie and could have found a strong if not superior followup in the Do 335.

Regards
Kruska

View attachment 62195


----------



## Erich (Apr 30, 2008)

the way of the Me 262B-2 was at hand the Do 335 would not have been used by any NJG


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Hello Erich,

I think that by taking the hopeless situation of Nazi Germany in 45 into account, with all attention being focused on the "miracle" Wunderwaffen, there would have been no support or resources freed for "traditional" systems which might have prooven to be far more effective or would have been needed as a basic requirement/supplementary in order to ensure the effectivness of the jets. It would have taken at least another 2-4 years to develop the existing German jets into reliable cost/effecient prop-replacements.

Until then only props such as a Ta-152 or Do 335 could have stood up to the Airforces of the Allies. As such also in an undeniable/necessary role as night-fighters.

The Allies where still using props in large numbers (probably in majority)during the Korea conflict 7/8 years after ww2. Only then and in the ongoing time the props vanished, caused maybe more due to the unstoppable persued path/goal of speed rather then technical or tactical advantage that a jet in the 40's or 50's was capable of.

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62198


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2008)

Kruska said:


> The Allies where still using props in large numbers (probably in majority)during the Korea conflict 7/8 years after ww2. Only then and in the ongoing time the props vanished, caused maybe more due to the unstoppable persued path/goal of speed rather then technical or tactical advantage that a jet in the 40's or 50's was capable of.


Piston engine aircraft stayed around in the post war years for a number of reasons; They were reliable; They were better on gas; the cost of operation still favored recips; spares were plentiful; there was ample fuel for them; there were many people available to maintain them; and for naval operations they offered better acceleration than early jets, essential for balked carrier landings. Piston engine aircraft were still being designed and deployed into the mid 50 until the jet caught up with reliability and efficiency.


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Hello Flyboy,

yes I agree fully to your comment, and as such it supports my earlier expressed view, that props would have been an absolute necessity on the German side to enable the jets to perform.

So besides a planed Nightfighter version of the Ta-152, which other German prop besides a D0335 could have given that superior support in the Nightfighter role immediately?

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62202


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

> Until then only props such as a Ta-152 or Do 335 could have stood up to the Airforces of the Allies. As such also in an undeniable/necessary role as night-fighters.




That's not really correct, the Fw 190A-9, D-9, and the best models of Me 190 (G-10, K-4) were (at the ranges they operated at) a good match against most allied day fighters (mostly P-51's in a bomber intercept context context), and were better in some areas. And the 190 was as capable of being adapted to Night fighter as the Ta 152. And the Do 335 had other development problems.

The major problems with the Do 335 program was simply its own development, and not changing priorities. The Ta 152 was developing fairly rapidly, but it just started a bit late, looking at development progression there seems to be no hindrance due to priorities, in fact it, like the jets, was rushed in development which resulted in some reliability problems. (though the 152H did fairly well in its limited service)



> I think that by taking the hopeless situation of Nazi Germany in 45 into account, with all attention being focused on the "miracle" Wunderwaffen, there would have been no support or resources freed for "traditional" systems which might have prooven to be far more effective or would have been needed as a basic requirement/supplementary in order to ensure the effectivness of the jets. It would have taken at least another 2-4 years to develop the existing German jets into reliable cost/effecient prop-replacements.



While some of the development of the German super weapons obviously wasted resources, many lacked development interest early on (it wasn't till 1942 that the jet program got any real funding other than private, though there was support in '41) The offensive programs were a bit wasteful, particularly the V-2, the V-1 less so. (the V-1 being fairly cost effective, just used in a time when the focus should have been on defensive strategy)

One major advantage of jets that is not often realized is that unlike piston engine a/c running on the limited supplies of aviation gasoline, they used J2 fuel which was basically Diesel with some anti-gelling additives. This was in large supply even at the war's end, though the decimated transportation system made it difficult to get it anywhere. (the transport problem was compounded for piston engined a/c which already had a fuel shortage)


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Hello kool kitty 89,

please don't get me wrong; indeed I admire and I even fancy a/c such as the Horten, 262 or Arado, but as you already mentioned these projects were neglected for too long.

What I try to point out is (just my personal opinion) that more efforts into the ongoing development into promising props such as a Ta or 335 would have paid of far more then putting these recources into a 163 or Heinkel Salamander or endlessly upgrading props like a 109 or persuing a 410. If I take the unreliable jet engines into account (which was known already in 1942) the urge to push a new generation of props would have paid of more.

So taking a Ta152 or 335 and its performance and armament into account, why should this a/c not provide more impact as a night-fighter then a 262 with burned out engines (after 20h) clinching at 450km with maybe one turbine still running?

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62206


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

The He 162 didn't use up that many resources and was a simple effective design, a good idea id developed earlier, albeit not much good for anything but high alt day fighter. Simple and cheap to produce with good capabilities)

The Do 335 had unrelated political and situational production problems. (some due to bombings)

The 410 was a good design, but late and not what they needed, so a bit of a waste.

The continued development and production of older designs like the 109 and 190 was necessary, as the other designs weren't ready to be produced in large numbers yet. (production wasn't ready to shift, and shifting took time and would leave a gap in available a/c) This was made worse by the relatively moderate support/priority for the advanced designs prior to 1944, or the developmental problems. 


The Jet engines on a whole were not that unreliable, though the prototype 004A's with full refractory metals were not very long lived either (25 hr TBO) they were still developmental designs. The early 004B's were not very good (~10 hr TBO, ie servicing/replacing combustors and turbine) but the later 004B-4 had better performance and could meet 25 hrs between hot section change (combustor change and turbine check/change) in real world conditions. (total of 50 hr before true overhaul/rebuild) The improved 004D was similar, but with better performance and fuel economy along with the solving of the vibration problems (limiting 004B to 8,700 rpm) allowing it to run at the original 9,000 rpm with 920 kp thrust. (~1050 kp at 10,000 rpm -over-rev) Allong with improved throttle control.

The BMW 003 was better in almost all terms (construction time, life, TBO, fuel economy, thrust/weight or thrust/frontal area) with 200 hr for the annular combustor (made mostly of mild steel) and somewhat better turbine life as well) The 003A had similar specific consumption as the 004B at 1.4 lb/[lbf x hr] but the 003E improved this a bit along with capability to overrev and achieve 115% power to 920 kp for 30 sec. Flame-out and over-throttling characteristics were also better than the 004B. The 003 wasn't available in numbers prior to early 1945 however, and couldn't be restarted in flight, while the 004 could.

The throttle problems with flame-outs and (worst) burst combustors was common to allied engines as well the early Welland, Derwent, Goblin, J31, and J33 all suffering from these problems. (though since their turbines were solid and not air cooled, the turbine softening as in an overthrottled 004B -causing excess fuel flow w/out sufficient cooling air as it spooled up- would not be present)


For more on this take it to: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/mistakes-aviation-12424.html


But on the night fighter issue, I think the Ar 234 would be better than the 262, more room for equipment, belly mounted guns (no muzzle flash blinding) and better endurance, higher ceiling. Performance not as good as the 262B, but more than enough for the role. Plus the 262 was needed more as a day interceptor, while the Ar 234 was a bit underused. (good in recon, but like the 262, sometimes wasted in roles not the most urgent, tough it was a good bomber, it could have served better as a night fighter, and using any jet at low level was not good, as it ate away tons of fuel, less than 1/2 the range than at altitude)


----------



## Erich (Apr 30, 2008)

again why are you both dealing with what ifs...........

what was the best night fighter ? stay with the thread unless you want to start a what-if the Do 335 or Ar 234N was used in perscribed numbers and for comparitive purposes, etc ........

the Ar 234N was used in combat on several missions by the way


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

Ok and here's another better place for that discussion: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/players-prolonged-war-12415.html


----------



## Kruska (May 1, 2008)

Erich said:


> again why are you both dealing with what ifs...........
> 
> ```
> 
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Oh, and a little off topic again, but one of the biggest problems with the Ho IX/229 program was Gotha's discontent with the arrangement, the construction of additional prototypes and preproduction a/c lagged so much. It was relatively simple to build, and flew over 8 months before the He 162.


----------



## parsifal (May 1, 2008)

Surely at some point in this debate the term "best" has to incorporate "effect". What was the "effect" of two Me 262 NFs. I would suggest, none. By contrast, what was the effect of the Mosquito, or Ju-88. I would suggest considerable. Surely at some point you have to stop worrying about the theoretical, and start worrying about the practical.

I have to say that in this whole argument, I have not seen anyone trying to rate the relative impotance of each aspect of an NF. Was manoueverability as important as speed. What were the important aspects of armament (weight of shell, range of the armament, configuration such as schrage musik etc), the importance of active and passive detection systems, the importance of crew protection. Only by catergorising the various elements, and then looking at its actual service career, can one begin to look at the term "best wwii night fighter" in any sort of rational or ordered way, IMHO


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Yes that same kind of issue was a majot poin on the "best BoB a/c" thread too. The Hurrican obviously had the most impact and was the most necessary. But for performance and capability (and further development) it was either the 109 or the Spit. (maybe the Ju 88 for further developent)


So for actual acheivement and overall capability it's probably down to the Ju 88 and Mossie. (both having the bonus of versitility and proven design)


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2008)

I agree completely with the shortlist, but before we can begin to give a rating, we have to work out what were the important elements to Night fighter effectiveness, and rate their relative importance in a night battle

IMO the factors affecting NF effectiveness were

1) Passive detection systems
2) Active Detection systems
3) Armament
4) Endurance 
5) Armament configuration and ammunition capacity
6) Speed
7) Mnv
8 ) Communication to Ground Control

In roughly that order. but we need to debate thisd list and get it into some sort of agreed priority before we can quantify the relative importance of each element. perhaps before that even, it might be necessary to discuss the nature of night fighrter combat, so as to understand the various techniques and organizations extraneous to the aircraft themsleves. Night Fighter combat IMO is one of the least well understood aspect of air combat of the war.....perhaps we should direct the discussion into that area first????


----------



## brickhistory (May 5, 2008)

parsifal,

If I may, I respectfully disagree with your listing of important factors (although the conversation I agree 100% with!).

Since most kills on both sides were done under the control of GCI, comm with the ground should rank at #1. No 'God's eye' radar picture and a good radio link to get the fighter into position = random chance of intercepting the enemy.

Obviously, the intruder missions of both sides didn't use GCI and your other systems were vital to that mission, but for sheer impact to night fighting, the ground radar and controller were the most important factor.


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2008)

brickhistory said:


> parsifal,
> 
> If I may, I respectfully disagree with your listing of important factors (although the conversation I agree 100% with!).
> 
> ...


Yepif you can't find him particularly with the airborne radars of the day you can't shoot him . The GCI operator was the most important item . Getting his fighter into a position whereby the aircraft equipment could take over


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

This represents a fundamental difference with the british and german systems. To a much greater extent, the British NFs were able to rely on on-board detection than that provided by GCI.

The Germans were more able to rely on ground based detection systems, because much of the fighting occurred over their own territory. Also, for most of the war, german airborne radr was only fractionally as efficient as that carried in the allied fighters. Typically, and VERY approximately, a German NF might be able to "see" with it own on-board detection systems out to a range of about 5 -r 6 miles, with a detection arc or about 30 degrees. By comparison, the British Mk VIII AI was detecting at ranges at least twice that, and an effective search arc of something like 60 degrees. The centiemtric radar fitted to the allied NFs were also later in the war abale to detect targets at altitudes below 5000 ft as well.

My contention, as a generalization, was that german AI radar did not match the quality and range of allied radars, until very late in the war, however the germans did have very high quality passive systems to assist in target acquisition. Nevertheless, the effect of windoew affected the German NF forces far more than that which affected the allies. 

I think that GCI is very important, because it places the defending fighters in the right general area, but it cannot get the fighter the visula or radar lock that it needs in order actually engage the target....so which is more important, getting to the right area, or actually achieving a target lock????


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 6, 2008)

One interesting thing for the German onboard radar is almost all had rather large exposed radar antenas, which add a bit of drage compared to radomes. (there were some experements with wooden conical dome covers for the antena on the Ju 88, but I don't think they were fielded)


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I think that GCI is very important, because it places the defending fighters in the right general area, but it cannot get the fighter the visula or radar lock that it needs in order actually engage the target....so which is more important, getting to the right area, or actually achieving a target lock????


getting the aircraft to the correct area for if the AI radar packed it in at which it often did at least you have the opportunity for a visual


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

British "escort" for their bomber streams, used the the bomber streams themselves as their "GCI". It was a favourite tactic of the mosquitos to trail a heavy, and wait for the NJG fighters to move up on the bomber, at the right moment the mossie would move in and shoot the stalking fighter down.

There is no doubt that right until the end, the NJGs extracted a fearful toll on the units of bomber command, however, from June '44 onward, my opinion is that the units of the British Night fighter force gave better than they received. The problem was that they could not dish out enough pain on the NJGs to deter them from their relentless pursuit of the bombers.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

The whole story of the electronic war is fascinating, if difficult to follow. There will be a never ending debate about if, and when any turning point occurred in the electronic war. but for me, a truly significant landmark change occurred, when the the british devised various means to pinpoint the GCI frequencies that the germans used.

This was only the beginning however, , for the RAF could undertake a lot with this informationIt opened the possibility of sending the RAFs own Night Fighters over germany. This had enormous difficulties, however, because the majority of targets to be found in the sky would of course be the friendly bombers themselves, and the risk to shooting down ones own planes seemed very high. IFF was the obvious answer , but the RAF not only wanted an IFF system, they wanted to have a system that would home in on the signatures being left all over the sky by the german NJGs. The eventual answer was provided by TRE within a week of of the new Lichtenstein falling into british hands when a Ju88 landed at Aberdeen. They devised Serrate, a small receiver tuned to 490 MHZ, and displaying any received signals on a cockpit CRT. Serrate allowed the British NFs to home in on the radar sugnatures left by the germans, and moreover gave a full 360 degree arc for detection but it was still not able to achieve a final lock, which still remained the preserve of the active radar system. However one tactic introduced after Serrate, was for the Mosquito to act as if they were a heavy, and attract a pursuing NJG to attack it. at the right moment, the Mosquito would flick turn out of the pursuing fighters radar arc, and come round astern of the German, all of a sudden the hunted became the hunter. It was all designed to instill fear and hesitation in the German Night Fighter forces. From July onward, the percentages of the bombers being shot down began to drop, so evidently these sorts of tactics began to have an effect.


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> British "escort" for their bomber streams, used the the bomber streams themselves as their "GCI". It was a favourite tactic of the mosquitos to trail a heavy, and wait for the NJG fighters to move up on the bomber, at the right moment the mossie would move in and shoot the stalking fighter down.



Never heard of that as a tactic. I know that the Mossies ere split into three main roles.

1) Patroling airbases
These were targeted at the German NF bases and there job was to ake things as difficult as possible for the Germans to operate. Some of these were not Mossie NF's but GA versions which were able to carry bombs others were NF's. It depended on what was available.

2) Patroling Beacons
The Germans used beaons as a holding area or to assist with navigation these would be targeted by Mossie NF's

3) Escort
This was the main activity. Each Mossie had a beat or patrol area to the side of the bomber stream from which it tried to intercept any German NF that tried to get into the bomber stream. There were strict rules about the patrol area and how it couldn't be left until a certain time had passed. Once that time had gone the bomber stream should have passed their position and the NF was free to operate on their own initiative. Often they would follow the stream or find an airfield to monitor.

Considering the difficulties the tactics worked pretty well. The best result was one Mossie that shot down four German NF's in one night. An achievement most British pilots considered to be unequalled by anyone.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

Glider said:


> Never heard of that as a tactic. I know that the Mossies ere split into three main roles.
> 
> 1) Patroling airbases
> These were targeted at the German NF bases and there job was to ake things as difficult as possible for the Germans to operate. Some of these were not Mossie NF's but GA versions which were able to carry bombs others were NF's. It depended on what was available.
> ...



Recomend that yoou have a read of "Night Fighter" by Bill Gunston Patrick Stephens Limited 1976. Gunston goes into great detail about the various tactics employed by the Night Fighter Force. Whilst your summary is partially correct, it is far too limited and short changes the Brit NFs by a wide margin. In September 1944 alone for example, 141 group, flying Beafighters, shot down 23 Nightfighters (this is the same unit as is mentioned in the Wiki article below), using the new serrate passive detection system. 

The best short explanation of Serrate that I could find was from wikipedia....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_The Serrate radar detector was an Allied Lichtenstein radar detection and homing device, used in Allied nightfighters to track German night fighters equipped with Lichtenstein radar during World War II.

No. 141 Squadron RAF, commanded by Wing Commander Bob" John Randall Daniel Braham and flying the Bristol Beaufighter, commenced operations over Germany in support of the Bomber Offensive from 14 June to 7 Sept 1943. 179 operational sorties yielded 14 claimed fighters shot down, for 3 losses.

The technique developed was for the RAF nightfighters to fly slowly off the bomber stream, aping the flight pattern of a heavy bomber, until the rearward facing Serrate detector picked up the emissions from a Luftwaffe night fighter approaching from behind. The Radar Operator would then pass directions to the pilot until the fighter was 6,000 feet behind, at which point the Beaufighter would execute a swift turn onto the tail of the German night fighter, pick up the enemy aircraft on his forward radar and (hopefully) shoot it down. It can be appreciated this was a highly skilled and complex manoeuvre that needed teamwork, split-second timing and a cool nerve.

Serrate was also subsequently fitted to de Havilland Mosquito nightfighters_.


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2008)

Thanks I will do that. I have Night Fighter by CF Rawnsley and Robert Wright as well as Night Flyer by Lewis Brandon.
In Night Flyer, they go into some detail about how they organised Bomber Support missions and its worth a read


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2008)

I understand the calling of claims but according to official German documentation of NF losses there were 7 losses to Fernenachtjäger and they mention Mossies only: the month of September 44, I can accept that this is incorrect and possibly should read for Beus


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

I think 141 Gp were flying Mossies by that time (so my earlier post is probably in error, my apologies). Would have to go for LW records over RAF claims. Probably you are right on thaqt basis alone.

Would like to know your opinions on the nature and effect of Night Fighter combats (NJG vs Bombers, NF vs NJG, and NJG vs NF) in the Bomber Offensive. I find it a very difficult topic to understand, let alone discuss.


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2008)

P :

why hard to understand or discuss ? you will have to be more specific to me on those........

E ~ sadly still not much written in the way of operations by both sides and how they co-incided with each other, but this will change in the fall of 08 with Dr. Boitens massive work RAF vs the Nachtjagd


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 6, 2008)

I found the thing about the wooden nose cone for the Ju 88's radar antena:



> Late 1944 the Morgenstern (Morning-star) antenna, consisting of three sets of two, 90º crossed dipole elements per set, on a central, forward projecting mast, was developed and this was small enough to be fitted into the nose (of a Ju 88 ) covered with a wooden cone.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

Hi Erich

Its difficult for me to understand, because ther is so little written material about it. Perhaps I will need to wait for this book you mention.

I was mostly intersted to hear your opinion on the main elements that makes for a good Night Fighter. Earlier I made a post that suggested a tentative shortlist for these qualities. I would be very interested to see what shortlist you would suggest...


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

I worked for ten years handing off interceptors to GCI , to get a fighter into position so he can make an attack with consideration to speed and altitude is the biggest factor. Radar was in it's infancy ground clutter , weather and the poor servicability of the radar all made the fighter cop (gci controller) the biggest key to the puzzle


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2008)

Par let me think about this for a few days - too much on my mind right now I need some clarity of thought


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

PB

Seems reasonable enough, but how can youo explain, or give proportional importance to the british NFs who were operating without the benfit of GCI whilst over Germany. Or did it? AFAIK the Brit NFs were pretty much on their own whilst over enemy territory. So perhaps it has greater importance than I have given it, but it does not apply to every situation, and perhaps therefore, should lose marks on that because it is not universally applicable???


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> PB
> 
> Seems reasonable enough, but how can youo explain, or give proportional importance to the british NFs who were operating without the benfit of GCI whilst over Germany. Or did it? AFAIK the Brit NFs were pretty much on their own whilst over enemy territory. So perhaps it has greater importance than I have given it, but it does not apply to every situation, and perhaps therefore, should lose marks on that because it is not universally applicable???


Most of the kills by Comonwealth nightfighters from what I've read is they lurked near airfields hoping to catch one but more often then not they nailed em in the circuit when the rwy lights were turned on


----------



## brickhistory (May 6, 2008)

First, let me recommend an outstanding book on the RAF night fighter/Serrate effort, besides those already mentioned in this thread.

"Pursuit Through Darkened Skies" by Micheal Allen, DFC**. He was the R/O for a very successful crew and flew Turbinlite Havocs, Beaus on both Home Defense and Intruder missions, then finished up on Mosquitos in the latter role.

He goes into great detail on the various methods of offensive ops.

However, getting back to the topic of 'best night fighter' and quantifying it, I stick to GCI and good comms being the key to effective night fighting. As the vast majority of victories on both sides at night were on the defensive end of it, GCI had the major role in that. 

I also dispute the figures given for the MK VIII - perhaps with absolutely perfect conditions, but the norm was well inside 10 miles. You have to account for atmospheric conditions of both the fighter and the target, the quality of maintenance of the airborne set, the skills of the average R/O, etc, etc. With the MK IV, the range was essentially halved and pretty much forget about low flyers (with exceptions, I'll admit).

By the way, a good controller could/can bring the fighter into a tactically advantageous intercept position. Even in WWII, those British LW sets could discriminate to within 1/2 mile thus the controller could get the fighter within 1/2 mile without the two blips on the scope merging into one blob. A big hassle, however, was the roughly 60 mile wide area a single GCI station could 'see.' Fighters had to constantly be handed off to a series of stations as a fight progressed.

GCI stations were set up on ships for various invasions, then came ashore very quickly and followed the advancing troops pretty closely to the front line so GCI was on the continent for the Allies as well as in the UK. Not to mention the Pacific.

Controlling is also an art as well as a science. A intuitive controller could get the fighter in even closer to where the fighter could make a visual. Again, perfect conditions, but it happened. 

Modern equipment is amazing and can let the controller see very close action.

PB, I too was a GCI guy, both ground and then on E-3s.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

brickhistory said:


> First, let me recommend an outstanding book on the RAF night fighter/Serrate effort, besides those already mentioned in this thread.
> 
> "Pursuit Through Darkened Skies" by Micheal Allen, DFC**. He was the R/O for a very successful crew and flew Turbinlite Havocs, Beaus on both Home Defense and Intruder missions, then finished up on Mosquitos in the latter role.
> 
> ...


I just handed them off worked tower at ADG base


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

B]*However, getting back to the topic of 'best night fighter' and quantifying it, I stick to GCI and good comms being the key to effective night fighting. As the vast majority of victories on both sides at night were on the defensive end of it, GCI had the major role in that*. [/B] 

Not sure that that is a true statement for the RAF. The german blitz ended in May 1941, with roughly 140 aerial victories to their (ie the RAFs) credit (very, very rough figures). Thereafter there were some intruder raids over england, and of course the "Baby blitz" of 1944. Notwithstanding this continued activity, I seriously doubt that the numbers of german losses over England, would exceed the numbers of german losses (due to RAF NFs) over germany. Quite the opposite actually.

*I also dispute the figures given for the MK VIII - perhaps with absolutely perfect conditions, but the norm was well inside 10 miles. You have to account for atmospheric conditions of both the fighter and the target, the quality of maintenance of the airborne set, the skills of the average R/O, etc, etc. With the MK IV, the range was essentially halved and pretty much forget about low flyers (with exceptions, I'll admit).*


Again what you are saying does not correlate to what either Gunston says, or some of the other bits and pieces that I have lying around. This is something I downloaded some months ago

_AI MK X AIRCRAFT INTERCEPTION RADAR 

The AI MK X is a modified version of the American SCR 720 Radar. It required a two man crew, the operator giving instructions to the pilot over the intercom. It was used in aircraft like the Mosquito for nightfighter operations. The system radiates 0.75 microsecond pulses in the centimetric band at 9.1 cms. The peak power being approximately 70 KW. The aerial system, housed in a Perspex dome on the nose of the aircraft, consists of a small vertical dipole at the centre of a parabolic dish, the dipole being used for both transmission and reception. 

The first British designed centimetric AI radar was the AI MK VII /MK VIII, this had a similar performance to the MK X although the scanning and display methods differ considerably. A British MK IX system was also developed that was more sophisticated, as it had ‘lock and follow’ capabilities, but problems in meeting production quantities and timescales required, prevented it from being adopted and the American MK X was used instead. 

The MK VIII scanning system was what is termed a 'spiral scan'. In this system the dish is rotated about it axis and gradually deflected sideways, tracing out a spiral in the sky, out to an angle of about 45 degrees, The deflection then returns slowly to the zero position when the process is repeated. 

In the MK X, the parabolic dish is rotated continually about its vertical axis. It is also slowly tilted up and down which effectively traces out a helix in the sky, much like looking out from the centre of a coil spring. The rear half of the scan, some 210 degrees, is blanked off, as its field of view is interrupted by the structure of the aircraft. The presentation of the information displayed to the operator is also different. In the MK VIII, a single tube with a circular display was used. The target range is measured from the centre of the tube with the target appearing as a segment of a circle, its angular position defining the azimuth and elevation and the length of the segment showing how much the target is off axis. As the target approached the axis of the aircraft, the segment gradually extended to a full circle. 

The MK X has two tubes, the left one or the ‘C’ scope displaying the target as a spot on an azimuth/ elevation grid. The right one or the‘B’ tube has again an azimuth calibration on the horizontal axis but the vertical axis shows the range of the target. A range marker line, adjustable by the operator, can be moved up and down the trace to select a particular target. The control used to adjust the marker is calibrated in range, giving a more accurate reading from that obtained from the graticule markings. Only when this marker line overlays the target does the target appear on the left hand ‘C’ tube. The amount of vertical scanning or tilt can be selected by the operator and has 5 switched ranges. The maximum scan is +40 degrees to -20 degrees down to -5 degrees to +10 degrees. A fixed -5 degrees is used when homing onto a beacon. The range can also be selected from 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles up to 100 miles for use with a homing beacon. _

I dont accept all the claims made by this guy, however, he is basically right to assert that the quality of British radar was far superiior to that of the germans. You are right to assert that in poor conditions, radar effectiveness will be downgraded, but wouldnt that also apply to the germans, who were relying on far weaker pulse signals in their AI than the centiemtric radars that made up the British inventory. 

So it is a furphy to assert a typical range for radar, but an effective range is probably not so much of a heresy. If the accepted "effective range" of german AI was say six miles, the effective range for AI mk Viii has to be rated as at least 12 miles, and probably closer to 15 miles, in a given atmospheric state. Hard to accept, but the allies were just years ahead of the germans when it came to active detection systems (well, until the very end of the war, when it didnt matter any more). 

*By the way, a good controller could/can bring the fighter into a tactically advantageous intercept position. Even in WWII, those British LW sets could discriminate to within 1/2 mile thus the controller could get the fighter within 1/2 mile without the two blips on the scope merging into one blob. A big hassle, however, was the roughly 60 mile wide area a single GCI station could 'see.' Fighters had to constantly be handed off to a series of stations as a fight progressed.*

He cant if he is being spoofed and jammed by various means, including (but not just) window. This was what was happening to the NJG units with increasing effectiveness throughout 1944

*GCI stations were set up on ships for various invasions, then came ashore very quickly and followed the advancing troops pretty closely to the front line so GCI was on the continent for the Allies as well as in the UK. Not to mention the Pacific*.


Dont have any information on this, but what you say sounds reasonable, except that the allies did not reach Germany until the end of 1944. There would be many that would argue that it was all over by that stage. Perhaps that is overdsimplyfying things, but for most of the battle for germany, Allied GCI was out of range

*Controlling is also an art as well as a science. A intuitive controller could get the fighter in even closer to where the fighter could make a visual. Again, perfect conditions, but it happened*. 

Less and less as the war progressed and the allies got the upper hand in ECM and other measures

*Modern equipment is amazing and can let the controller see very close action.

PB, I too was a GCI guy, both ground and then on E-3s.[/

I acknowlwdgww your skill, but I have a background in radar operations as well, although not airborne as such*QUOTE]


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Most of the kills by Comonwealth nightfighters from what I've read is they lurked near airfields hoping to catch one but more often then not they nailed em in the circuit when the rwy lights were turned on


PB referring to your comment about most losses to NFs occuring near german airfields, I have to disagree, at least to the extent of saying that a significant number of shoot downs occurred near the bomber streams themsleves. this is certainly asserted by Gunston. I cant emphatically say, because I dont have figures to back the statements up (which is one of the reasons I say constantly that it is a hard subject), but from the one person who was there (Gunston. he was a RAF NF pilot that post war became an aviation writer...I think he is still alive actually), the suggestion is that the majority of the action was around the bomber streams themselves.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2008)

This is the combat diary of 410 intruders its interesting reading , 418 sqn the highest scoring RCAF unit used to stalk the airfields maybe thats why they were sucessful
The History of 410 Cougar Squadron - Introduction
The History of the 418 Squadron


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2008)

Hi PB

I had a quick look at these sites, and to be honest dont see any conflict with what either of us were saying.

418 sqn flew Flower Missions whilst attached to Bomber Command which are not actually escort missions. they are intruder missions, giving the NFs much greater freedom, and not tying the unit to bomber escort. Also from August 44 on they were attached to the tactical Air force, and so passed out of the main focus of this debate. there is a twofold reason for me saying this, firstly, in tactical operations the allies flew comparatively few night bomber missions. Secondly, it appears the sqn was mostly employed in daylight ops, which is reflected in their kill stats, over 75% of their kills were in daylight

Regarding 410 squadron, the sqn does not appear to have ever been part of the bomber offensive. It too appears to have operated mostly by day, in various tactical ops 

I will stand quickly corrected if you think i have misread these unit histories


----------



## pbfoot (May 7, 2008)

Reading 410 sqn stuff I found almost all ref was to nightwork


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2008)

Having looked again, i think you are right, but do you agree that this unit was mostly employed on tactical operations, i havent studied tactical operations at night very much, but i suspect that the tactics and methods may well be quite different to those used in the strategic campaign.


----------



## brickhistory (May 7, 2008)

parsifal,

We disagree. I'm very confident in the numbers destroyed by the RAF, and later, USAAF, under the control of GCI - both over the UK and then over the continent - as compared to those achieved by offensive night fighters. Please don't take it as denigrating the work done by the latter, but the numbers simply don't match. 

Besides the relatively few destroyed by GCI-controlled night fighters during the Blitz, hundreds were shot down during the remainder of the war including ones over the continent under GCI control. Just because the coverage didn't reach into Germany (not true by the way, the long-range SCR 720B, et al, had a 100 mile or better look, depending on the location)

I'm not disputing that the Allies were more advanced and increasingly so as the war progressed as compared to the Germans (and Italians), but I am also confident in the more typical range of the MK IV and MK VIII radars.

Serrate, being a passive receiver, as you mentioned, had a far greater range. But became increasingly ineffective as well as the Luftwaffe cottoned to the fact that they were being targeted with their own emissions. It wasn't a new concept as the Luftwaffe nailed lots of Monica-equipped bombers using a similiar system.

410 RCAF was a night fighter squadron, at least according to their history and the several aircrew - pilots and R/Os I've interviewed for magazine stories.

By the way, there is no difference in 'tactical' and 'strategic' night fighter operations. They both tried to shoot down the enemy at night. A strategic result would eventually be the decimation of the Luftwaffe night fighter force - also due to a lack of fuel, safe havens, etc - but the tactical methods were the same whether flying to a Luftwaffe beacon or airfield or free-lancing along the bomber stream.

I'm done.


----------



## parsifal (May 7, 2008)

Hi BrickHistory

SCR 720B was an airborne AI radar, which was designated AI mk X in Britain. It was designed for the P-61, and was based around teechnology and research gifted to the Americans at the beginning of the war by the british. I am not aware of it being used in a ground based sense, which would be strange to me, given that were true ground based radars many times more powerful in England at that stage of the war. Moreover, the 100 mile range is indeed possible with this technology (as it was for the mk VIII, though with lesser definition), but only under ideal conditions, and only if the radar was airborne. Are you defining GCI as including airborne elements as well. Moreover, even with a 100 mile range, that is not enough to even reach holland, let alone germany, from bases in England. SCR 720/ AI mk X (the same thing) was adopted by the british in place of the AI Mk IX, which at the time showed great promise but simply was judged as too great an expenditure of resources.

The AI mk VIII was quite similar to performance to the SCR 720B but used a different type of scan method, and display. 

I cant answer what the exact numbers of fighters shot down over friendly territory versus those shot down over enemy territory are, but you will need to come up with a better proof than simply to say "hundreds" were shot down, rather than the relatively few over german technology. I dont believe there is a definitive answer as to the precise numbers of german NFs and NBs lost over either theatre. if there is, Ive never seen it. Erich is saying there is a definitive book coming out soon, which i am eagerly awaiting

Serrate was not a new concept for the germans, but it was a new concept for the Brits, and one which allowed the allied night fighters over germany to interrogate tailing aircraft, and immediately determine if that a/c was a Lichtenstein equipped unit, or not. You are absolutely right that the germans were generally more advanced in passive detection, but that is hardly the point of discussion right now. Fact is, that with Serrate and the advanced AIs allowed to penetrate german controlled skies , the Allies could at last provide some real protection for the bomber streams. I should concede at this ppoint that Mk VIII and MK X radars were prohibited from entering continental airspace until after June 1944. before that, I believe that only MK IV equipped units wer allowed over the continent, which did have much more severe range limits and poorer definition (though still far ahead of the german AI) 

Im not disputing that 410th was an NF squadron, but the posts put up by PB dont show it to be connected to Bomber Command. It seems to have spent most of the war attached to the tactical Commands. The 418th spent some time attached to Bomber Commandd, but was being used on Intruder operations. It too converted to the tactical support role, and achieved 75% of its kills in dayight, according to the posts put up by PB. 

Which brings me to your last point about "tactical" operations an d "strategic" operations. IMO there is a huge difference. The main one being that apart from the strategic campaign against Germany by the RAF, allied night bomber operations in a tactical sense were few and far between (or at least not nearly so deep in their penetrations of enemy airspace, and not nearly so organized or sustained), this meant that the quarry (the Luftwaffe) was not being attracted to a stream of aircraft several hundred miles long, blazing a trail of signature across the German sky. What this did (ie the bomber aattacks over germany), apart from getting a lot of RAF planes shot down, was to provide an inherent focussing point for both the RAF and the LW, which i doubt existed in the tactical arena. 

I am happy to bump the importance of GCI up the list, based on your arguments. however, at least some of what you are saying, regarding the use of GCI over germany is simply untrue, and the use of GCI by the germans downgraded in its effects, because of the allied jamming and spoofing efforts during the war. So i am left wondering just how much it should be bumped up. You are obviously wanting to put it above the effects of on-board radars, but I guess we will have to remain in disagreement on that, because IMO it was the onboard systems in the allied NFs that were the prime detection methods whereas you have a completely different viewpoint.


----------



## brickhistory (May 7, 2008)

Finger trouble on my part. The ground-based long range set was the SCR-270B, not the - 720 AI as you point out. The -270 was used for long-range detection

Most GCI sites used the British LW set/USAAF designator SCR-602. These feed their data back to a filter center usually located with the -270 where the plots were inscribed in grease pencil on a plexiglass plotting where a controller would allocate interceptors based on the threat(s).

The LW sites could and did employ a controller as well, but, as mentioned previously, was limited in range.

As for the rest, enjoy your research. Gunston is a great researcher and writer. There are others as well. As well as National Archives, Air Force History Offices, etc with much of the documentation necessary to buttress such claims.

Although centered on Fifth Air Force ops, the following should be helpful. The numbers in the text are for the footnotes which I did not include due to length of the post. The rest of the article will be in subsequent posts. Mods, I'll delete if it's too much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Air Force’s Army:
Signal Aircraft Warning Battalions in the Southwest Pacific

Air Force units are usually composed of the traditional flights, squadrons, groups and wings. During World War II, the US Army Air Forces also included platoons, companies and battalions. Some of the largest and most important of these “army” units were the Signal Aircraft Warning Battalions (SAW BN) which used the new technology of radar to provide early warning and air defense.
These battalions served in all theaters and developed somewhat differently depending on the tactical considerations of the specific theater. This article looks at the evolution and use of SAW units associated with the Fifth Army Air Force during World War II.

UNEASY ALLIANCE

At the onset of World War II, the Army Air Force* (AAF) was just beginning to come to grips with the concepts of radar and early warning. It also was grappling with the US Army Signal Corps for control of the equipment and personnel associated with these concepts.
It was only in 1937 that the first successful Signal Corps use of radar to detect aircraft was demonstrated at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey. 1 The Signal Corps was responsible for developing, procuring and fielding all US Army electronics. Radar was just one more developing technology under their purview.
But even in the years preceding this historic event, the AAF struggled to gain control over aviation-related communication and other electronic equipment and personnel.2 The AAF argued that only airmen could know what specific equipment was needed for aviation. Radar was just one more bone of contention between the two organizations.

However, by the outbreak of the war, the Signal Corps and the AAF had established an uneasy working arrangement. The Signal Corps would develop, procure and logistically support the technical equipment needed to conduct radar early warning. It would also train the personnel to operate the equipment and extract the information the new technology provided. 3 The AAF would simultaneously form units that could use and act on the provided tactical information.4

The Signal Corps still a part of the larger ‘ground’ Army, organized its tactical radar units into platoons – usually led by a lieutenant with 40-50 men; companies – 2-4 platoons led by a captain, and battalions – 2 – 4 companies led by a major or lieutenant colonel.5 These standard Army formations had to be integrated into the AAF organizational chart that used squadrons, groups and wings.

Initially, the AAF used fighter control squadrons (FCS), complete with pursuit pilots, to process the tactical information provided by SAW BNs to intercept unknown radar tracks. The pilot controllers would use very high frequency (VHF) radios to scramble friendly fighters and place them in the most advantageous position to identify and, if necessary, shoot down the ‘bogey.’ This technique was, and is, called ground controlled intercept (GCI).6
The fighter control squadrons were a direct result of Gen Spaatz and other American observers to the Battle of Britain during the summer of 1940. The US Army Air Force personnel saw how the Royal Air Force used pilots as controllers to successfully direct fighter squadrons to defend the British homeland against a numerically superior enemy. The lessons learned were brought back and placed into practice albeit a bit differently than the RAF model. The RAF owned all facets of the airborne radar system, from the research facilities, the radars and operating personnel, and the end-users, the interceptors. 7 The US violated the basic tenet of war fighting in that the responsibility of radar for early warning and for intercepting the enemy was split between two commands, the Signal Corps and the Air Force. Eventually, this situation would be rectified, but not until nearly the end of the war.
Unfortunately, the first example of this “marriage” was tragically unsuccessful. On December 7, 1941, a Signal Corps operator working at a remote site on Opana Point detected a large formation of aircraft approaching from the north of Oahu, Hawaii. Only recently trained in the complexities of the SCR-270B radar set, Private Joe Lockard picked up a large plot of blips. Following his instructions, he telephoned the information to the radar information center at Ft. Shafter, Honolulu.8

There, a young P-40 pilot never trained in early warning procedures or in appropriate tactical response to such warnings made the now-famous command of “Well, don’t worry about it.”9 Thus, the last chance of challenging the outcome of the attack on Pearl Harbor was lost. The first engagement of the American war did use radar but not effectively.


----------



## brickhistory (May 7, 2008)

ON THE JOB TRAINING

The Signal Corps, stretched like every other U.S. military function, expanded rapidly to meet the demands for radars and the men to operate them. A huge electronics training base was set up at Drew Field, near Tampa, Florida. Here the vast majority of radar men undertook their training in electronics, field living operations and even in some cases, basic training.10

The only operational early warning radars then in the U.S. inventory were the large, bulky SCR-268/270 long-range radars. These could provide excellent long-range coverage but as stated, were difficult to move in a hurry since they consisted of 66 tons of equipment. What was needed was a lightweight, smaller radar set that could go ashore on the first day of any offensive invasion or be situated quickly as the tactical situation dictated for a defensive campaign.

Mr. Jake Herring, a radar technician with the rank of T4 (a corporal with specialist technical training) eventually assigned to a SAW battalion in the Southwest Pacific, remembers that after his induction into the Army in September 1942, he went through six weeks of rushed basic training at Drew before beginning his radar training.

In a baritone, rich with the coastal accent of North Carolina, he recounts, “We did our basic training there at Drew Field, then I was sent to Kansas City, Missouri for a month of radio school. I was immediately sent back to Drew to begin radar training. We went through our course, learning to operate the SCR-602 mobile radar set.”11

The –602 was a US produced version of a British lightweight (LW) mobile radar set. It was designed to provide forward radar coverage for a sector, reporting its findings to a control center or filter center located further back from the front. 12The –602 had a range of up to 100 miles in optimum conditions although 60-70 miles was more common and more importantly, weighed only two tons. 13 It was used in conjunction with other LW sites and the larger and less mobile SCR-268/270 long-range radar to build a graphic representation or ‘picture’ for air battle commanders.
At the filter center, operators would track the overall picture of a developing air battle on a plexiglass plotting board and controllers would make adjustments to the number and placements of Allied fighters to deal with the approaching aircraft. Again, the concepts were based heavily upon earlier British experiences.14

Not coincidentally, the AAF developed Drew Field as a night fighter training base. Many radar warriors, both airborne and ground-based, learned and practiced their skills in mock maneuvers on the flat scrubby fields and in the dark, humid skies of central Florida. 15

Herring continues his reminisce, “After graduating from my course, we were sent out for a month-long field exercise. We set up six platoons, each with a –602 radar reporting back to the control center. Each platoon, by the way was a self-contained unit. We had two cooks, two medics, two truck drivers, and five four-man radar teams. We could load all our gear into two 2-½ ton truck s and a jeep and move out in just a few hours.

“Each team had four basic duties: one guy would work as a plotter, one as a radio operator, one as a guard – nobody was allowed into the tent if we were working, and one man as a radar operator. We would switch off duties about once an hour to keep ‘fresh’ and not miss anything on the radar scope.”16
In addition to the LW and heavy long-range radars, a Signal Aircraft Warning company and later battalion, had ground observer platoons. These were just what the name implies. The ground observer was a specially trained signalman who would go into areas where radars couldn’t be sited due to topography limitations or more commonly because the infantry was engaged in combat. Using portable VHF radios and field telephones, these soldiers would voice-tell their observations of aircraft sightings back to the filter center. Their reports were incorporated into the picture to fill out any gaps in radar coverage. 17
As experience with using the electronic realm to guide missions increased, the ground observers were also used later in the war to direct radar-guided ground attack aircraft. A strike squadron would be vectored to a target area by a controller using radar; once over the area, the ground observers would call in corrections for subsequent bomb drops.18

With all these personnel needed to meet the Signal Corps mission requirements of operating radar equipment and detecting aircraft, a SAW battalion could easily number more than a thousand officers and men all designed to get the information to the controller assigned to the fighter control squadron.19
Much smaller, a fighter control squadron (FCS) consisted of fighter pilots and enlisted radio operators initially. Later in the war, specialist officer radar controllers replaced some of the pilots guiding aircraft. In addition, the missions controlled via radar increased from strictly vectoring fighters into intercept position to controlling bombing strikes, providing navigational vectors to lost aircraft, controlling air-sea rescue missions, and weather reporting and warning among others.20

By the time Herring reported for duty at Drew Field, the Signal Corps and AAF had reached a more reasonable accommodation. In September 1942, the two organizations agreed to put the Signal Aircraft Warning units under Air Force operational control. While the Signal Corps continued as the supplier of equipment and troops to operate it, the SAW units would work under the operational orders of the Air Force.
This arrangement continued throughout the war.21


----------



## brickhistory (May 7, 2008)

FIFTH AIR FORCE EXPERIENCES

On December 9, 1941, the 8th Fighter Control Squadron was activated at Mitchell Field, New York. It was immediately assigned for deployment to the Pacific. By June 1942, it was based at Milne Bay, New Guinea as part of Fifth Air Force’s V Fighter Command. 22

In the shoe-string days of the early Southwest Pacific campaigns, the 8th FCS used a hodge-podge of Australian and US radar equipment and an equally assorted collection of fighter aircraft to defend the hard-pressed troops of the New Guinea fighting. 23
The SAW units supporting the 8th were likewise challenged to support the air defense requirements of the theater. Trained personnel and replacement parts for existing radar sets were in extremely short supply and used a mix of US and Australian parts and troops to function.24

By November 1943, however, the Allied forces in the area were strong enough to press ahead with operations to drive the Japanese from outside the New Guinea archipelago. Based at Finchaven, the SAW BNs and 8th FCS first went on the offensive in support of the invasion of New Britain. By isolating or destroying the major Japanese port at Rabaul on that island, the Allies could continue to drive north, eventually towards the Philippines. Reaching that ultimate goal would be difficult however.

Finchhaven, New Guinea became “radar central” for the Southwest Pacific. New personnel destined for existing battalions and newly assigned battalions arrived at the jungle town to be incorporated into the theater.25

When not assigned to a combat operation, the radar men would conduct training. In addition to the technical practice needed to correctly interpret the data on a radar scope, the troops had to practice setting up and breaking down their sites. Units would spend a planned week out in the field, having simulated a combat assault. Then they would emplace their equipment, calibrating the radar for true north, making sure the equipment stayed dry in the unrelenting humidity of the jungle, and always, always seeking the best and highest place to site the antenna.26

The reason for the quest for height is due to line of sight consideration. If an SCR-602 was situated on a flat plain, an aircraft approaching at 1,000 feet wouldn’t be detected until it was within 15 miles. Put the radar on a 400 ft hill and detection range jumped to 50 miles. Higher flying aircraft could be detected at even longer ranges.27

Another consideration for radar placement is the need to avoid close by obstructions like buildings or trees. These obstructions would reflect the electromagnetic energy emitted from the transmitter and reflect it back in massive doses causing “clutter” on the radar scope. Clutter is simply an area on the scope that can’t be used for detecting aircraft because of the high level of background reflections.28

Not infrequently, these week-long jaunts went longer. The torrential thunderstorms so common to the area could and did change a rough dirt road into a raging stream. Many times the troops were cut off and had to be resupplied with C-rations and fuel from air drops until the remote jungle track dried out enough to support truck movement.29

For the first campaign not conducted on New Guinea, the SAW BNs went in with the infantry. On D+1 for the invasion of New Britain, the first LW radar platoon went ashore. Assisting the 1st Marine Division, and under fire from the Japanese, the radar proved its worth by picking up Japanese aircraft sortieing from Rabaul. With the 10 minutes or so of advanced warning thus provided, the Allies were able to gain air superiority over the battlefield in a relatively short time period.30

Jake Herring relates his experience from this invasion, “We set up our radar on a small island just off the main invasion beach called Duke Island. One day a ‘Betty’ bomber came over at tree-top level surprising everybody. He sprayed everything in sight with machine gun fire and dropped a bomb on a barge anchored out in the bay. He zoomed off without being shot at.

“That night we had a Major King, one of the better officers we had as far as I was concerned, killed by a Japanese infiltrator. We found the major’s body the next morning with his head severed by a bayonet or a machete.” 31
Herring remained on New Britain until April 1944. 32

By the time of the next planned Allied advance to the island of Biak, the integration of Signal Corps SAW BNs and Air Force FCS was nearly seamless. Indeed, retired Chief Master Sergeant Joe Newman was a Signal Corps radio maintenance man assigned to the 8th FCS and for his entire time in the Pacific was under the administrative and operational control of that Air Force squadron. Even though he wore the distinctive Signal Corps emblem on his garrison hat and the aiguillette on his seldom-worn Class A’s, he worked daily in the FCS filter center. At the end of the war, he actually found out he had been transferred to the Army Air Force but never informed. (The Chief went on to have a 30-year USAF career.)33

In April 1944, after a refitting period back at Finchaven, the Herring’s 596th SAW Battalion sailed aboard an LST (landing ship tank) to support the invasion of Biak. Landing at the neighboring islet of Los Negros, Herring’s unit ran ashore under Japanese fire. 34

As the battle progressed, the US troops were on the south side of an east-west oriented Japanese runway just up from the beach and the defending troops were on the north side of the runway. So close were the opposing forces that Herring recalls that the radar couldn’t operate at night because the little two cylinder gasoline generator that powered the radar gave off a blue exhaust flame at night. Like a magnet for rifle fire, the blue flickering drew danger onto the radar site. So at night the radar men shut down operations and manned defensive fighting positions.35

One of the advantages of the self-contained aspect of the LW units was the ability to conduct air intercept operations on its own. In the perfect world, as mentioned previously, the LW sites reported back to a master filter center. However when the radar units were first establishing themselves in a new area each site could work intercepts in its own smaller areas. A controller would be attached to the LW platoon and run fighters onto targets within the limited coverage of the LWs. Not nearly as efficient as the fully integrated LW and heavy SCR-271 designed operations, it was nevertheless better than nothing.36
As the war progressed, the pace of island recapturing increased. In July 1944, Noumfour Island in the Dutch East Indies was slated for seizure from the Japanese.

Herring’s battalion went in with the Army’s 503d Parachute Regiment.

It was during this operation that Herring first saw the fruit of his labors. A plot was picked up on the SCR-602 radar and the Air Force controller attached to the LW platoon vectored a P-61 nightfighter on the track. Continuing the intercept, the controller guided the Black Widow until the radar operator on the big black-painted fighter picked up the bogey. He, in turn, provided vectors to the pilot until the pilot visually sighted the target. Confirming it was a “bandit,” actually a Japanese “Betty” twin-engined medium bomber; the pilot proceeded to torch the bomber with the P-61’s four 20mm cannons and four .50 caliber machine guns. 37

It just so happened that the intercept actually took place overhead the radar site. Herring and his fellow soldiers were able to spill out of the radar tent and watch the streaks of light racing from the fighter to the victim. Then they saw a big flash, and then many streamers of flames float down from the sky. The fighter pilot radioed, “Splash one bandit.”38

Jake Herring’s battalion, the 596th SAW, was one of only many that served in the Southwest Pacific Theater. The author found references in the U.S. National Archives at College Park of 11 separate SAW BNs during V Fighter Command operations. With an average of 1,000 officers and men in each, one can readily see that there were substantial numbers of troops involved in air warning and defense missions.

With all the Signal Corps troops involved, the actually Army Air Forces-owned personnel involved with ground control of radar and fighter aircraft was relatively few in number. For most of V Fighter Command’s operations, the 8th Fighter Control Squadron did yeoman’s work for the theater.
The 8th FCS sent detachments of enlisted aircraft plotters and rated pilots to operations and sites throughout the Southwest Pacific. Initially, the pilots learned the job under fire. They did the best they could while learning how best to employ radar in guiding interceptors onto targets. The Air Force thought that only a pilot could properly translate the obscure oscilloscope tracings into a verbal ‘picture’ that an airborne fighter could understand.39
As time progressed many combat tour-expired fighter pilots were recycled into controller positions. Even this pool of resources was not enough to meet the expanding mission demands and ‘pure’ controllers were eventually trained and sent into combat. Freshly minted 2d lieutenants would attend radar and controller school back in the States and come to New Guinea for some seasoning. These controllers went on to become the backbone of the FCS units. In March 1942, the 8th had 6 flying officers and 83 enlisted troops. 40 By February 1944, the 8th FCS had four flying officers assigned, 11 non-flying officer controllers and 231 enlisted.41


----------



## brickhistory (May 7, 2008)

Like the SAW BNs, the FCS personnel often fought under fire. In July 1942, the 8th was still based at Milne Bay, New Guinea. In August, Japanese troops landed from barges only six miles from the headquarters. The squadron endured mortar and artillery fire for several days. Due to a shortage of combat troops, the men of the 8th Fighter Control Squadron were pressed into service as infantry, bolstering an Australian infantry brigade. Several tense days in fighting positions ensued but the Japanese threat was eliminated before the airman ***-infantry had to be used.42
In a more serious example, a Sgt Brown, 8th FCS radio operator, was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor for combat action during the invasion of Biak. Coming ashore on D-Day, Sgt Brown killed several Japanese soldiers during an enemy infantry charge against the U.S forces. Sgt Brown later crawled out under intense enemy fire to rescue a wounded U.S. soldier. 43

The airmen of the 8th faced more than ground threats. A combat report dated March 4, 1944 from the commanding officer of the 8th FCS to the commanding general, Fifth Air Force, described a Japanese bombing attack on Gusap, New Guinea and results:

1. Weather: 4/10s cloud cover, vis 8 miles, cloud base 3,000
2. First radar contact: 1230L, last contact 1340L
3. 16 a/c scrambled, 42 a/c returning from mission
4. 4 ‘Tonys’ sighted, 3 destroyed, 0 friendly aircraft missing *
5. Several H/E bombs dropped; 2 A-20s damaged, 3 A-20s slightly damaged
No warnings given – enemy a/c came in low and timing of returning mission covered plot board with tracks.44

* ‘Tony’ was the Allied code name for the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force’s Ki-63single engine fighter/bomber

Finally, the 8th’s combat reports also include a Bronze Star citation for a Capt Lloyd Brooks who served as a ground control intercept officer aboard a US Navy destroyer supporting the December, 1944 invasion of Ormoc bay, the Phillipines. Capt Brooks was directing a flight of fighters to intercept a group of enemy tracks. Despite the picture-perfect intercept, one of the attackers broke through and performed a kamikaze attack on the destroyer. Capt Brooks continued controlling until the ship lost power and eventually sank.45

These examples are but dramatic interludes in the work-a-day business of providing early warning and ground controlled intercept of enemy aircraft. The 8th FCS, and later squadrons like the 1st, 35th, 49th and 56th, working with the Signal Aircraft Warning battalions expanded the roles that radar could play. By war’s end, GCI had expanded to include both the SAW BNs and the FCS to become Fifth Air Force’s primary means of command and control (C2) for tactical operations. Indeed, V Fighter Command had been designated primary agency for all matters concerning air warning and defense. As such, V Fighter was the sole source for using SAW BNs and FCS.46

The Allied advance into the Philippines was perhaps the culmination of the progress made in combining the SAW BNs and the FCS into a smoothly running air warning and effective air defense machine. Many radar sites spread throughout the islands as the campaign progressed covered virtually every square mile of territory. Radar supplies and replacements shipped from Signal Corps depots from the ZI (Zone of the Interior) arrived into Air Force supply dumps and were distributed as Air Force assets. The signalmen of the SAW BNs drew rations and pay from the Air Force. BN commanding officers took orders directly from V Fighter Command that in turn relied on the Signal Corps officers to lend advice on how best to place and use the equipment. Ground controllers and signalmen worked side by side in operations tents and at radar scopes, directing Allied aircraft in a myriad of missions.47
This unity was a far cry from the early divided concept between the Signal Corps and the Army Air Forces. As a fitting finale, in June 1945, the Signal Aircraft Warning Battalions officially transferred from the Signal Corps to the Army Air Force. 48


----------



## mhuxt (May 10, 2008)

Edit - someone else queried this.

418 Sqn was never attached to Bomber Command, and wasn't detached to 2nd TAF until November '44.

410 Sqn was also detached to 2nd TAF, in September '44. They patrolled for LW bombers attacking allied ground troops, as opposed to LW nightfighters attacking the bomber stream.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (May 26, 2008)

hmmmm.... im sorta late on this one but i would have to go with the Mossie......4.303s and 4 20 mm cannon all crammed in the nose with good firepower and speed...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 19, 2008)

Well, here I come to ad my 3 cents to the end of the line. . . .

I'm not sure we can say which night fighter was best unless we first state what the criteria are. For instance-- an excellent plane brought in right at the end of the war, which saw a tiny bit of combat, but didn't have time to lay down a track record? Or an early NF such as the Beaufighter, which really "met the ox at the trough" so to speak, and slipped slowly into obscurity thereafter. Now, I don't know any of you on here, and I have not been privileged to access official data records, etc, nor taken the time to find out everything possible. However, Eric, I would like to ask you your opinion about the book "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green. As far as I know, the book is out of print, and I am privileged to own a copy. I don't know what to compare it to, but this is my source book for the Luftwaffe. No other book I have seen comes close to compiling a similar amount of relevant data and history on the subject in a single volume, along with photos, drawings, etc. The He 219 section in this book is about ten (big) pages long, and goes to great length to tell about the history of the type, and seems to indicate that the only two major problems with the type were bureaucracy and the deterioration of the war situation by the time it was pressed into service. Green states that it was exceptionally easy to maintain and service in field conditions, so much so that ground crews assembled six entire aircraft from spare parts and these were used operationally, though unofficially. The maneuverability of a night fighter is not very important, compared to for a day fighter, because it does not usually have to worry about mixing it up with single-engine types. Now-- imagine this, too. . . Just how fast could any of those German types have gone if it weren't for those huge aerial arrays they had to push through the air!!??

If you go based on what the plane was for the time it was introduced to night combat, I'm going to select the Beaufighter. In early 1941, it was faster than practically all the bombers Germany could muster, and there's just something about pulling the trigger for ten guns all at once. . . . and I dare you to find a sturdier nightfighter on the books. Well, the Mosquito might be as sturdy perhaps. One of the first to actually mount radar, the Beau I was a monstrous leap in the right direction, being lightyears ahead of ground-directed only fighters, or the Blenheim IF. . . . oo, enough said about the Blenheim. Bob Braham did manage to score his first night kill using a Blenheim, though, before switching to Beau's and eventually Mosquitos. I would really like to read an account of a match, day or night, between a Beaufighter squadron and a Bf 110 squadron. Comparing those two could be a forum thread in its own right. . . . 

Also, don't forget that when the Mosquito NF II went into service, its top speed was only in the realm of 355 mph, more or less, which was hardly a healthy lead over the Bf 110F and G. How quick we are to forget the beginnings of the war as we enthusiize over the final year!

And while we're mentioning random thoughts, the Ta 154, though never operational, sure looks like it packed a lot of promise.

Let us not forget the F4U and F6F nightfighters, either. To be able to fly, navigate, fight, run intercept radar, and take off and land on a carrier at night ALL BY ONE'S SELF must have taken considerable talent indeed!


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2008)

flights were taken in the Ta 154 while in NJG 3.

take greens book and use it as a door stop, it isn't even worth mentioning when it comes to NF coverage.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2008)

I haven't looked over the entire thread so not sure of prior discussions of Type 16 control (with up to 100-120 range) of fighters from Dec 1943 forward, then in July 1944 the AN/CPS Micowave Early Warning was installed and was capable on controlling up to three fighter groups out to 200 miles, then in November MEW was established at Gulpen, west of Aachen, reaching deep into Germany.

8th AF became increasingly adept, particularly from D-Day forward of picking up German Fighter concentrations and vectoring one or two groups to that area to kill something. 

November 27 was a spectacular example of coordination and a bad day for the German Controllers.. three Groups of Mustangs were escorting three more groups of Mustangs on a Fighter Bomber/Starfing Patrol. The LW thought it was a 'bomber force' and directed their fighters to the area. In all 98 awards were doled out for that day and the 352nd, 353rd and 357th were awarded 18, 18 and 30 respectively

I am not sure to what extent the 9th AF adopted the doctrine for the P-61.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2008)

9th AF had the P-61 on hand in July of 44 for the 422nd and 425th nfs. sadly it was too little. the 414th nfs was equipped later and actually a small section fought alongside with the 422nd while pursuing Lw craft over the Ardenne. It was unfortunate according to the micro-fische of both outfits that ground haze even affected the AI with funny bouncing objects off the surface, much what I have gleaned from this has never been thoroughly explained, too many times in late 1944 there is visual but especially glimpses on the radar of rocket/jets flying past at incredible speeds before the advent of Kurt Welters Me 262 Kommando


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

> I'm not disputing that the Allies were more advanced and increasingly so as the war progressed as compared to the Germans (and Italians),



??? 

You'll find it was the other way round.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 27, 2008)

The Bf-110 was a successful nightfighter.There was a plan in the works to make the Bf-110 as a nightfighter a major part of the Luftwaffe.The problem was that Adolf Hitler didn't want to believe the Allied aircraft production figures and wouldn't agree with the plan.But the Bf-110 shot down many Lancasters at night to protect German cities.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Amsel said:


> The Bf-110 was a successful nightfighter.There was a plan in the works to make the Bf-110 as a nightfighter a major part of the Luftwaffe.The problem was that Adolf Hitler didn't want to believe the Allied aircraft production figures and wouldn't agree with the plan.But the Bf-110 shot down many Lancasters at night to protect German cities.



I would take a Ju 88 over a Bf 110 any day.


----------



## collector (Aug 14, 2008)

> Carrots contain a high amount of something called beta-carotene, this is converted into Vitamin A (retinal) by our bodies. It is then converted to a molecule called retinal which essential for a protein called rhodopsin to work. Rhodopsin is found in rods in your eyes and it converts light into an electrical gradient.
> It's more a case of eating no carrots and not getting any beta-carotene causes night-blindness.



It's my first message so I apologise if it's not really about night fighters (having written a book about this matter, my personal opinions on the matter differ quite amply from the opinions of many of the excellent experts on this forum....) but as a M.D. and ophthalmologist I can confirm that, yes, carrots might help getting a better night vision and berries (blueberries, blackberries, etc), containing antocyanosides, can be even more helpful in attaining a singificantly lower sensitivity to low lights, so they were actually useful to night fighter pilots in those days. Nowadays rallye drivers simply gulp 2 or 3 tablets of concentrated antocyanosides (Tegens, etc) and it's ok. In those days, you ate berries or carrots; it's not a myth.

I must say that this is a really brilliant forum. I really wish to congratulate you all for your excellent education and for the good manners of this conversation. _Hals und Beinbruch!_

Stefano

Stefano Pasini's Homepage


----------



## HoHun (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi Stefano,

>as a M.D. and ophthalmologist I can confirm that, yes, carrots might help getting a better night vision and berries (blueberries, blackberries, etc), containing antocyanosides, can be even more helpful in attaining a singificantly lower sensitivity to low lights, so they were actually useful to night fighter pilots in those days. Nowadays rallye drivers simply gulp 2 or 3 tablets of concentrated antocyanosides (Tegens, etc) and it's ok. In those days, you ate berries or carrots; it's not a myth.

Thanks a lot, that's really a great first post here! The "carrot" story has always fascinated me, and I'm thrilled to read that it was in fact a well-thought out cover story with a proper scientific background and not just some transparent excuse to avoid breaking secrecy about radar.

Do you perhaps have a professional opinon on the effectiveness "night goggles" worn by British pilots during daytime (or under artificial light conditions) to improve their night vision? I don't know the exact method or if it was used by other air forces than the RAF as well, I only have some superficial impression from Tee Emm cartoons - which of course show PO Percival Prune bumping into hard objects while wearing these goggles on the ground!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2008)

Man so I should have eaten more carrots and berries before flying night missions! Now you tell me...


----------



## collector (Aug 16, 2008)

```
Do you perhaps have a professional opinon on the effectiveness "night goggles" worn by British pilots during daytime (or under artificial light conditions) to improve their night vision?
```

Dear HoHun, thank you for your welcome and your question. I quote from another site: 

"_During World War II, the British Royal Air Force noted reports from pilots that nighttime visual acuity was improved after consuming bilberries. Subsequent studies showed that bilberry improved nighttime visual acuity, provided quicker adjustment to darkness and faster restoration of visual acuity after exposure to glare." _This is actually true; not so true is what the same guy writes afterwards, i.e. "...._Currently, European medicine uses bilberry extracts to treat several ocular disorders such as cataracts, macular degeneration, retinitis pigmentosa, diabetic retinopathy, and night blindness_." Sadly, the anthocyanosides alone cannot cure such diseases, but they're useful, enhancing the low-light sensitivity of photoreceptors, especially rods.

Night-time goggles were red-tinted lenses used to shield the retina from too much light and thus making easier the attainment of the desirable condition of sensitivity, to low lights, currently named 'mesopic' or 'scotopic' adaptment during the last crucial hours before the mission. The red light disturbs the reaching of this condition much less than the other wavelenghts (blue, yellow, green, etc; remember thata visible light is just an electromagnetic wave), thus in dim ambient light you can see throught those red lenses well enough to read a map but still not hurting your precious adaptment to low lights. All these ideas were lost after the mass introduction of radar in every miltary aircraft, making the eyes less critical to aerial combat (if you would allow me to say so).

The 'red lens' concept still works (a red-tinted lens is good to play golf because it enhances contrast even at dusk), just try it remembering that reaching a good level of low lights sensitivity would need 30-120 minutes and a single flash-light exposure to a bright light will destroy it. Amazingly, being a retinal phenomenon, either eye can attain it indipendently from the condition of the other. So, dear Eagle, you still have something to test after all!  Thank you,

Collector


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

First I was worried and upset about the German defense budget being cut down almost to nil on night vision hardware, but know I feel even worse, I HATE CARROTS 

Regards
Kruska

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 16, 2008)

collector said:


> *macular degeneration*. Sadly, the anthocyanosides alone cannot cure such diseases



Hello Collector.

Macular Degeneration. Isn't this where betacarotene/carrots come in to play'?


----------



## collector (Aug 17, 2008)

Hello Graeme,

thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that article misses the mark, being macular degeneration (ARMD stands for 'age-related macular degeneration') a disease transmitted as a genetic-induced disruption of the central cones of the macula, and no amount of carotene can fight this process. Being now in holiday in Tyrol I don't have a full access to my reference books, but the last issue of 'Ophthalmology' reports the results of the Beaver Dam study where it is clear that the most effective amongst so-called VSs (Vitamin Supplements), MSs (Mineral Supplements) and other drugs NVNMs (Non-Vitamin, Non-Mineral) is the combination of zinc and antioxidant supplements, and this works only in 25% of cases exhamined (Klein, Knudsnon et al, Ophth. 115/7/2008 ). Carotene is, I think, far less useful, but if you like those weird orange things, eating one a day surely won't hurt. Cheers!  

Collector


----------



## Graeme (Aug 18, 2008)

Thanks for the explanation Stefano!

You could/should start an opthalmic thread!  
This isn't the place, but I'd love to discuss...


Diabetic retinopathy.
Hyperkeratosis and corneal transplant.
And High Index glass/lens.

Cheers.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 20, 2008)

.......how do we get carrots ..into a nighfighter thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> .......how do we get carrots ..into a nighfighter thread



If you had gone and read the posts, you would have answered your own question.

Why don't you try it sometime?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2008)

I dont know about the carrots argument, but i do know that maintaining your night vision is absolutley essential when at sea at night. it is a chargeable ofense to bring white light onto a bridge rigged for night vision. only IR lighting and hooded at that. It takes your eyes many minutes to adjust back to the inky night sky. IMakes me wonder what the interior lighting in the bombers and the NFs were like. Was the instrument pamnel brightly illuminated? if so it would have been a mistake, and downgraded the viusal accuity of the aircrew


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I dont know about the carrots argument, but i do know that maintaining your night vision is absolutley essential when at sea at night. it is a chargeable ofense to bring white light onto a bridge rigged for night vision. only IR lighting and hooded at that. It takes your eyes many minutes to adjust back to the inky night sky. IMakes me wonder what the interior lighting in the bombers and the NFs were like. Was the instrument pamnel brightly illuminated? if so it would have been a mistake, and downgraded the viusal accuity of the aircrew



Tell me about it. We allways used night vision goggles when flying night missions. Only red lights were allowed to be used onboard during that time (even when we flew unaided night missions without goggles).

Anyhow, I through a reporters camera out the side of my aircraft one night. I told him no flash when he took pictures. He nodded and smiled. A few minutes into the flight he took a picture with flash. Me and the rest of the crew are yelling at him and he is just nodding and apologizing. A few minutes later he took another. Whilie he as grinning I took his camera and through it out the window.


----------



## collector (Aug 21, 2008)

Hello Parsifal,

the Navy rules about night-time illumination systems have always been as tight as the Air Force's, for obvious reasons. Those hooded red/IR lamps didn't disturb low light mesopic/scototpic adaptation. 

Bombers and fighters designed for night duty during WWII and later were fitted with classic analogue dials with black background and white numbers and 'hands'. Maximum contrast, maximum readability. The light to illuminate those dials was always red red or, rarely, amber. Never green or blue, the hues that most disturb night adapatation. Exactly the same that functionalists like Porsche, Mercedes or Audi do today.

A short paper I presented a few years ago at a world ophthalmology congress in Detroit can be usefulm, if you would take the trouble to read it:

The Imperfect Speedometer

To the Crewchef: well made! That photographer was clearly an idiot.... 

Ciao

Collector


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

would'nt the flash of the guns make the pilots lose night vision. some german night fighters used 30mm cannons. 30mm= big flash.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

I think that would have been a particular problem on the Me 262, though perhaps the armament was arranged differenty on the intended nightfighter version. (that would also make mounting the radar simpler I immagine)

Does anyone have info on how the nightfighter Me 262's (the B-2a iirc) armament was to be arranged?


----------



## timshatz (Aug 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A few minutes into the flight he took a picture with flash. Me and the rest of the crew are yelling at him and he is just nodding and apologizing. A few minutes later he took another. Whilie he as grinning I took his camera and through it out the window.



I love it! Good job dude! He should've held on to that thing better. Stuff gets mighty slippery inside a helicopter at night. Especially cameras with a white flash. 

On another note about the thread, does anyone have the numbers for night fighters on the following:

1. Intercepter missions flown by type (general type)?
2. Intruder missions flown by type (again, general type such as all Me-110)?
3. Number of aircraft shot down by each type?

The question is actually pretty simple to do the ground work on. If the data for the aircraft that shot down the most opposing aircraft is available, that would be a good step. Add in the number of sortes and you have a good line on what the best night fighter would be, at least for arguement's sake.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 29, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> would'nt the flash of the guns make the pilots lose night vision. some german night fighters used 30mm cannons. 30mm= big flash.



A lot of night fighters had "flash hiders" on the muzzles of their cannons/machine guns, particularly when the guns were in front of the pilot (nose of the a/c, etc.); I don't know how effective they were, but if you look at pictures of night fighters (particularly the P-38M), you can see the flash hiders on the muzzles of the cannon/machine guns.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

I would think that the bf 110 would have the most sorties and kills becouse I think I read some were that the bf 110 made up 60% of the german night fighter force. I would think the mosquito would have the most intruder missions because they were sort of used as night escorts.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 29, 2008)

Probably close to the truth on that one Big Bird. Figure it has to be a German Aircraft with the largest number of kills simply because it was working in a target rich environment. 

Same to be said for the Mosquito. 

Wornder if those stats are available.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

Can enbody find the kill ratio of the hienkal he 219 uhu. They werent around in large enough unbers to shoot down 10,000 aircraft but I do think they had a big kill ratio.


----------



## marlin (Sep 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I used to think the P61 was the best purpose built night fighter, but it was kind of slow (by 1945 standards).
> 
> I would say the Mosquito's were better, simply cause they were faster.
> 
> Ive seen some figures for a two man P38 night fighter that was quite fast and had a radar intercept system that was quite effective.



Until he died 4 or 5 years ago I was privileged to be an assistant to Group Captain John "Catseyes" Cunningham, who was, arguably, the finest night fighter pilot of WW2 and who pioneered the use of airborne radar to intercept Luftwaffe aircraft throughout the whole of WW2. Although he was too polite to actually laugh at the P-61, he held a very poor opinion of it as a nightfighter and told of many dummy interceptions he made on them without their crews ever being aware of his presence. This does, I think, reflect somewhat on the quality of US night fighter crews as much as the aircraft itself, but, I ask you, how could an aircraft as unwieldy and as huge as a P-61 ever compare favourably with a Mosquito or an UHU ? It just couldn't and it didn't !


----------



## marlin (Sep 16, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> A lot of night fighters had "flash hiders" on the muzzles of their cannons/machine guns, particularly when the guns were in front of the pilot (nose of the a/c, etc.); I don't know how effective they were, but if you look at pictures of night fighters (particularly the P-38M), you can see the flash hiders on the muzzles of the cannon/machine guns.



The Mosquito, being a tail dragger, had it's guns well tucked away under the nose and out of pilots eyeline.


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2008)

a couple of things the P-38M never flew in action during Ww 2. The P-61 was better at the pffensive night ground attack role. the Uhu was even too big, the Mossie could outdo them both. Considering the fact that the 61 was really all the US nf crews had and that their detection of LW a/c was not good at night I would say they did a fair job


----------



## HoHun (Sep 16, 2008)

Hi Marlin,

>how could an aircraft as unwieldy and as huge as a P-61 ever compare favourably with a Mosquito or an UHU ? 

Hm, it might not have been the best performance-wise, but it probably was the most manoeuvrable of the trio, and had the best single-engine handling characteristics. The Heinkel He 219 was medium ground in both respects, and the Mosquito had the best performance, but the poorest single-engine characteristics. 

I'm relying on the P-61 manual (posted by Micdrow in the Technical Section), Eric Brown's description of the He 219 (in Wings of the Luftwaffe), and the data in the Mosquito Pilot's Notes (probably also found in the Technical Section here) for this comparison. I think I have posted more detail on this somehwere on this forum ... hm, not exactly what I thought I'd find, but here it is anyway:

----
Single-engine handling.

The Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito indicate that loaded to 17000 lbs, the single-engine safety speed was 178 mph (though it will climb on one engine at 155 - 161 mph if clean). Going around in a Mosquito on one engine is not possible with flaps set to more than 15°.

The F7F-3N for comparison had a stall speed "without fuel" of 86 mph - just to give a point of reference for the desired landing speed, which would be somewhat above the stall speed. (In carrier operations, probably by less than the 30% commonly used for land-based aircraft.)

The Me 110 according to a brief British manual for the type had a normal approach speed of 160 km/h (99 mph), so if the convention of approach speed being 30% higher than stall speed is followed, its stall speed probably was roughly 76 mph. Single-engined, it couldn't use full flaps and full power at the same time, but said brief manual points out that 25 degrees flaps were recommended, and though it's not explicitely stated, this invites the conclusion that it could use a good amount of power on the remaining engine in that configuration ... perhaps enough for a go-around.

The question of single-engined handling was important because as a rule of thumb, a twin-engined aircraft suffers an engine failure twice as frequently as a single-engined one. If you can't land a type on a carrier reliably on a single engine, it means you're going to lose aircraft that are twice as expensive as single-engined ones at twice the rate ... just a rough approximation, but it shows the motivation to choose a single-engined design over a twin.
----

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 17, 2008)

marlin said:


> Until he died 4 or 5 years ago I was privileged to be an assistant to Group Captain John "Catseyes" Cunningham



Hi Marlin:

Is there any book you'd recommend on G/C Cunningham? IIRC, he never published an autobiography.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 17, 2008)

Erich said:


> the Uhu was even too big



if Uhu it's too big also the P-61 it's too big


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 17, 2008)

marlin said:


> The Mosquito, being a tail dragger, had it's guns well tucked away under the nose and out of pilots eyeline.



I believe the flash-hider refrence was in response to my question the Me 262's muzzel blast at night.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 17, 2008)

Erich said:


> a couple of things the P-38M never flew in action during Ww 2. The P-61 was better at the pffensive night ground attack role. the *Uhu was even too big*, the Mossie could outdo them both. Considering the fact that the 61 was really all the US nf crews had and that their detection of LW a/c was not good at night I would say they did a fair job



Wasn't the Ju 88 bigger than the He 219?


----------



## Erich (Sep 17, 2008)

thickness wise yes as it could house 4 crewmen. the Uhu was skinny in the fuselage, with cramped out quarters the wingspan was quite long/wide depending how you look at it

I still go back that the P-61 was used for a good deal of the time as a ground attack unit which it was quite capable


----------



## steelDUST (Sep 21, 2008)

I say it's the Ju-88G and He-219 V-1.


----------



## brickhistory (Sep 23, 2008)

mhuxt said:


> Hi Marlin:
> 
> Is there any book you'd recommend on G/C Cunningham? IIRC, he never published an autobiography.




Answering in lieu of marlin, if I may:

Night Fighter by C.F. Rawnsley and Robert Wright. (This was the book that started my fascination with the subject of WWII night fighting.)

Rawnsley was Cunningham's RO and Wright was a night fighter staff officer at RAF HQ.

By the way, while I would pay utmost respect to Grp Capt Cunningham's opinion, I would suggest two things.

1. He's perhaps a bit biased but had earned that right.

2. What was the experience level of the US night fighter crews he 'intercepted' compared to him?

Both the Mossie and P-61 were marvelous aircraft for their day.


----------



## Soren (Sep 23, 2008)

Me-262B-1a. I do think the He-234 would've made an excellent night fighter as-well, but only two ever saw service.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 23, 2008)

Soren, you mean the Arado Ar 234, right?

That would have addressed the main disadvantage of the 262, endurance. (the only notable complaint about the 234 iirc was that the glazing tended to glare)



Erich, I never got a direct answer on this: What was the armament arrangement on the NF Me 262's?


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2008)

KK

that would be four 3cm Mk 108's. The pilot could switch two of them off he did not need them and most of the time they did not ...........


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

So the same armament as the A-1a. They were fitted with flash hiders then, right?


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

Sorry yes I meant the Ar-234. I dont know why I typed "He", probably because I saw you others write about the He-219.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

do I dare ask why the Ar 234 ? flew 1-2 anti-mossie missions and that was it. a host of different experimental variations never tested just on the drawing boards. Possibly up to 6 built for operations the unit was too few in number to even get all the jets airborne at one time. Funny 1-2 very notable NF aces of NJG 100 came on board but flew 1 mission each in the jet with no effect.

the NF variant will be covered in our book just so you are aware

v/r 

E ~


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

something to consider a few images


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

Why the Ar-234 ? Well because of its range, performance and ordenance carrying capability.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 24, 2008)

Good stuff Erich....


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

cheers D ~

Soren the problem and we cover Kurt W's thoughts as to why he choose the 262A-1a over the Ar 234 but besides the tweaking by searchlights and fire reflection into the windscreen he felt strongly opposed flying an a/c so long nosed forward for the cockpit, and firing into the rear of a BC heavy --------- BAM ----------- you can well imagine the effects of debris flying through the non protected glass front. note the operational Ar 234B's never had any covering at al but just the radar aerials protruding forward don't think the pilot felt much protected in that thing, as experimentation evolved armor plating was used for nearly 1/2 or more of the face of the AR 234, something that should of been placed in high regard when the jet was operational 

like I said we are going to be covering this little craft later


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

Excellent, looking forward to it.


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 29, 2008)

brickhistory said:


> Answering in lieu of marlin, if I may:
> 
> Night Fighter by C.F. Rawnsley and Robert Wright. (This was the book that started my fascination with the subject of WWII night fighting.)
> 
> ...





Thanks Brick.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 2, 2009)

My favorite is the Beaufighter because it worked well. Not much is said about it because it is not sexy but it was essential in the early part of the war.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2009)

I'm a big fan of the Beaufighter too. Although overshadowed by the later Mossie the Beau definitely is worthy of praise, not least for being the first proper radar equipped fighter in the world


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

This is not a subject i know a whole lot about, but i'll just toss out a vote for the P-61 for it's sheer coolness factor. 

The P-38M Night Lightning is also very high on the coolness factor.


----------



## Erich (Feb 9, 2009)

P-38M was never operational in WW 2 for your info, coolness does not have a factor for this thread


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2009)

Jesus Aged Christ.......


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 10, 2009)

Erich said:


> P-38M was never operational in WW 2 for your info, coolness does not have a factor for this thread



The P-38M _was_ operational during the last few days of the War in the PTO, but none saw combat, and it never shot anything down, either in the day or the night.


----------



## Erich (Feb 10, 2009)

ACCORDING TO THE VETERANS OF THE us nIGHT FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF WHICH i WAS A MEMBER, IT WAS NEVER OPERATIONAL ............


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

Apparently coolness does have a factor in this thread, because i cited it as my reason for mentioning the P38M. What's more, i just read an article tonight mentioning the P38M as having seen combat service (though perhaps not actual combat itself) at the tail end of WWII. There were about 80 of them produced. And yes, they were apparently operational.

Please do not attempt to dictate to the new guy. Especially when you're wrong.


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2009)

To be fair there is no reason why a 'cool' factor shouldn't have a part to play in any thread to do with personal choice.
I agree that the P38M didn't take part in any actions and even if it did, there were a number of reasons why it wouldn't be the 'best'. However does it do any harm to have a 'cool' factor?

Personally it has to be the Mossie for a number of factors including the 'cool' factor and anyone who thinks otherwise is totally uncool .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2009)

Fact: Best nightfighters were the Mossie and the Ju 88G.

They saw service in combat and did there job exceptionally well.

Fact is fact...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> Apparently coolness does have a factor in this thread, because i cited it as my reason for mentioning the P38M. What's more, i just read an article tonight mentioning the P38M as having seen combat service (though perhaps not actual combat itself) at the tail end of WWII. There were about 80 of them produced. And yes, they were apparently operational.


They were supposed to be operational with the 418th Night Fighter Squadron *and never flew a combat sortie*

The P-38Ms were eventually used at Asugi and later Okinawa with the 418th, their crews didn't arrive in the pacific until August 1945.



Valo300 said:


> Please do not attempt to dictate to the new guy. Especially when you're wrong.


Once again you're pushing my patience - another smart @ss response and you're "the former new guy."


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 10, 2009)

I'm stayin' outta this one . . . .


----------



## Erich (Feb 10, 2009)

I think you better SoD cause I am laying the hammer down on this prick, but before I do

THE P-38m WAS NOT operational............I have facts and figures and pilots of the US NF Assoc, ass wipe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2009)

"The Former New Guy"


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 10, 2009)

Erich said:


> I think you better SoD cause I am laying the hammer down on this prick, but before I do
> 
> THE P-38m WAS NOT operational............I have facts and figures and pilots of the US NF Assoc, ass wipe



"Discretion is the better part of valor."


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2009)

So sayeth the Sheppard, so sayeth the flock...


----------



## Taildragger Pilot (Feb 11, 2009)

I am not a Mosquito fan, particularly. As a kid I had an unnatural affection for the P-61. Nor am I British. But this seems like an easy call: Mosquito.

It had the best or tied (US derivatives of GB sets) with the best radar. Esp important in comparing vs GE ac as Mossie (over GE/occupied) operated with no/little/or longrange (read:weak) GCI for most of the European war. Put any of the Allied ac with a MK X against any of the GE over neutral non-GCI airspace and it would generally be a very lopsided fight.

Two man crew (required) seated side-by-side (true of only a few and very underestimated in it's importance).

Range (and lets give credit for having to haul the fuel load to take the fight TO the enemy and return..) to fly/fight in excess of the mission requirement.

4 reliable, tightly grouped, high-rate 20mm mounted low (flash) and lugging large (bombay) ammo hoppers surely was sufficient to the task and generally exceeded the various and dubious fitments experimented with elsewhere.

Speed. It is possible to quote some stat on some ac from somewhere on one special day, but the settled truth is that unless it was a jet or a late-war single seater starting from just the right position and energy-state, the Mossie was going to leave you talking to yourself..... unless it was chasing you.. Important connection to range here... Mossies in threat areas had the option (taken unless offset by a tactical consideration) to "cruise" well up in the bit. Ac do not instantly accelerate. Nor, as long as we are on speed, decelerate instantly. Which is a good place to bring up the 262. Given the need (less for the GE, true) to ID aircraft and the tremendous difficulty (applies to everyone) in estimating range at night (the danger of collision was tremendous), there is definitely such a thing as too much closing speed. Paired with this then is the benefit of being able to shed speed quickly (without maneuver if possible or risk losing contact or being detected). The Mossie had no special talent here (unless the other aircraft was much heavier) over other propeller ac, but was a real liability for 262. It's alternative was to fire from possibly too far out (alerting the target) or waiting (closing fast) until the sight picture firmed up at which time it possiblly collided or, more likely, got off a snap shot before having to turn off. From what I have read, the only real advantage of the short range but very fast 262 as a NF was that it offered great protection from the greatest (at least most feared) danger to a GE NF pilot: Mossie. Score Mossie.

Agility: Daytime Mossie vs 110 fights went mostly Mossie re agility. With that poss exception out to the way, Mossie was at least as agile as any GE twin. As to other allied... if so, they didn't demonstrate it in combat. The P-38 had similar performance numbers, but it didn't actually serve as a NF, so drop that. Please. And, just like the 262's difficulty in using big speed while on the offense, there is a limit to how much agility is useful at night. Given the difficulty in retaining a sight picture combined with the very real possibility of vertigo, then past some desired agility capability comes the likelihood that it comes at the cost of being a friendly IFR platform.

So, Mossie: you cant catch it; or you can't get away. If there were no GCI and you are a GE, you are very out radared. Unless you are in a 262 and run away...that is unless you have land soon (and you do) and Mossie follows. If you engage (still flying a 262) and he knows you are there (and he probably does, better radar), then you need to get lucky in a fast pass because Mossie is absolutely more agile than a 262 (demonstrated many times in combat by photo-recon Mossies).

Getting back to the question: Best night fighter. Just like daytime; what is the mission? Interception over home turf? Did that, though by the time Mossie was on strength, not a lot of targets over GB. Long-range night harassment of enemy airfields and night bombers in the pattern? GE did a little, but Mossie wrote the book. Pro-activly hunting enemy nightfighters, both near their airfields while actively hunting? Mossies hunted GE nightfighters over GE. GE mostly hunted bombers and hoped to survive the Mossie. Who is the better hunter? The wolf or the thing that hunts wolves? It's a generalization, but largely true regarding nf vs nf over GE. In the largest and longest protracted NF war in history, the Mosquito (excepting the odd 262 that only had the range to play defense) was at the top of the food chain. The occasion GE got a bite of one (and got credited with a double kill, the only ac GE awarded 2 for a single kill), but Mosquito ate every night.

And can we agree that it is likely the only NF that scored most of it's kills against other night FIGHTERS?

Or, work it backwards. What was the Mossie's weakness as a NF? Others lacked speed or range or radar or armament characteristics or agility or crew factors or extremely limited use or never matured. Name one and they all lacked one or several of the elements. Many exceeded the Mossie in some category, but there is always a "BUT". The Mossie is the only one without a "but." AND it did it for most of the war, in every theater, and did it in numbers. Oh, just as a kicker, being mostly plywood, off-angle to the propellers, it gave a lousy radar return. 

What is interesting is the GE view of the Mosquito in general. They hated it more than any Allied aircraft. As a type. At least by the comments of Hitler, Speer, Goering, and Galland. Until late in the war with the 262 (and even then it stood a chance if it saw the jet coming), the Mosquito was able to overfly, photograph, or harass nearly anywhere in the 3rd Reich (day or night) and unless they got very lucky, they couldn't do a damn thing about it. Hell of a thing, and on a daily basis. According to Speer, it was the possibility of driving off the Mosquito that was the winning argument in favor of pursuing the 280/262. And the GE attempt at more or less copying it (with the hugely expensive but unsuccessful Moskito(sp?) project.

Maybe I am missing it, but how is this a hard call?


P.S. This is just me spouting, but does anyone else get tired of all the "almost" GE aircraft? It's a big thing to develop an aircraft to an operational state, train ground-crew specialists, accumulate spares and repair tooling, and then run whole thing halfway across the planet. You don't do it with "maybe" aircraft. But if the war is in your backyard, what is to lose? And how much easier is it to "give her a go" hoping to chance into a home run? Getting it into combat is as easy as getting airborne.

Imagine the whole thing turned around and let the US aircraft into the war with unsorted aircraft like the GE did. So the story would be the incredible ME-29 Superfortress in 1942, the canard fighter (Ascender? Sucked but excellent candidate for "Secret weapons of the USAF" bs), the canard version of the P-80 (drawn-up in 1939, another secret weapon candidate), the P-61 in the war 2-3 years earlier, the P-80 about the same time as the 262, the Bearcat in 43, the Tigercat in early 44, Griffon-powered lightweight Mustangs, P-82. How about the FG Corsair? (On that note, the GB Corsairs flew in the ETO off carriers vs GE. Yes, it kicked ass). Suggestion for a new topic? Corsair vs P-51 over Europe. Corsair had legs....

OK, flying a Cub tomorrow if weather gets better. Need sleep.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

what a dope


----------



## Amsel (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> what a dope


He is a nice guy who obviously had some bad info. His website is interesting though. Warthog Territory - The A-10 Thunderbolt II


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Amsel said:


> He is a nice guy who obviously had some bad info. His website is interesting though. Warthog Territory - The A-10 Thunderbolt II


Him and I had a little chat and at first he came off like a condesending @sshole. I think he was coming around but flapped his yap to another mod so he got the boot. 

I don't care if you're Orville Wright - you come on here with an attitude thinking you're a know it all and cannot present your arguments with some tact, you're gone.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Him and I had a little chat and at first he came off like a condesending @sshole. I think he was coming around but flapped his yap to another mod so he got the boot.
> 
> I don't care if you're Orville Wright - you come on here with an attitude thinking you're a know it all and cannot present your arguments with some tact, you're gone.



I'll be the first to admit I don't know HALF as much as most of you "old-timers"; I am definitely interested in WWII aviation, but I don't have nearly as many resources and/or references as you guys. I try and keep my mouth shut unless I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'll be the first to admit I don't know HALF as much as most of you "old-timers"; I am definitely interested in WWII aviation, but I don't have nearly as many resources and/or references as you guys. I try and keep my mouth shut unless I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.


SoD, you've never been a problem, actually quite the opposite.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> SoD, you've never been a problem, actually quite the opposite.



Thank you for the compliment; now I'll try live up to it!


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 11, 2009)

Maaaaan.....did your head grow!


----------



## Marcel (Feb 11, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'll be the first to admit I don't know HALF as much as most of you "old-timers"; I am definitely interested in WWII aviation, but I don't have nearly as many resources and/or references as you guys. I try and keep my mouth shut unless I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.



Actually, I know more than anyone here:.......


----------



## rochie (Feb 11, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Actually, I know more than anyone here:.......



yeah but about what ?


----------



## Marcel (Feb 11, 2009)

rochie said:


> yeah but about what ?



Eh, I forgot.

You know what, I forgot more than you ever ... eh ... forgot


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2009)

Gents

I have gone into hiding the last two-three days due to being ill - meds crap again...........

hoping this makes sense , the individual said according to an article that the P-38M was operational, that was not the prob at all but what got him banned forthwith was his up your Ass comment he made to me. that showed all of 0 maturity and tact, so he fell on his face and is out of here. I would hope that most of you would be smart enough not to engage in this type of behaviour, but think first before making a written action and maybe even write a private 

right now I really don't feel like much talking further as energies are below 25 % at the moment.

Dan got your private but have not viewed your vid, will in short time when I am up to it

best to all


----------



## rochie (Feb 11, 2009)

hope you feel well soon Erich, best wishes to you


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 11, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Maaaaan.....did your head grow!



Help! I can't get through the door!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

you guys are too funny!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 11, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'll be the first to admit I don't know HALF as much as most of you "old-timers"; I am definitely interested in WWII aviation, but I don't have nearly as many resources and/or references as you guys. I try and keep my mouth shut unless I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.



There is really no problem putting something out there that you have heard or read about, but you also have to be prepared to hear that what you have been told or read is wrong. A little humble pie is a good thing. 

I had heard that the P-38 was called The Fork Tailed Devil by the Germans while working at a WWII aviation museum. Unfortunately, even museums get tied up in allied propaganda and I was corrected on the forum. No harm no foul. I had been here all of about a month at that time, and didn't cop and attitude about it. I think there was a point where Dan and I disagreed about something, and I survived that.  

Just be cool and be respectful and you'll be fine. You've been doing that SoD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 11, 2009)

Nothing will get you as far as when you show respect..... Get well soon Erich!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

It looks to me that he got the boot, not for his comment about the P-38, but simply because he told a mod, in no uncertain terms, to bugger off. That is why I thought he was a dope.

I have had one or two disagreements on this forum, with mods, but the disagreement always is subjective (relating to the material being discussed). I think because of that there has never been any suggestion of kicking me off. It is just a matter of common sense, try and treat people the way you want to be treated, and dont get into a personal slanging match. 

If that doesnt work, then so be it....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

parsifal said:


> It looks to me that he got the boot, not for his comment about the P-38, but simply because he told a mod, in no uncertain terms, to bugger off. That is why I thought he was a dope.
> 
> I have had one or two disagreements on this forum, with mods, but the disagreement always is subjective (relating to the material being discussed). I think because of that there has never been any suggestion of kicking me off. It is just a matter of common sense, try and treat people the way you want to be treated, and dont get into a personal slanging match.
> 
> If that doesnt work, then so be it....



It doesn't get simpler than that! Well said!


----------



## FlexiBull (Feb 11, 2009)

Not sure if I should post this, so apologies 

I always told my pupils at school not to rely on the Internet unless they could verify the source.

I guess the guy's attitude got him the chop, but put "p 38m" into your browser and what comes up is this

"Lockheed P-38M Lightning
Last revised June 13, 1999


_Early in 1943, at least two unidentified P-38Fs were modified in the field by the Fifth Air Force as single-seat night fighters by fitting an SCR540 radar with yagi antennae on the nose on both sides of the central nacelle, and above and below the wings. In order to make room for the radar, two of the 0.50-inch machine guns and their ammunition boxes had to be moved forward. Three P-38Js were also modified in the field as experimental night fighters.

However, these modifications were all single seaters, and it was found that the flying of the plane and the operation of the radar was too much of a job for just one person. Consequently, Lockheed attempted to adapt the P-38L as a two-seat night fighter. In 1944, Lockheed converted P-83L-5-LO Ser No 44-25237 as a two-seat night fighter, with the radar operator sitting aft of the pilot under a raised section of the canopy. The aircraft was fitted with an AN/APS-6 radar in an external radome underneath the nose, relocated radio equipment and anti-flash gun muzzles.

This modification was successful, and provided the USAAF with a night fighter having a top speed of 406 mph at 15,000 feet as compared to only 369 mph at 20,000 feet for the Northrop P-61A Black Widow. Consequently, the Army issued a contract change calling for the Lockheed Modification Center in Dallas to convert 80 additional P-38L-5-LOs into P-38M twin-seat night fighters (some sources give 75, but 80 serials are identified). They were painted glossy black overall. These were just entering service when the war ended. The P-38M saw operational service in the Pacific in the last few days of the war. It was an effective night fighter with very little performance penalty over the standard single-seat Lightning.

Flash eliminators were fitted to all guns, mainly to aid the pilot in retaining night vision when they were fired. Experiments were conducted with the object of shielding the turbosupercharger exhaust, but the entire exhaust system was so hot that it glowed at night, making the small reduction of visibility possible with the shielding of the actual efflux relatively pointless. Consequently, no modifications of the exhaust system were undertaken on "production" P-38Ms. Initial climb rate was 3075 feet per minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 8.7 minutes.

A total of 80 P-38Ls were converted to P-38M configuration. Serials of P-38Ls converted to P-38M configuration were as follows: 44-26831, 26863, 26865, 26892, 26951, 26997, 26999, 27000, 27108, 27233, 27234, 27236, 27237, 27238, 27245, 27249, 27250, 27251, 27252, 27254, 27256, 27257, 27258, 53011, 53012, 53013, 53014, 53015, 53016, 53017, 53019, 53020, 53022, 53023, 53025, 53029, 53030, 53031, 53032, 53034, 53035, 53042, 53050, 53052, 53056, 53062, 53063, 53066, 53067, 53068, 53069, 53073, 53074, 53076, 53077, 53079, 53080, 53082, 53083, 53084, 53085, 53086, 53087, 53088, 53089, 53090, 53092, 53093, 53094, 53095, 53096, 53097, 53098, 53100, 53101, 53106, 53107, 53109, 53110, 53112.

There is a P-38M on display at the Champlin Fighter Museum at Falcon Field, Mesa, Arizona. It no longer has its radome slung under the nose, but the two-seat configuration is still retained. That radar operator in the rear must have been REALLY cramped!

Sources:

1. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987

2. The P-38J-M Lockheed Lightning, Profile Publications, Le Roy Weber Profile Publications, Ltd, 1965.

3. War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.

4. Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1967.

5. The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

6. United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

7. e-Mail from Daniel Stover on P-38M counts (80 serial numbers listed) 

_

Now don't do the same to me  , I'm pointing out how bl**dy awkward the internet makes these issues and you can see where problems can start.


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2009)

don't worry I'm not going to give you a groin kick but let me point out something with your sources if I may, not one of them have anything to do with a viable US Night fighter source. I have all of that crap stored, the M was not in operations in any part of the war except in China after hostilities ended. this is fact both from official US NF unit microfishe and at least a dozen Us night fighter veterans I have interviewed over the past 20 years, I have witnessed several clear colour pics of techs hopping aboard the black thing with the blutted nose radar system. If anyone thinks anyone in the Pacific or ETo was going to tade in their vaunted P-61B's for the P-38 well think again.

hoping this settles out real soon like right now. by the way I would not use Greens warplanes as a source even if someone paid me


----------



## FlexiBull (Feb 11, 2009)

Cheers Erich ............... I understand fully, it literally was the first web page listed.

As I said to my pupils "check your sources" anyway off to bed for both of us


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

FlexiBull said:


> Not sure if I should post this, so apologies
> 
> I always told my pupils at school not to rely on the Internet unless they could verify the source.
> 
> ...



Hi Flexi -

I saw that article as well and as stated, no sources are given and I believe the author just "borrowed" that line from the half dozen other Internet sources that state the same thing. I seen an AAF document that showed the aircraft deployed and activated at first Okinawa and then over to Atsugi. Now I think we all know that Okinawa was in allied hands in August 45, but Atsugi is on the mainland - no way anyone was deploying there prior to Sept. 45.

There's additional information about the crews being delayed because of training, arriving in country in late July, early August - that too would put this to bed as well.

I'll try to hunt down this data which also shows the 418th NFS as the only unit to receive the P-38M.


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2009)

here is the story, squads A,B,C and D were in the final phase of training under the 450th AAFBU when hostilities ended, since the war ended the squads disbanded and the personell transferred to other units.
NO P-38M's saw operational service though 4 were sent to the Philippines AFTER THE END OF THE WAR. After the P-38M's were re-assembled they were given to the 418th NFS at Atsugi, Japan, the four P-38's flew surveillance and training flights in January and February 1946 under the command of Captain Gerald Bliss.
In February 1946 the 3 A/C were turned over to the 421st NFS which the project was short-lived as HQ ordered the project terminated. 1 P-38 had already cracked up earlier. the 3 A/C flew to the 45th Service Grps. field at Clark in the Philippines and on March 8, 1946 the P-38's were removed from the unit and destroyed


----------



## parsifal (Feb 11, 2009)

I accept that erich, great info as usual. Was the P-38M better than the P-61....I seriously doubt it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Great info Erich - I ought to update Wikipedia!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Erich - I ought to update Wikipedia!



Unfortunately, you'd probably have too many "experts" change it back.


----------



## brickhistory (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm late to the fray, but I just wanted to say:

"I'm Spartacus!"


Erich, hope you are better.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 17, 2009)

Taildragger Pilot said:


> I am not a Mosquito fan, particularly. As a kid I had an unnatural affection for the P-61. Nor am I British. But this seems like an easy call: Mosquito.
> 
> It had the best or tied (US derivatives of GB sets) with the best radar. Esp important in comparing vs GE ac as Mossie (over GE/occupied) operated with no/little/or longrange (read:weak) GCI for most of the European war. Put any of the Allied ac with a MK X against any of the GE over neutral non-GCI airspace and it would generally be a very lopsided fight.
> 
> ...



They are the exact reasons I think the Mossie was the best! I'm currently reading a book on nightfighter operations and it has completely opened my eyes on the subject! I have become very interested in it! 

Eric maybe you can tell me what the problems with the JU388 were? No doubt the JU-88G6 was the best NF but the JU388 was basically a refined version! Why didn't it get operational in time to make any impact?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2009)

Yeah I too would be interested in hearing about the Ju 388. I never thought it had any real problems, it just was the lack of the proper engines (Jumo 222) that would allow the aircraft to fly at 430mph.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 18, 2009)

How common were radar problems and the failing of AI sets on the German side? From the account I'm reading it seems that for the British this was an extensive problem! Many planes had to turn around due to problems!

According to my source, this was especially the case when they transitioned from Beaufighters to Mossies


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 21, 2009)

Thought I would post something I found. Erich may have a problem with "what was considered Germany' best night fighter". 

Night Fighters of World War II - Fun Facts, Questions, Answers, Information


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2009)

that's ok Marshall I forgive you .......... 

there isn't enough info from any of those posters to prove their point. 

the chap posting the He 219 needs to follow through with more research as it was not the answer to the BC Mossie, just a short stop gap till the Me 262A could get online and in numbers which it never was


----------



## Lezza (May 23, 2009)

Erich: A non-controversial question. Is your upcoming book going to be in English, and if so, what will be the title, who's publishing it and when can we expect it?


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2009)

Lezza said:


> Erich: A non-controversial question. Is your upcoming book going to be in English, and if so, what will be the title, who's publishing it and when can we expect it?




Welcome Lezza, I see that you hail from Albury....thats a relatively short step to my home, just north of Canberra


----------



## Lezza (May 24, 2009)

Hi Parsifal,
Just north of Canberra? Goulburn? Brings back memories of long hauls through the night when tripping between Albury and Sydnery in my dim, dark youth. May I ask a question? Are you an aero engine nut?
Regards, Lezza.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2009)

I live in Bungendore actually, Born in Orange, and spent some time up North and in Sydney. Spent some time in the navy, wanted to be aircrew but was rejected. 

I love aircraft, but I dont consider myself an expert on engines, or any technical aspect really. There are a lot of guys here that know 50 times more than I do. I enjoy the history of the application of airpower in the war. Successes, failures common history, and not so common as well. I love ships and aircraft, but any part of WWII has always attracted my attention .

Next time you plan to come up this way, drop me a line, perhaps we can catch up

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 20317 (Jun 16, 2009)

Best?

hmm..... im thinking the Huns had the most experience with such a thing.

Best is such a complex term, seeing a sharp focussed crew could make a killer out of a Defiant whilst a bunch of idiots would quickly die in a Ju88 with all the late war bells and whistles....

I suppose it would come down to which aircraft gave easy flight, coupled with heavy guns, married to top notch equipment, all topped off by its results.


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

If jets are excluded: The Ju-388 by a lot.


----------



## Erich (Jun 16, 2009)

sorry the Ju 388 not flown on operations


----------



## Soren (Jun 17, 2009)

I thought the few they had were flown by squadrons to test the capabilities? At any rate they stood ready.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2009)

How will testing prove that something is better operationally than aircraft that are operational?


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2009)

Adler the a/c was basically a Ju-88 on steroids, it could carry the same equipment while attaining a top speed of over 650 km/ at altitude. Plus the 13.5 km ceiling might have proven useful 

Btw, I was talking about operational testing, something which normally will give a good idea of how an a/c does in combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2009)

An aircraft on "steroids" as you call it is going to operate differently.

I am with Erich, if an aircraft was not operational it can not be considered.


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2009)

Soren the a/c was tested as a test unit by one test squadron. too many thing hampered this a/c from the start. the Ju 88G-6 was in effect the A/c of choice at the time in late 44 into 45 nothing else came close except the short term Me 262A-1a.

productivity of the G-6 as such was coming to a standstill as the plant and the extras to make this a/c whole were being bombed ruthlessly, there was not time for new experimentation anymore although the German techs and they must be given credit were still up in their sleeves trying to release new designs.

In fact if anything the G-10 with a longer fuselage would of been the carry over from the G-6 had war lingered and the persuance of different jet models trying to carve a space in the speed envelope with more streamlined designs of which I have spoken in the past of the 262 with a low down canopy and larger internal fuel cells


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2009)

Roger that Erich, many thanks for the info


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2009)

Btw Erich, I know that the Ta-154 project was cancelled because of the obvious shift towards jets being made within the LW for most future a/c. But the Ta-154 nonetheless featured some very impressive stats with a 670 km/h top speed fully equipped with radar (This was with Jumo 213A engines as I understand it, it was 632 km/h with the Jumo 211R). 

Looks were good too  :


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2009)

it was tested by NJG 3

guess there may have been reports of 1-3 kills, still not looked in a good light they trusted their G-6's and 110's.

weak bonding issues from wing to fuselage funny it was called the name of it's counterpart in the air when this thing couldn't catch a Mossie if it wanted to. Again too many stroeks agasint this A/C as well


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2009)

AFAIK the Mossie NF wasn't too fast with the antennas attached, around 630 km/h, same as the He-219.


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2009)

sadly and this was proven over and over again test results are just that test results; not of use in the combat situation, promise promise. the Mossie XXX was a performer. In actual combat instances the He 219 could not hit over 400 mph unless balls out in a dive which it did too many times. for the combat situation it is fruitless in my opinion to even quote test results that are non-combative as even being factual for A/C involved.


----------



## Hop (Jun 18, 2009)

> AFAIK the Mossie NF wasn't too fast with the antennas attached, around 630 km/h



NF 30: 397 mph, 639 km/h with 2 50 gallon drop tanks attached.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 1, 2010)

I hope I'm not repeating anything, I've read through this thread pretty good and may have some trivial information that might help. I read some aircraft project history files. I wanted to look at it as a project manager would. What was right and what was wrong. In the case of the He 219, Heinkle used engines that were adequite for the job but had planned on converting to jet engines when enough of them became available. Unfortunately for the plane, higher command decided not to support this project in favor of the Ju 88's. Another factor against this plane is that the material supply flow was widely dispersed in three locations if my information is correct. This caused some serious delays in the build of this plane. They also suffered from feature creep. Everytime someone had an idea, they tried it without going through a process control causing more delays and lots of confussion as to the definitive product. 

For the P-61, one of the reasons pilots in the Pacific theater liked the plane was because the lead test pilot for the Black Widow project flew to units in the Pacific to teach them how to fly it. There was an aritcle in the Smithsonian magazine honoring the man call the "Meistro." His actual name escapes me for the moment. It was said that he loved the P-61 so much, he later bought one for himself. In the article it states that many pilots were apprehensive about flying this plane because it was about the size of a medium bomber. They didn't believe it could maneuver like a fighter. According to the ariticle, the Meistro proved that it was very nimble and could be flown like a fighter. It was because of this he was given the Meistro monicor. I didn't find any information saying that this was done with the pilots in Europe. It is my hypothesis that this may be one reason that pilots in the Pacific did better with the plane than their counterparts in Europe.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 2, 2010)

I believe the Mosquito NF.30 was the best operational NF of the war. The qualities of the aircraft are well known, the British radar installations always seemed to be neater and less draggy than the German ones, at least until near the end of the war when radomes began to appear on LW types. I am also given to understand that the radar on the NF.30 had a range of 10 miles compared to the 4 miles of its LW rivals. That would make it decisive I would imagine.

Earlier in the thread taildragger pilot wrote a far more comprehensive and coherent explanation than mine though, which I feel got fewer replies than it merited. Maybe due to attention being diverted by the actions of another member at the time, now banned? (not criticising anyone, just an observation having read back through the thread this morning)


----------



## Marcel (Jan 2, 2010)

Could have been something...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 3, 2010)

Wow, that's something new for me


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 4, 2010)

That looks like a modified FW observation plane.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 4, 2010)

Fokker G.1?


----------



## imalko (Jan 5, 2010)

You are right Vb, its Fokker on that picture, but Fw 189 was also used as auxiliary night fighter on the Eastern front to counter Soviet night harassment aircraft.


----------



## zoomar (Apr 12, 2010)

Wow, I check into this thread and before long people are throwing things at each other over the He-219. I never expected nightfighters to be so controversial. Before reading most of the thread, my knee would have reflexively jerked toward the He-219, but now I have to think about this. Erich presents a lot of apparently solid information to give one pause...but frankly there is so much information, misinformation, and disinformation regarding the whole topic of late war Luftwaffe warplanes that I'm not sure we will ever know the straight poop abot planes like the He-219, Ju-388, Ta-154, Do-335, Me-262, etc. 

I think a lot depends on what the mission of a "nightfighter" is. I may be wrong, but I've always assumed the main purpose of a nightfighter was to intercept and destroy enemy night bombers, and only secondarily to engage other nightfighters in combat. Thus, extremely high performance is far less important than powerful armament, good endurance, and an effective radar suite. By this standard, I'd go with the entire Ju-88 nightfighter series, and maybe secondarily with the P-61. I have my questions about the P-61, however. I presume that it saw most of its service in the Pacific, where the Japanese really lacked equivalent radar equipped types. Can its success really be compared with the Bf110, Ju-88, and Mossie, etc, or is a matter of apples and oranges?


----------



## Erich (Apr 12, 2010)

zoomar if we can ever get out Kommando Welter-Mossie-jagd book completed you for one will get a much better picture of how the Me 262 did as a night fighter, as my friend and really the writer of our book is going through stomach cancer treatments it will be still be awhile to get the volumes completed.

due to the technology of text messaging and emails we have found the info hidden far away in east Germany to come to light like it has never been lost, old archiv's are coming about and new research is being found.

sure myths are still abounding for both sides of the conflict, and trying to compare which is the best is still a strong struggle. I have been studying and researching the LW night fighters for one well over 40 years and much info has changed just the last 10 years


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2010)

Great news about the newly found informations; really sorry your friend has the cancer


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Apr 27, 2010)

I found some information in regards of a flyoff between the P-61 and the Mossie. In this case, the Mosquito Mk 17. This is from a book called "Northrop P-61 Black Widow, The Complete History and Combat Record," Pg. 73. Section entitled, The P-61 Versus the Mosquito. This took place around July, 1944. There was to be a combat evaluation to determine if the P-61 should be replace with the Mosquito. This evaluation took place at the Hurn Airdrome near the Normandy beachhead. Col. Oris B. Johnson was placed in charge of the combat evaluation. This account was from Jim Postlewaite of the 422nd NFS. Upon hearing of the possible change to the Mossie, Jim relates..."We took our wings off and went into O.B. and laid them on the table and said, 'If we don't fly the '61, we all quit,' and walked out." The flyoff between the two aircraft came shortly afterward..."The Northrop technical representative took O.B.'s airplane and screwed the props down so they wouldn't fly off and put Norm Williams and Donald Doyle in as the crew. They went up and they took that Mosquito apart."
Further in the account was written, "On the 5th, the long awaited test with a Mosquito was laid on at 1600. Squadron Leader Barnwell of 125 Squadron and his R/O versus Lt. Donald J. Doyle and F/O Norman N. Williams. The P-61 more than exceeded even our wildest hopes, being faster at 5K, 10K, 15K, and 20K ft.; outturned the Mossie at every altitude and by a big margin; and far surpassed the Mossie in rate of climb. We could go faster and slower up or down. Faster than the pride of the British - a most enjoyable afternoon!"

Further on in this section was written that other flyoffs were done between the two aircraft. A Lt. Gen. Carl Spaatz was against the Widow being produced in quantity and wanted a flyoff done so it was arranged at Eglin Field Florida. At this place they said the Mossie did better. A Col. Kratz didn't agree with the Lt. Gen. so another flyoff was done. This time the P-61 did better. Another flyoff was done this time using test pilots for both planes. The result was the P-61 flying better and a requisition for more P-61's. This section finishes with this, "I'm absolutely sure to this day that the British were lying like troopers. I honestly believe the P-61 was not as fast as the Mosquito. The British needed the Mosquito because by that time it was the one airplane that could get into Berlin and back without getting shot down. I doubt very seriously that the others know better.... The P-61 was not a superior night fighter. It was not a poor night fighter; it was a good night fighter. It did not have quite enough speed." Just thought I would share this little tidbit of information with all.


----------



## Erich (Apr 27, 2010)

the accont is different depending on what source(s) you access. I have said this before the account affirms my thoughts and also with interviews from the 425th nfs vets that the US NF crews wanted "their own" aircraft not to fly an RAF one.


----------



## skeeter (Apr 27, 2010)

Here is your best night fighter or certainly one of the best. One needs to remember that this was a single seater using the AN/APS -6 radar. This is an old U.S. Navy photo and in the public domain so feel free to share. 

<IMG SRC="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/F6F-3N_NAS_Jax_1943.jpg">


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2010)

skeeter said:


> Here is your best night fighter or certainly one of the best. One needs to remember that this was a single seater using the AN/APS -6 radar. This is an old U.S. Navy photo and in the public domain so feel free to share.
> 
> <IMG SRC="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/F6F-3N_NAS_Jax_1943.jpg">



Why would you consider it better than the Mossie, Ju 88 or P-61?


----------



## skeeter (Apr 27, 2010)

For one thing, it was shipborne, and as such, very versatile. And effective in the hands of a skilled pilot. Naval pilots, as we all know, were among the best. This is not to say that land based pilots were not. But try navigating back to a a spot on the ocean in the dark and see what I mean, with or without navigational aids, then land on a carrier. I've got to run something has come up.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Apr 27, 2010)

Erich said:


> the accont is different depending on what source(s) you access. I have said this before the account affirms my thoughts and also with interviews from the 425th nfs vets that the US NF crews wanted "their own" aircraft not to fly an RAF one.



I agree with you on the different accounts. Pilots were biased then as they are now. The account I put was from interviews of those actually there. The impression I walked away with was the British didn't try to beat the P-61. They needed that plane to hit Germany and any orders by the U.S. for Mossie's would subtract planes that could have been put with their own forces. IMO I believe the British pilots may have blown the competition on purpose so that the U.S. wouldn't order Mossie's. In the end, it's just an interesting bit of information with some historical value.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Apr 27, 2010)

The F6F-3N is ok but it didn't have the ability to stay on station for great amounts of time like the Mossie, Ju 88, or the P-61. It was also only due to the fact that the radar was made smaller that it even got to be a night fighter in the later half of the war. In the beginning, AI radar had to be used on two engine planes because it was so heavy. No one is questioning the skill of Navy pilots but to run the old radars and fly the plane as a fighter was more practical with the larger planes than with the smaller ones.


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2010)

How many night kills did it achieve during WWII?


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2010)

> The fighter pilots have to rove in the area alotted to them in any way they like, and when they spot an enemy they attack and shoot him down, anything else is rubbish.


 Manfred von Richthofen


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2010)

The AFDS wanted to do a test to compare the P61 to the Mossie but it didn't take place as the aircraft supplied by the US wasn't representative of a front line aircraft. I believe that it was lighter than a front line machine missing a number of pieces of equipment amongst other changes.

The difference was such that they didn't go ahead with the test, not even accepting the P61 for an indicative comparison.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Apr 28, 2010)

What is the AFDS? The only modification I've read about so far the P-61 in these competitions was the screwing down of the propellers. As far as weight changing anything on the Black Widow, the planes that had no upper turrets were only three mph faster than the planes that had turrets and the turret assembly weighed over 1K lbs.


----------



## Knegel (Apr 30, 2010)

Hi,

i think the He219 was the best night fighter, not cause its flight performence, but cause the different radars, which indicated also enemy radar and cause it had the most devastating guns, shooting strait forward and fort/upward. A also very important thing was that the guns was placed in a position where the pilot dont saw the mussle flash and it could stay in the air for incredible long time.

Iam pretty sure, with the extreme wingload it got to be very fast in a shallow dive, although the early engines wasnt strong enough for this heavy plane.

At real night the plain flight performence is not as important as the radar and weapon technique and how the plane is flyable(easy or not).

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Erich (Apr 30, 2010)

go back to the beginning of this thread and read my reasoning behind the He 219 and see why the Ju 88G-6 was he better crate

in 1944-45 NJG 1 crews reduced the arms on the Uhu


----------



## mhuxt (May 1, 2010)

Say Erich,

Are you the "422nd NFS Historian" I see mentioned on the web from time to time?

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Erich (May 1, 2010)

what sites have you visited Mark that makes mention of me ? no not the historian knowing former vets of the squadron that would be yes .........

E ~


----------



## mhuxt (May 1, 2010)

Hiyas E,

There's a couple of references out there in the ether which refer to the P-61 in the flyoff as having been tweaked, giving the "422nd NFS historian" as a reference. 

You're the only one of those I know. 

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2010)

Night Fighter Nut said:


> What is the AFDS? The only modification I've read about so far the P-61 in these competitions was the screwing down of the propellers. As far as weight changing anything on the Black Widow, the planes that had no upper turrets were only three mph faster than the planes that had turrets and the turret assembly weighed over 1K lbs.



The ADFS stand for Air Fighting Development Squadron. They were used to develop tactics for aircraft that were joining the RAF and develop tactics against the latest enemy aircraft. This included flying enemy aircraft in simulated combat against current RAF aircraft.

The paper didn't go into detail as to what the problems were with the P61 given to them for testing but they must have been significant.


----------



## Erich (May 3, 2010)

Mark not sure who the 422nd historian is now but I interviewed him at length back in the 90's a very kind gracious man, he was a ground crew tech but in his very late 80's back then. even now do not even think the nfs widow guys even meet after they dissolved the US nf association a sad fall day some eyars ago of which I was a member........... if anything a few guys and gals meet for dinner and a drink recalling the usal missions and their buddies of course.


----------



## mhuxt (May 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> The ADFS stand for Air Fighting Development Squadron. They were used to develop tactics for aircraft that were joining the RAF and develop tactics against the latest enemy aircraft. This included flying enemy aircraft in simulated combat against current RAF aircraft.
> 
> The paper didn't go into detail as to what the problems were with the P61 given to them for testing but they must have been significant.



Not sure if this is the same report, but here's some notes I made a number of years back at the PRO, when I was Important and Travelled The World.

"AVIA 18/1110

Original reference: 2nd part of A&AEE/821

Test of P-61 at Boscombe Down 6.5.44 - 6.9.44

20 October 1944

"Interesting engineering features"
The spoilers are light and reasonably effective at all speeds from the limiting speed of 380 mph down to the stall. At speeds up to approx. 200 mph the first 30' (approx) of wheel movement from neutral in either direction with very little response. Control is therefore not good in rough air at crusing conditions due to coarseness of the movements necessary. It was felt the spoilers did not produce more response than a normal aileron, with less "feel".

3rd part of A&AEE/821 Brief Handling Trials: P61-A

Combined commentary of a number of civil and military pilots who tested the aircraft.

Bad: Cockpit layout, view, lack of harmonisation of controls, excessive changes of trim over-sensitive trimmers.
Good: Spoilers effective even when aircraft stalled, but large control movements were required, especially at slow speed. The stalling and single-engine flying qualities are notably good but the aircraft is not considered a suitable type for night-fighter duties.

Sent to the A&AEE primarily for armament tests.

Layout: Complicated and confusing. Seat too far from controls, uncomfortable due to being too far from the controls. No fore aft adjustment of the seat is possible. 
View: Fairly good
Spoilers: Gearing too low - need 160'-180' movement to get full displacement
Trimmers: Too close together
Exit: Pilot emergency exit is upward, but there are no hand-holds!
Controls: Lack of harmonisation in level flight. Elevator extremely heavy, rudders moderate, lateral control light
Rudder: At high speeds, "snaking" occurred if the rudder was displaced
Trim: One of the worst features of this aircraft was the excessive change of trim with speed, power, or position of the aircraft, flaps oil cooler flaps
Good on one engine
Stall at 80-82 mph."


----------



## mhuxt (May 3, 2010)

Erich said:


> Mark not sure who the 422nd historian is now but I interviewed him at length back in the 90's a very kind gracious man, he was a ground crew tech but in his very late 80's back then. even now do not even think the nfs widow guys even meet after they dissolved the US nf association a sad fall day some eyars ago of which I was a member........... if anything a few guys and gals meet for dinner and a drink recalling the usal missions and their buddies of course.



Hi Erich,

Yes, I can imagine the ranks are thinning. The Mosquito Aircrew Association also disbanded just after their 60th anniversary.

Time is a bastard.


----------



## RAM (May 10, 2010)

Honestly I think there's not much to debate about the best night fighter of WW2. The Mosquito has that trophy even without entering the competition.

Vote goes for it.

Mention of honor goes for the Me262B. Reason why I bring it here is because it was the fastest NF of the whole war and superior in any regard to propeller driven fighters for the night fighter role. 
Reason why it can't be winner is because it still relied on decimetric wavelenght radars, and , of course, limited serviciabily rate and suspect reliability due to the imperfect Jumo004Bs. And of course, too, because of very limited numbers in service by war's end.

all the best.


----------



## Erich (May 10, 2010)

99 % of the night flying goes to the Me 262A-1a of Kommando Welter, the B version too late to make any compromise in the air, maybe in 1944 but not in Feb-March of 45.


----------



## davebender (May 10, 2010)

> Reason why it can't be winner is because it still relied on decimetric wavelenght radars,


I'm not convinced that decimetric wavelength AI radar was a bad thing for WWII era night fighters. The external radar aerials provide a small drag penalty. But the radar set is much lighter and consumes less electrical power. At typical WWII night fighter speeds of 350 mph or less decimetric radar may actually be more efficient. 

A technical discussion of WWII era radar capability.
Axis History Forum • View topic - German vs Allied radar and electronic warfare equipment


----------



## RAM (May 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> I'm not convinced that decimetric wavelength AI radar was a bad thing for WWII era night fighters. The external radar aerials provide a small drag penalty. But the radar set is much lighter and consumes less electrical power. At typical WWII night fighter speeds of 350 mph or less decimetric radar may actually be more efficient.
> 
> A technical discussion of WWII era radar capability.
> Axis History Forum • View topic - German vs Allied radar and electronic warfare equipment




For AI purposes, centimetric was always better. Better resolutions allowed for better discrimination of contacts sooner. Drag considerations of the radar aerials was secondary on the 262: the plane was fast enough that the imposed drag penalty and associated speed loss really didn't hurt it at all (of course a whole different story was in the standard prop-driven german NFs of the time, but we're discussing the 262 here)


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2010)

Do we have historical evidence that Mosquito AI radar could discriminate between aerial targets at a further distance then Ju-88G6 AI radar when operating under similiar combat conditions?


----------



## Erich (May 11, 2010)

sorry but the drag penalty was obvious in the B of the 262 Welter had concerns about this though he never flew the two seater with any R/O he did know the handwriting was on the wall that BC heavies were the craft to shoot down not LSNF Mossies. It will be covere in my book ..........

the LW was working on the AI for summer of 45 obviously this did not happen there were at least 20 AI sets installed to operational Ju 88G-6's


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2010)

I expect so as the Me-262 had a top speed over 500 mph. The faster you go the more important streamlining becomes.

The vast majority of WWII era night fighter aircraft flew at speeds of less then 350 mph. Under those circumstances the drag from external radar antennas is offset by the radar sets being relatively lightweight and having relatively low power consumption (i.e. less engine power needed to generate electricity).


----------



## Erich (May 11, 2010)

some of the Ju 88G-6 crews in 1945 had their aerials removed as SN-2d was jammed and relied upon eyesight as well as their FuG 350 Naxos to engage BC bombers. they did double duty anyhow with night ground attacks upon Allied/Soviets advancements


----------



## Harry64 (Jun 6, 2010)

Erich said:


> It will be covere in my book ..........



Erich, when is your book about the Moskitojagd (Welter) coming out?

Think it is THE book about the ME 262 nightighter version and long awaited!!!!!!!!!!!!

best regards

Harry


----------



## skychimp (Jun 17, 2010)

Erich said:


> P-61 was too bulky and could not turn and was popped on occassion by Bf 110G-4 and 88G-6's.



I know this comment is 4 years old, but interesting nonetheless. I cannot find a record of any P-61 having been lost to an enemy fighter. Can you elaborate as to what "popped" mean? Presumably you mean the P-61 was shot down, but given that there are no documented losses to enemy fighters, perhap you mean something else?


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 19, 2010)

Beaufighters with radar were pretty wicked against bombers


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2010)

true, but by 1944 were eclipsed by Mossies. The Mossie was more manouverable and possessed a higher top speed. Its range was also superior. 

I dont know if the Beau was fitted with the AI MkIX radar either, in anything like the numbers that it was fitted to the Mosquito.

Ill bet buckets as well that its wooden construction made it a bit cheaper to build....certainly that was the case in Australia, where the savings in strategic materials made a big difference

Without any disrespect to the LW fans her, I would put the Beaufighter on about the same level as the late war Ju88 NF versions, although the passive detection systems in the Junkers (and all German NFs was superior to the allied passive detection fits.


----------



## looney (Jun 26, 2010)

Which seating arrangement was better? 

Side by side or the 1 facing forward other backward?


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 26, 2010)

looney said:


> Which seating arrangement was better?
> 
> Side by side or the 1 facing forward other backward?



I'm not sure it makes much difference, as long as the two crew can communicate effectively with each other. The only advantage to side by side is a potentially better visual field around the a/c, but that would be of relatively little assistance in a nightfighter.


----------



## Erich (Jun 26, 2010)

Par

different night techniks to consider when comparing the Beu to the Ju 88G variants. not sure if equally matched, remember the Ju 88G was a big crate the G-6 carried a crew of 4 during 45 almost as standard. would admit have stag antler type aerials outside of the nose on the G-6 hampered the overall performance of the craft. the forward four 2cm was enough to take anything down as well as be a real threat in the ground attack roles/ both night and day in 45.


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2010)

looney said:


> Which seating arrangement was better?
> 
> Side by side or the 1 facing forward other backward?



It was common for the pilot of a british NF to get the radar op to double check the target before opening fire. For that reason I would go for the ability for both to look forward. 
British NF were also equiped with Ross NV binoculars which didn't have much magnification but had better light gathering enabling them to assist with the identification of the target at night. These for obvious reasons were used by the Radar Operator


----------



## looney (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't think the Germans had that problem, any 4 engined heavy blast away.

If they came across a 2 engined 1 they would run away I reckon. Cause it either was a friendly or a Mossie.

How was the Night airwar fought? Single planes or in groups?


----------



## JP Vieira (Jul 2, 2010)

Mosquito, no doubt


----------



## zoomar (Jul 2, 2010)

I have an honest question. Many sources in the hard-copy and online literature indicate that the He-219 was the best German night fighter, and possibly the best overall in WW2. Yet a number of posters on this board state (as if it was proven fact we should all know by now) that the He-219 has been over-rated, and almost imply that there has been an orchestrated campaign by some aviation historians to do this. Upon what is this claim based? Post-war test flights by allied pilots? Newly researched primary literature or flight test results from wartime Germany? The fact that earlier historians were simply wrong or used biased/bad sources?


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2010)

please give references and dates of books if you would and in most likely circumstances the books will be quite old and the online sites will agree with this "old" info on the He 219. look through this multi-faceted thread and the re why the He 219 did not perform to expectations is simple to decipher. you must ask yourself why the famous NJG's 3 and 5 refused the Uhu instead keeping on the Ju 88G-6 and why only I./NJG 1 had the Uhu as standard equipment from 43 till wars end, a few were on Stab with NJGr 10 and in II./NJG 1 maybe 1-2 possibly and they were older A-0 units. Best LW NF ..........hardly not even equipped with a rear ward radar as standard must tell you something


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 3, 2010)

As Erich points out, it was not particularly popular, its main problem being woefully underpowered. It was an airframe in search of an engine.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 3, 2010)

Erich said:


> please give references and dates of books if you would and in most likely circumstances the books will be quite old and the online sites will agree with this "old" info on the He 219. look through this multi-faceted thread and the re why the He 219 did not perform to expectations is simple to decipher. you must ask yourself why the famous NJG's 3 and 5 refused the Uhu instead keeping on the Ju 88G-6 and why only I./NJG 1 had the Uhu as standard equipment from 43 till wars end, a few were on Stab with NJGr 10 and in II./NJG 1 maybe 1-2 possibly and they were older A-0 units. Best LW NF ..........hardly not even equipped with a rear ward radar as standard must tell you something



My sources are admittedly old (various WM Green books and some of the Squadron profiles). But in reading through this thread I have failed to see much in the way of citations from scholarly aviation histories to support the alternate view.


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2010)

well I suppose that first person interviews would be discounted in your eyes correct ? there is a small cadre of LW experten amongst us the past 25 years studying these LW NF crates, the data is well collected and even documented in mag articles and for future volumes, my info is just for that especially.

with all due respect take your Green books and toss them; might want to check in the hard back from Roland Remp via Aviatic pubs. there is also a nice little softback just published on the Uhu not sure the publishing firm sad to say but will look for it soon, as I may just spend the monies for the little thing, so far there is really none in text form covering the real interesting I./NJG 1 operations with the Uhu, but maybe within 5 years.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 6, 2010)

Erich said:


> well I suppose that first person interviews would be discounted in your eyes correct ? there is a small cadre of LW experten amongst us the past 25 years studying these LW NF crates, the data is well collected and even documented in mag articles and for future volumes, my info is just for that especially.
> 
> with all due respect take your Green books and toss them; might want to check in the hard back from Roland Remp via Aviatic pubs. there is also a nice little softback just published on the Uhu not sure the publishing firm sad to say but will look for it soon, as I may just spend the monies for the little thing, so far there is really none in text form covering the real interesting I./NJG 1 operations with the Uhu, but maybe within 5 years.



Thanks you, but I will keep the Green books. They may be old and outdated, but Green was one of the first historians of WW2 aviation that actually did research on primary German sources. I will look for the Remp book and await the time when the information you are collecting is formally published. Until then, however, I will admit that the abilities of the He-219 are open to legitimate debate.


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2010)

Greens books are mythical is cope many here can attest to that.

I am not publishing a book on the He 219 at all am going to cover the 12 Mossie victories I./NJG 1 in some for in my anti-Mossie book volume(s). Kagero is the publication that has printed out a soft bound volume on the Uhu just recently, not sure if it is a modelling book or of any historical value but in any case it is the most recent.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jul 6, 2010)

Maximowitz said:


> As Erich points out, it was not particularly popular, its main problem being woefully underpowered. It was an airframe in search of an engine.



That matches what I've read about this plane. As I understand it, Heinkel revamped the plans in hopes to make use of the jet engines. Of course those engines never materialized so they had to go with what they could get their hands on.


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2010)

actually no the problems with the engines were conclusive, the unit was over armed and NJG 1 removed two of the cannon in the belly tray by 44. one problem was no rear gun armament as well as room for a third crew member though trials were sought for place one down mid way of the fuselage. also trying to streamline the crate even more, too many variants for a limited operational run of craft., lack of parts, heinkel plant bombed, and on it goes.


----------



## looney (Jul 8, 2010)

Where those theeting problems or was it simply a bad design? And together with the politics did the UHU get enough backing?


----------



## Frantish (Oct 13, 2010)

If my target was heavies, Do 217N is my choice.

4x 20mm (plus 4x 8mm) front
4x 20mm Schräge Musik
By far the heaviest armed NF to see service.

It was not as fast as the other NF's, but going after heavies it was not a big issue.

Of course when the targets are Mossie path finders and prowling P-61's, it would be a 88G or perhaps 110 (I have doubt about the He 219 performance and capability)

Allied is most likely is Mossie. 


Oh, and with the huge formations of night time bombers, I would still pick the 217 over 88.

OH! Yes, a wildcard.
Do-335
This one COULD catch Mossies. Potential, but never used in combat.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

interesting not all N's had SM installation provided, my cousin flew one during most of his career on 4./NJG 3 as Staffelkapitän.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

Frantish, no Do 17 with DB 605s?


Kris


----------



## spicmart (Oct 13, 2010)

Looks wise, the Ta 154 for me . Also had potential.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

The Ta 154 was a horrible plane. Flew like a pig and fell apart. Don't think for a second that the bombing of that factory was the reason it never got anywhere.


Kris


----------



## zoomar (Oct 13, 2010)

Civettone said:


> The Ta 154 was a horrible plane. Flew like a pig and fell apart. Don't think for a second that the bombing of that factory was the reason it never got anywhere.
> 
> 
> Kris



What authorities support the claim that the Ta-154 was a "horrible plane" that "flew like a pig"? Everything I've read indicates that it performed well and would have been an excellent fighter if the wood construction problms could be solved.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

The best night fighter was the one with the best radar/ electonics, it was the start of a plane being part of a weapons system in a battle fought by boffins and technicians as much as pilots.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

no the best NF was the pilot and the crew flying it.

NJG3 tested the Ta 154 and the details on it's performance were quite dismal the same can be said when the I. gruppe tested the He 219 they were not interested in the Uhu and kept flying the Ju 88G-6


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

Erich said:


> no the best NF was the pilot and the crew flying it.
> 
> NJG3 tested the Ta 154 and the details on it's performance were quite dismal the same can be said when the I. gruppe tested the He 219 they were not interested in the Uhu and kept flying the Ju 88G-6



How does a pilot make a kill without radar electronics? what does the crew do apart from operating radar/electronics and communicating with the ground control using the same?


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

well lets see moon on a moonlit night. fires on the earth below sets up silhouette of bombers of NF's for that matter and in the case of the LW when radar was jammed even the versions of the FuG 220d set up you used your eyes and they were still effective


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

Erich said:


> well lets see moon on a moonlit night. fires on the earth below sets up silhouette of bombers of NF's for that matter and in the case of the LW when radar was jammed even the versions of the FuG 220d set up you used your eyes and they were still effective




Are you saying that allowing fires to be lit and waiting for moonlight is part of a fighter defence? Both ises in the night raids in Europe developed radar radar countermeasures and electronic aids to improve performance. Of course eyes are needed but you need to be close to use them.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Are you saying that allowing fires to be lit and waiting for moonlight is part of a fighter defence?


In a word, yes
I'm not sure what you mean by 'allowing fires to be lit' - the conflagration caused by the falling bombs didn't really require any form of permission from its victims.

There is nothing wrong with what you are claiming, the electronics war was on the path it was, well, on; there was no turning back but moonlight and 'back-lighting', in WWII, were accepted methods of acquisition, even late in the war.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> In a word, yes
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'allowing fires to be lit' - the conflagration caused by the falling bombs didn't really require any form of permission from its victims.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with what you are claiming, the electronics war was on the path it was, well, on; there was no turning back but moonlight and 'back-lighting', in WWII, were accepted methods of acquisition, even late in the war.



The fires caused by bombing is what the fighter is supposed to be preventing, I thought we were discussing the best night fighter not the worst case scenario where pilots reverted to methods used in WW1.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

For a large part of the time the electronics were useless because of succesful allied jamming ... only increased the value of a pair of eyes. Erich can tell you stories about NJ crews wanting an extra crew member on board just for that. 

As to the Ta 154, it was tail heavy and underpowered. The Jumo 211R never materialized as far as I know. Preserie Ta 154 existed, were tested without success. Only one pilot had anything positive to say about it. A failure ... just like the He 219.

There was only one option left: the Me 410 and I believe it is because of the two aircraft above that it never became a NF.
Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 14, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The fires caused by bombing is what the fighter is supposed to be preventing,
> 
> I thought we were discussing the best night fighter not the worst case scenario where pilots reverted to methods used in WW1.


Well
as the saying went, "the bomber will always get through"

We were and we still are, we deviated off-topic again, at your behest, to address your reservations concerning the use of moonlight and back-lighting.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Well
> as the saying went, "the bomber will always get through"
> 
> We were and we still are, we deviated off-topic again, at your behest, to address your reservations concerning the use of moonlight and back-lighting.



I dont see where I deviated off topic I stated that the best night fighter had the best radar and electronics, there are ways to overcome jamming (electronics) meaning that you dont have to resort to using eyes only. My "reservations" are that it only works in moonlight and against a burning city. I didnt state any particular marque of aircraft or any particulat force, the fighter and air force which had the upper hand changed during the conflict as the technology changed, I still stick to my original statement.

Nothing was at my "behest" I made a statement which I believe to be true others put forward other opinions which they believe to be true, that is, I believe, what forums are for.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2010)

Agree with TEC - this thread is about the best night fighter (best combination of airframe, engines(s), guns, avionics..), not about the best night fighter _crew_ (flying the plane, has learned stuff, has experience...).


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

then make the list or approve of 1-2 NF 's with reasons, lets face it sure the measure s of radar and counter measures were done from both sides but then what. but it is also about the crew what they could do with what they were given.......


----------



## spicmart (Oct 14, 2010)

Erich said:


> no the best NF was the pilot and the crew flying it.
> 
> NJG3 tested the Ta 154 and the details on it's performance were quite dismal the same can be said when the I. gruppe tested the He 219 they were not interested in the Uhu and kept flying the Ju 88G-6



Various sources mention various things about this airplane, but I (want to8)) believe the performance without weapons and antennas was actually pretty good with regards to the relatively weak Jumo 211. The plane achieved about 700 km/h AFAIK. Performance suffered a whopping loss of 10 % with equipment installed. 
I'm not sure if it was enough to counter the mosquito threat but, well, the mosquito did not have the extremely drag-inducing "Hirschgeweih" antenna of the german planes.
So as a pure fighter plane, I think it was pretty competitive, much more manoeuverable than the Me 110 (unfortunately I don't remember the source to back this up) which was of similar dimensions and weight.
The Tank planes tend to be more agile than the Messerschmitt planes of similar outline as their wings were much more rugged to provide good torsional stiffness AFAIK. 
They were more "pilot's airplanes" as Tank's philosophy was to buid pilot friendly aircraft.
The Messerschmitt designs had the reputation to be unsafe.
The version equipped with with Jumo213E would have been outstanding
But feel free to correct me.


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

essentially correct, what the LW should of done is scratch this crate and just pushed for the 262 jet for night duties expanding the too small Kommando Welter into Geschwader size.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

spicmart said:


> Various sources mention various things about this airplane, but I (want to8)) believe the performance without weapons and antennas was actually pretty good with regards to the relatively weak Jumo 211. The plane achieved about 700 km/h AFAIK. Performance suffered a whopping loss of 10 % with equipment installed.
> I'm not sure if it was enough to counter the mosquito threat but, well, the mosquito did not have the extremely drag-inducing "Hirschgeweih" antenna of the german planes.
> So as a pure fighter plane, I think it was pretty competitive, much more manoeuverable than the Me 110 (unfortunately I don't remember the source to back this up) which was of similar dimensions and weight.
> The Tank planes tend to be more agile than the Messerschmitt planes of similar outline as their wings were much more rugged to provide good torsional stiffness AFAIK.
> ...


Where to start? Achieved 700 kmh? With what engines? Night fighters don't need to be manoeuvrable, but stable. The two are opposites. Tank planes more agile? The Fw 190 wasnt more agile than the Bf 109. There is nothing else to compare. Other aircraft are not comparable. I have never heard that Tank made pilot friendly aircraft. I wouldn't even know what that means. Any aircraft would be outstanding with a Jumo 213E.

Kris


----------



## spicmart (Oct 14, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Where to start? Achieved 700 kmh? With what engines? Night fighters don't need to be manoeuvrable, but stable. The two are opposites. Tank planes more agile? The Fw 190 wasnt more agile than the Bf 109. There is nothing else to compare. Other aircraft are not comparable. I have never heard that Tank made pilot friendly aircraft. I wouldn't even know what that means. Any aircraft would be outstanding with a Jumo 213E.
> 
> Kris



With the Jumo 211 rated at 2 x 1500 PS. 
I think in the high speed realm the Fw 190 was more agile than the Bf 109. At least from all that I read before, it was more at home in aerobatics than the 109 AFAIK.
In Wolfgang Wagner's "Kurt Tank-Konstrukteur und Testpilot bei Focke Wulf" it is mentioned that Tank, he himself being a pilot, put special emphasis in the ergonomic construction of an airplane.
Well, but this book was written with Tank approval and help so it is possible that some self-adulation occurred
Messerschmitt seemed to have been more focused on performance at the expense of some comfort, ease of handling, safety, stability and ruggedness.

Sorry for this being a bit off topic.
If it goes too far, I will cease it.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 14, 2010)

Erich said:


> then make the list or approve of 1-2 NF 's with reasons, lets face it sure the measure s of radar and counter measures were done from both sides but then what. but it is also about the crew what they could do with what they were given.......



I would say on the allied side the mosquito was the best 'plane, the black widow was possibly better all round but was very late in the day.

On the German side there are more ifs and buts and maybes I would go for the Ju88 because of all round performance and crew size. I take your point about crew performance the team on the plane must work with the team on the ground especially for the German system and it takes a lot of skill, training and experience.


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

you have to take crew consideration of expertize when LW ground was jammed during 44 and into 45.

late marks Mossie and Ju 88G-6 the best, short range the jet was master well get into looking from page 1 through when time permits, my thoughts are throughout

the 109 was preferable in higher alt realms as a nf than the Fw 190A though that was considered the best weapons platform for any S/E crate.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 14, 2010)

With regard to crew training and its importance, I would say that this single factor was the single most importantfactor in the success of night fighters. 

Gunston gives a pretty detailed account about the introduction of AI radar to the RAF in 1940. These sets have often been labelled inneffective, yet these same sets did prove their wort in the latter part of the blitz, only after a lot of time was spent retraining the crews on their proper use.

The RAF learnt its lesson. Some time later they developed the much improved AI MkVIII. An integral part to its introduction was a thorough induction program for the crews, so that when the type did become operational, it was a seamless and effective changeover . RAF NF crews entusiastically and effctively embraced the introduction of the new technology

According to Gunston, the LW were not as careful in regards to crew induction of their new techs, when they began to be introduced in late '41 -42. He says there was considerable resistance , disdain and misuse of the new technology, at least to begin with, and like the RAF in 1940, it was some time before the new technology had some effect on the outcomes of battles. 

New technology, high technology, requires even higher levels of crew proficiency, not less


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2010)

I would like to second the statement about training. Even old equipment could be very effective when used properly. I found one example when three out of four Japanese bombers were shot down by one NF using old Mk IV equipment in the Far East. As ever the Far East was always last when it came to equipment.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 14, 2010)

Wouldn't the jet have been an issue though, esp with jet engines pumping out flames in the middle of the night. I would think it would be far easier to spot then a prop job with flame dampeners.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2010)

My problem with using Jets as night fighters in WW2 are around three basic issues:-

i) Range.
Range is important in a night fighter due to the long loiter times and distances involved. Its worth remembering this is one reason why the Ju88 was prefered over the Me110

ii) Reliability
The Jet just wasn't reliable enough in this period

iii) Speed
Stalking a bomber involves tracking the target at fairly slow speed, excessive speed is a significant problem, to be brief they don't need the extra speed. The Mosquito was a problem but at the end of the day it only carried a small proportion of the bombs dropped. 

The Me262 had the headline performance to handle the Mosquito threat but with the limited range you would need a lot of them and even then tactics could have been developed to keep losses within bounds. The Mossies would have had higher losses but still acceptable.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 14, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Wouldn't the jet have been an issue though, esp with jet engines pumping out flames in the middle of the night. I would think it would be far easier to spot then a prop job with flame dampeners.


The flames you see are mostly from afterburners , I've watched 1000's of jet departures and never saw a flame unless the A/B was used . However I could be very wrong


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 14, 2010)

Glider said:


> My problem with using Jets as night fighters in WW2 are around three basic issues:-
> 
> The Me262 had the headline performance to handle the Mosquito threat but with the limited range you would need a lot of them and even then tactics could have been developed to keep losses within bounds. The Mossies would have had higher losses but still acceptable.



I dont know how good the 262 was against the mosquito 

wiki says this about Kurt Welter who claimed 33
"
There remains some controversy about the exact number of victories achieved while flying the Me 262, with only three of the Mosquito kills coinciding with RAF records: 
"


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

wiki is wrong as usual. Welter did not have 33 kills that is certain his little band was not quite what was hoped for a sure fire cure against the Mossie that is why I am working with another to produce some truth about the man and his jet Kommando, overall claims is around 55-60 but this is not confirmed of course

the Kommando received 7 twin seaters this was to carry the defensive means to the heavy bombers of B Command, slower due to another crewmember and the electronic gizmos plus the two under nose drop tanks which really cut down the power ration of the jet so with that would fly in the 450mph range comfortably and was seen to be an able contender for knocking down 4 engines, but was never tasked to do so, the Lw was playing of course more streamlined games and the twin seater in the summer was to have internal fuel cells, a streamlined canopy and experiments why on earth though with the upward firing SM weapons package..........it wasn't needed and this latest test piece was to have Berlin 240A AI radar so none of the silly exposed antlers that the B-1aU1 had which again slowed performance. As everyone including myself has pointed out the single seater had very limited range due to it's fuel capacity which was almost zilch thus it was and did defend Berlin in it's capacity but could not loiter for any prolonged length of time to intercept far heavier BC bombers and with only a dozen jets on hand is not going to really change the courseness of the night air operations. Re: why I stated to allow at least 1 if not more NJG's to have the jet fully loaded and ready to go defending areas of engagement as was done with the T/E A/C units. changing the forward firepower plants would of helped as well with 2cm instead of the door knocker 3cm short barrel and short range


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 14, 2010)

Erich said:


> wiki is wrong as usual. Welter did not have 33 kills that is certain his little band was not quite what was hoped for a sure fire cure against the Mossie that is why I am working with another to produce some truth



The quote I posted said only three tied up to mosquito losses.


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

well we know of two as a fact from two other of the pilots of his Kommando for starts and these are confirmed. so 3 is just plain too low.


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2010)

Does anyone have a more accurate figure for the claims of Kurt Welter as I have seen the 33 figure mentioned elsewhere but cannot believe that its so large. That said 3 is probably too low so there must be something in the middle


----------



## Erich (Oct 15, 2010)

yes I do...............but it is for my book, sorry


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2010)

That I await with interest, any idea as to when the book will be out?


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 6, 2010)

Hello again chaps,

As before, IMHO the Mossie was the best of the Allied NF's. The Mk.XXX was well accepted by RAF NF Sqn.s, as was related to me by one of our pilots, a W/C RAF 488 [NZ] Sqn., who sadly passed away late last year...

And Erich is most correct about the Ju88 as the best Axis NF...

I'm looking forward to your book too, Erich!

Cheers


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2010)

so whose game enough to tackle the $64 question....which was better, Ju88 or Mossie?????


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 7, 2010)

Mossie was able to do whatever Ju-88 could, while vice-versa is not true. So, Mossie is better.

added: Even Beaufighter NF (before mid 1944) was a competitive bird vs. everything LW could've mustered.


----------



## spicmart (Dec 14, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Where to start? Achieved 700 kmh? With what engines? Night fighters don't need to be manoeuvrable, but stable. The two are opposites. Tank planes more agile? The Fw 190 wasnt more agile than the Bf 109. There is nothing else to compare. Other aircraft are not comparable. I have never heard that Tank made pilot friendly aircraft. I wouldn't even know what that means. Any aircraft would be outstanding with a Jumo 213E.
> 
> Kris



In Dietmar Hermanns Book about the Ta 154 (recommended!) it is mentioned that the plane could and DID achieve 700 km/h albeit with the Jumo 213A but without NF equipment if memory serves me right.
And while there are sources who critisized some of the 154's flying characteristics, there are also some pilots like Gottfried Schneider from NJG 3 who say that it was not "a pig" but pleasantly to fly being almost "as maneuverable as any single engined fighter, even more so than the Fw 190". While this may be an exaggeration it speaks volumes about the plane. It was much more agile than the Ju 88 and Me 110 and also than the He 219 which did not fly like a fighter because of being quite heavy.
Special emphasis was put to the torsional stiffness of the wing (as in the Fw 190 series) to ensure good high speed handling, agility and control, which was not the case with the Messerschmitt planes as Willy wanted his planes to be build in "Leichtbauweise" (light weight construction) with its inherent weaknesses. Erhard Milch mentioned it several times.
It appears that the Ta 154 was also a good weapons platform.
It also needed to be agile to be a good Mosquito hunter. The required speed could then only surely be reached with Jumo213E though.
In the book "Kurt Tank: Focke Wulf's designer and test pilot" it is stated that Tank, being a seasoned test pilot himself wanted his planes to be sturdy and easy to maintain and fly "men who had had received only short training". 
In this book he is interviewed so some self-adulation might have occured but who doesn't.
Remember his quotation about the cavalry horse concept!
Recently a guy told me that Tank ceased to be a designer after leaving Rohrbach but if that's true I guess maybe he gave Focke Wulf its design philosophy.

Huey


----------



## Astaldo711 (Dec 22, 2010)

It's hard to quantify if you're speaking solely in terms of performance. If you could speak to a pilot that actually flew one of these birds, whose to say his memory would be 100% accurate? If you could find the aircraft today and fly all of them side by side it still wouldn't be a true test because you couldn't jink them through all the hard manouvering you might during actual wartime conditions. It probably would come down to opinion. I like the mosquito myself. A true Jack-Of-All-Trades.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Erich said:


> actually there was no 88 G-7 the last variant was the G-6 and there were no sub link G-6's like a b or c.
> 
> The G-6 was the best Germany had to offer in twin engine prop. P-61 was too bulky and could not turn and was popped on occassion by Bf 110G-4 and 88G-6's. The biggest fault was sadly to the crews, German bombers and their rear defences like th He 177 and the Ju 87D-5 at night.
> 
> overall the Mossie XIX and XXX was the best Allied craft, the best of the best was the Me 262A-1a in my opinion due to speed, firepower but adversely ineffective in long range running battles with RAF 4-eninge heavies, though this is why the twin seat radar equipped B-1/A-1a was developed and at a later date the B-2 would of entered to bring a new look at night warfare plus smooth nosed Ar-234's



The ME was far more dangerous to the Nazis than it ever was to the allies. It had a poor gun, poor range, and horrible reliability. It ate trained pilots as well. 

There are several candidates for great night fighters. Mossies, Black Widow's, Lightnings, Corsairs, Hellcats, HE-177's, ME-110's, etc...

Depends on the pilot and crew..


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2011)

He177 as a night fighter?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

Has to be a mistake...he 177 as one of the best NFs???


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 6, 2011)

He-177 as a night fighter? Must be a typo. (Maybe as a torch for others to see with? - sorry. that is naughty)

OK, serious. Has anyone mentioned the Do-17/215? According to Theo Boitens' book, Nachtjagd (it is in English, btw), these were used, although few in numbers.

I have not seen Corsair and Hellcats as *dedicated *night fighters. Have I missed it?

How much flying at night happened anyway in the Pacific comnpared to ETO?

Ivan


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2011)

There were dedicated Corsair and Hellcat nightfighters as well as the Firefly, Hurricane and others. However the object was to identify the best not to produce a list.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> I have not seen Corsair and Hellcats as *dedicated *night fighters. Have I missed it?



F4U-2 was a dedicated nightfighter 

F4U2 History

F6F-3E was a dedicated night fighter

F6F-3E (41302) | Gallery

R Leonard has a good post on the F6F-3E

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/usn-carrier-night-fighters-1184.html


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 6, 2011)

Glider: spot-on. Do-215 was probably not in the league.

FlyBoy: Thanks for the info. I was not aware of the extent night operations were carried in the Pacific. Much more than what I thought. Probably getting a bit too fixed on ETO sometimes.

Yours,


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2011)

sorry but the Me 262 was about as dangerous to the pilots of Kommando Welter as the Bf 110G and Ju 88G were due to in-experience or experience pilots of taking off or landing. there are many reports of the Welters unit stating the jet was the wave of the future. the jet was not catchable at night nor could BC gunners turn the turrets/guns fast enough to track but can be said of same for 8th and 15th US AF crews during combat with the 262A-1a. Introduction of the jet was obviously too late to turn the tide day/night.


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2011)

Erich
If the jet was flying too fast to be caught, wouldn't it be right to say that it would be flying too fast at night to track and shoot down the enemy?

If your thundering along at 400+mph and the target bomber is doing approx. 200mph with the visibility at night the 262 wuld never get a bead


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2011)

that might well depend if we are talking a radarless or Neptun later Berlin AI radar'd 262.

before the end of the war there were tech trials with the new B-2 with the Schrag-waffen installation.

this gets into the what if the new 262 twin seater with streamlined canopy and internal fuel cells would of been able to handle the job of chasing down BC heavies instead of hit and miss attacks on LSNF or Mossie intruders with the 262A-1a. in any case the 262 jet had incredible potential


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

Erich said:


> that might well depend if we are talking a radarless or Neptun later Berlin AI radar'd 262.
> 
> before the end of the war there were tech trials with the new B-2 with the Schrag-waffen installation.
> 
> this gets into the what if the new 262 twin seater with streamlined canopy and internal fuel cells would of been able to handle the job of chasing down BC heavies instead of hit and miss attacks on LSNF or Mossie intruders with the 262A-1a. in any case the 262 jet had incredible potential



Potential?

That's like looking at the prom queen, jerkin your gerkin and saying you had carnal relations with her in the same area...

The Swallow was junk. 

Shall I list her shortcomings?


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2011)

I can list her assets mr no it all in fact one up on ya your attitude towards me on the TA 152H just got your butt kicked off


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmeeee nice avatar!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

I swear that little twirp was one of the most annoying members I have met....Would say anything without thinking and had the most annoying attitude to boot.

Sorry, I know we are not supposed to do that, but erich you did us all a favour....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 6, 2011)

Erich, there were B24 and B17 night ops in the ETO. I think they were called "carpetbaggers".

Did the LW have any success with them?


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2011)

Hiya Sys

yes against all black US bombers at night in May and June of 1944 then the special purpose 2461st of the 15th AF had all black B-24's on their agent/leaflet and bombings drops in Austria, Hungary and north Italy the LW in this case NJG 100 intercepted the B-24's in 1945 with their Ju 88G-6's.

the 492nd bg became the premier in the 8th turned to daylight ops and got their butts kicked sadly and then went back to night ops and was split up to create smaller formations


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2011)

Erich said:


> that might well depend if we are talking a radarless or Neptun later Berlin AI radar'd 262.
> 
> before the end of the war there were tech trials with the new B-2 with the Schrag-waffen installation.
> 
> this gets into the what if the new 262 twin seater with streamlined canopy and internal fuel cells would of been able to handle the job of chasing down BC heavies instead of hit and miss attacks on LSNF or Mossie intruders with the 262A-1a. in any case the 262 jet had incredible potential



Radar or not the Me262 would have to slow down to make the attack. The firing had to be done under visual conditions and as you are aware visibility at night is very short and if you are going much faster than the target you will be past it before you can fire. Even Beaufighters intercepting German bombers had to beware of overshooting the target.

Additional Thoughts
Just been thinking about this and realised that the Me262 would actually be at a slight disadvantage against Heavy Bombers as they didn't have the upward firing guns and therefore would not be able to take advantage of the blind spot. As a result the bomber gunners may get a shot in and one 303 is almost certain to take out a jet engine, as the blades would shatter putting the 262 at great risk. 

There is no doubt that the definitive 262 nightfighter had potential but that would have been wasted going after the heavy bombers. Ju88's and Me110's had more than sufficient speed and firepower to target the heavies, the faster Mossie bombers would be a more valuble target


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2020)

Heinkel 219 Uhu was the best


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 5, 2020)

Glider said:


> Radar or not the Me262 would have to slow down to make the attack. The firing had to be done under visual conditions and as you are aware visibility at night is very short and if you are going much faster than the target you will be past it before you can fire. Even Beaufighters intercepting German bombers had to beware of overshooting the target.
> 
> Additional Thoughts
> Just been thinking about this and realised that the Me262 would actually be at a slight disadvantage against Heavy Bombers as they didn't have the upward firing guns and therefore would not be able to take advantage of the blind spot. As a result the bomber gunners may get a shot in and one 303 is almost certain to take out a jet engine, as the blades would shatter putting the 262 at great risk.
> ...



The Luftwaffe had long been working on blind fire radar and came with several sets which had names like Pauke, Pauke S and Pauke SD. The lobe switching radars were were capable of centering a target fairly well.

However the development of microwave radars such as the FuG 240 Berlin radars gave another route. No only were they anticipating aiming the guns but having the radar direct the autopilot to aim the guns in a high speed firing pass. There were also plans to use telemetry to direct the aircraft via its autopilot so the whole interception was automatic. The Luftwaffe had several jam proof telemetry systems such as Bernhard/Bernhardine.

gebhard adders Talks a bit about it in his history of the German Night fighter Force.

There was also the R100 missile. An unguided rocket, I think about 22 cm with a time or proximity fuse fired from about 1.2 km away. About 25 were test fired.

The Arado 234 was likely to be a better night fighter.

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


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe had long been working on blind fire radar and came with several sets which had names like Pauke, Pauke S and Pauke SD. The lobe switching radars were were capable of cantering a target fairly well.
> 
> However the development of microwave radars such as the FuG 240 Berlin radars gave another route. No only were they anticipating aiming the guns but having the radar direct the autopilot to aim the guns in a high speed firing pass. There were also plans to use telemetry to direct the aircraft via its autopilot so the whole interception was automatic. The Luftwaffe had several jam proof telemetry systems such as Bernhard/Bernhardine.
> 
> ...



There's a lot of 'had been working on', 'were anticipating aiming the guns', 'plans to use the telemetry' and not a lot of actual in service hardware in this response. The FuG 240 was in service but I believe the numbers were almost insignificant. None of them get over the issues I mentioned in my old post about closing speeds and having no upward firing guns in the Me262.

My comments about the possibility of the rear gunners getting a chance to shoot are more real than some realise as the RAF had introduced into service an automatic radar directed gun laying system towards the end of 1944. The numbers compared to the size of the main force were small but it was very accurate and well liked by the crews. 
The bomber would ahve known the 262 nightfighters were coming and be able to open fire without a visual.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 5, 2020)

Glider said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> My comments about the possibility of the rear gunners getting a chance to shoot are more real than some realise as the RAF had introduced into service an automatic radar directed gun laying system towards the end of 1944.
> 
> *SNIP*


As did the AAF with the B-29(B), not sure that was the official designation but that's how my uncle referred to them, they were the "strippers" used in the night attacks from Guam.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Dec 5, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> As did the AAF with the B-29(B), not sure that was the official designation but that's how my uncle referred to them, they were the "strippers" used in the night attacks from Guam.
> 
> View attachment 603918



That is the AN/APG-15 radar. Several versions of this radar were used on different B-29 models and modifications, including an APG-15B in a twin .50 cal only rear gun position. In the Pacific these were a thing, but it never got to be a thing in Europe. A version of this was also done on the B-24, and while it reached the stage of ready for production it was not used in the field. It could have been, easily, if it became a requirement in Europe.

T!


----------



## Ascent (Dec 5, 2020)

I know I'm biased being an ex crusader but for me the best nightfighter was The Nightfighter bar, the 14sqn all ranks bar. Quite why it was called the nightfighter I have no idea as 14 was traditionally a bomber squadron.

Also, I heard an interview recently with a Mosquito pilot who said that if they knew a 262 was hunting them they would dive for the deck as they knew that the jets fuel burn was much higher down there and it would force them to brake off contact earlier.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 5, 2020)

Interesting to see this revived thread - it had gone quiet long before I joined the group. I noticed several planned books in the works on German nightfighters and American Beaufighters. Since I didn't recognize the author's call signs, I can't lokk them up on Amazon - were the books ever published?

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

Glider said:


> There's a lot of 'had been working on', 'were anticipating aiming the guns', 'plans to use the telemetry' and not a lot of actual in service hardware in this response. The FuG 240 was in service but I believe the numbers were almost insignificant. None of them get over the issues I mentioned in my old post about closing speeds and having no upward firing guns in the Me262.
> 
> My comments about the possibility of the rear gunners getting a chance to shoot are more real than some realise as the RAF had introduced into service an automatic radar directed gun laying system towards the end of 1944. The numbers compared to the size of the main force were small but it was very accurate and well liked by the crews.
> The bomber would ahve known the 262 nightfighters were coming and be able to open fire without a visual.



Village Inn radar gun laying radars in the rear of some very late war RAF heavy bombers was not automatic. The rear gunner had to find the target and then point it using an oscilloscope based sight, he was required to centre a pip. It did calculate and add in gun deflection I believe . Its the same with the AN/APG-15 used in some B-29B. Neither radar had full lock on. They probably had lock on for the range gate though could be a simple first echo detected. Full Lock on was possible at some point in the future.

Neither of these systems, village inn with its Browning 50 rear guns or the B-29B with 50 Browning or even the Americanised Hispano 20mm would have deterred a R100 missile attack as that attack would be launched outside of gun range. It was designed to be fired out of gun range. This is really the death nell of armed bombers using guns to shoot down fighters.
There was no point arming them and that was recognised in Canberra and the V force bombers. The technology that made village inn possible also made possible its obsolescence.

About 25 test launches for the R100 were carried out before the war ended.

I don't believe the R100 missile required a microwave radar but were designed for the Pauke Series. The "array" you see on Luftwaffe radars had lobe switching in which phase shifts were mechanically switched in to shift the beam alternately left/right and up/down. Operators would compare the strengths of return and estimate fairly accurately where the target was. Electronic evaluation of the return 'balance' would be about 3-4 times more accurate and allow non cantered targets to be measured. Certainly a fraction of a degree.

The missile would be fired automatically by the night fighters systems with a fixed time delay bursting fuse. The night fighters fire control systems took into account relative speed and closure rates and fired at the correct instant and lead. Versions with proximity fuse planed but probably not needed. The R100 "BS" used forward firing shaped charge firing incendiary pellets. There was also to be an infrared proximity fuse.

The FuG 240 Berlin series of radars came in variants FuG 240/N3, N1a, N4 etc and there was also the FuG 244,245,246 etc.

The 25 sets delivered and I believe 10 or possibly 25 installed in Ju 88G6 didn't have conical scan. That would come latter. Conical scan was used by the Germans since 1941 on Wurzburg C radars, Manheim radars and the 3 microwave radar type they managed to get in service. Probably 100 maybe 200. The Luftwaaffe had conical scan and automatic track lock systems on the ground. It took about 100 to 140 tubes instead of the 40-50 used in a Wurzburg including lock and anti jam circuits. These would need to be miniaturised. That technology already existed.

Slow rollout of microwave radars was due to bombing. The Harreous factory making the magnets and the Sanitas factory making the magnetrons in second half of 1944.

The to telemetry systems the Germans used were Bernhard/Bernhardine which was a beacon that transmitted bearing information to all night fighters. This was completely unjammable. Appended to the bearing was some telemetry such as location of the main bomber stream, weather etc. No used for individual data but potentially capable. The Other was FuG 136 Nachtfee which was used with the EGON 1 and EGON II blind bombing system to replaced the voice link with a completely jam resistant data link. It could not be spoofed though potentially could be blocked with difficulty.

So yes they were close with telemetry. The Minerva data system used in V2 testing transferred 64 data points (mainly pressure and heat)

As for the best night fighter
1 Mosquito. Simply because it was fast, had a well armoured windscreen and carried a lethal punch that gave no second chances.
2 Black Widow Slower but because an intense electronic warfare environment, such as the Luftwaffe ace, it needs 3 crew and like the Black widow would be better.
3 The Ju 88G7 might be better than the Mosquito in certain circumstances due to the 3 crew I think the Ju 88G7 could probably manage 386 mph. The Ju 388J3 could manage 433mph and handle a B-29. (It was built for this)

The Ar 234C and Ar234P night fighter variants, firing R100, would be good as well, though of course they didnt enter service.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 12, 2020)

davparlr said:


> If the P-38M is considered, then so should the P-61C. At 430 mph and a ceiling of 41,000 ft, the P-61C was considerably faster and higher flying than the Mosquito and faster than the P-38M. However, its heavier design probably did impact manueverability. Apparently it did have speed brakes to prevent overshoots. From what I understand, neither the P-61C nor the P-38M performed any night fighter operations in WWII.



I got into this one late. My father commanded the 318th NFS out of Hamilton Field in late 1947 before we moved to Japan in 1948 where he took command of 35th FG.
The P-61C, according to him, was a pretty good airplane - but the 318th was equipped with the lesser capable P-61B. Both P-61 types were inferior to the P/F-82 in all respects save armament - and initial rate of turn - which the Spoilerons greatly augmented. That said, it lost too much speed in the turn to compete.

Arguably it was as good as the Mosquito below 20,000 feet, but the real issue with the P-61 was crew training in both systems and weather in the ETO. From what I have read the Ju 88 was arguably the best night fighter of the war.

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


----------



## Milosh (Dec 12, 2020)

drgondog said:


> I got into this one late. My father commanded the 318th NFS out of Hamilton Field in late 1947 before we moved to Japan in 1948 where he took command of 35th FG.
> The P-61C, according to him, was a pretty good airplane - but the 318th was equipped with the lesser capable P-61B. Both P-61 types were inferior to the P/F-82 in all respects save armament - and initial rate of turn - which the Spoilerons greatly augmented. That said, it lost too much speed in the turn to compete.
> 
> Arguably it was as good as the Mosquito below 20,000 feet, but the real issue with the P-61 was crew training in both systems and weather in the ETO. From what I have read the *Ju 88 was arguably the best night fighter of the war*.


Now you have gone and done it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 19, 2020)

drgondog said:


> I got into this one late. My father commanded the 318th NFS out of Hamilton Field in late 1947 before we moved to Japan in 1948 where he took command of 35th FG.
> The P-61C, according to him, was a pretty good airplane - but the 318th was equipped with the lesser capable P-61B. Both P-61 types were inferior to the P/F-82 in all respects save armament - and initial rate of turn - which the Spoilerons greatly augmented. That said, it lost too much speed in the turn to compete.
> 
> Arguably it was as good as the Mosquito below 20,000 feet, but the real issue with the P-61 was crew training in both systems and weather in the ETO. From what I have read the Ju 88 was arguably the best night fighter of the war.



Do you know if the spoilerons on the P-61 were hydraulically boosted?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Do you know if the spoilerons on the P-61 were hydraulically boosted?


Americas Hundred Thousand and Fighter Conference do not indicate hydraulics were used for spoilerons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 31, 2020)

syscom3 said:


> I used to think the P61 was the best purpose built night fighter, but it was kind of slow (by 1945 standards).


Did the P-61 ever engage a target at night?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 31, 2020)

drgondog said:


> From what I have read the Ju 88 was arguably the best night fighter of the war.


Agreed - and the only rival to the Ju88 would have been the He219 "Uhu" if the kinks were worked out.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 31, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the P-61 ever engage a target at night?



The dogfights TV series had an episode. A German Night fighter experten in a radarless Me 410 was shot down by a P-61.
The Me 410 pilot had flown 6 missions that night and was exhausted and forgot to turn his landing lights off which was the real cause of him being shot down.

What was notable was that the P61 radar was not as fancy as one would think. There was no PPI display for instance and the multiple screens were no better than the Germans had on their much longer wavelength radars. The American radar had much more range and due to the narrow beam width range was not affected by ground clutter when flying low but you had to wait for a mechanical scan to complete.

The Me 410 never received a radar fit out. Too few were produced to justify taking a team of electrical engineers out of the development loop.

There are pictures of an Me 410 with Lorenz Hohtenweil radar which was a 50cm FLAK radar that became an airborne anti shipping radar as well as PPI radar for smaller German ships such as torpedo boats and could also be retracted into a u-boat conning tower.

This radar had lobe switching so Ju 188, Me 410 and Fw 200 equipped with it could carry out night attacks. The Fw 200 was the main type using it. 

The Mosquito is clearly the best night fighter. It could intercept anything and due to its speed it could actually get to the bomber stream. Many German night fighters had to have burned out engines removed as the closed too slowely on the bomber stream.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed - and the only rival to the Ju88 would have been the He219 "Uhu" if the kinks were worked out.


The P-61 was superior to the He-219.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the P-61 ever engage a target at night?


Of course they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Village Inn radar gun laying radars in the rear of some very late war RAF heavy bombers was not automatic. The rear gunner had to find the target and then point it using an oscilloscope based sight, he was required to centre a pip. It did calculate and add in gun deflection I believe . Its the same with the AN/APG-15 used in some B-29B. Neither radar had full lock on. They probably had lock on for the range gate though could be a simple first echo detected.


You are of course correct in the technical details but the important point was that the Village Inn equipped turrets could open fire before they visually saw the fighters. Whereas the fighters to the best of my knowledge had to see the bomber. So at night the bomber could open fire first.


> Neither of these systems, village inn with its Browning 50 rear guns or the B-29B with 50 Browning or even the Americanised Hispano 20mm would have deterred a R100 missile attack as that attack would be launched outside of gun range. It was designed to be fired out of gun range. This is really the death nell of armed bombers using guns to shoot down fighters.
> There was no point arming them and that was recognised in Canberra and the V force bombers. The technology that made village inn possible also made possible its obsolescence.


Yet the USAF and Russian Airforce were more than happy to equip their bombers with guns. An important point is reliability. As the USAF found in Vietnam early air to air missile were horribly unreliable. To assume that a late 1940's missile would work effectively is a big assumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2021)

Ps Who said that the RAF abandoned rear gun defences

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 1, 2021)

syscom3 said:


> The P-61 was superior to the He-219.


It would depend on which version of the P-61 versus which version of the He219.

They were both fast, heavily armed and capable of tracking down their quarry.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> It would depend on which version of the P-61 versus which version of the He219.
> 
> They were both fast, heavily armed and capable of tracking down their quarry.



I think though both the P-61 and He 219 were mythical planes in 1944. The turbo charged P-61C didnt exist so we are left with the 368mph P-61B. The He 219 Uhu was only ever powered with the DB603A of 1750hp or the DB603AA which was the same engine optimised with different supercharger settings s for higher altitudes. The 448 mph He 219 was to be powered by the Jumo 222A/B and engine which remained a prototype (albeit with nearly 300 produced and which was rescheduled for production in 1944)

The He 219 was likely never fitted with the DB603E which had more power and a fundamentally better supercharger not any of the other engines that could have made it into a rocket ship such as the DB603L and LA or Jumo 213E.

Opposition from Luftwaffe management in favour of the Ju 88 series (Ju 881G1, G6 and G7) as well as Ju 388J sealed its fate. When it came out the He 219 was considerably faster than the Ju 88G1 but the G6 and G7 closed the gap. It will remain a favourite of mine for its ejection seats which saved many a crew mans life.

The Ju 88 series received more avionics development which meant that late war Ju 88 had tail warning radar wheras He 219 did not. You had a choice of tail warning radar and ejection seat, not both.

The Do 335 was being developed into a radar equiped night fighter. A phased array microwave radar that worked through wooden leading edges had been ground tested.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 1, 2021)

It should be mentioned that the He219 only reached its 400mph plus speed with modifications > no radar antenna, exhaust shrouds removed and weapons decreased.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 1, 2021)

He 219 A-7 built from 12/44 was equipped with DB 603E, they also built 5 preseries 219D with Jumo 213E (plagued by engine quirks)
The 603AA was optimized for higher alts so lost power down low but kepts its max power to ~7.5km instead of 6 so with all else the same it should be faster than 603A-equipped versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 4, 2021)

Glider said:


> You are of course correct in the technical details but the important point was that the Village Inn equipped turrets could open fire before they visually saw the fighters. Whereas the fighters to the best of my knowledge had to see the bomber. So at night the bomber could open fire first.
> Yet the USAF and Russian Airforce were more than happy to equip their bombers with guns. An important point is reliability. As the USAF found in Vietnam early air to air missile were horribly unreliable. To assume that a late 1940's missile would work effectively is a big assumption.





The same radar technology that allowed the RAF to develop and deploy Village Inn gun laying radar for the rear turret of its bombers also allowed the Luftwaffe to develop radar that could aim and fire guns of a night fighter. That is exactly what they were doing. A series of devices referred to as "Pauke SD", "Eule", Elfe" and "Oberon". The fighter will always have a bigger more accurate radar antenna, more and bigger guns than the bomber. That is why Britain never wasted space on the Canberra or V bombers for rear armament.

*FuG 247 Bremerhaven*

A combined AI and gun laying radar developed by _Siemens_. Operated on a wavelength of 3cm with a maximum and minimum range of 6.25 miles and 500 ft, a search angle of 1000 in both azimuth and elevation, a measuring accuracy of +/- 0.10 and a weight of 264 lbs (120 kg). Utilised a rotating and ‘nodding’ parabolic reflector and used a manufactured pictorial display on a single CRT, in addition to feeding range and positional data to an _EZ 42_ gyro gun sight. No examples had reached operational service by the end of the war.

*FuG 248 Eule*

A radar blind firing device developed by _GEMA_. _Eule_ operated on a frequency of 10,000 MHz and had a maximum range of 1.25 miles. The device used funnel shaped aerials built into the wings of the aircraft (eg Me 262 and the range data it provided was automatically fed into an _EZ 42_ gyro gun sight. Was replacing _EG 3 ELFE_ in service at the end of the war.

*EG 3 ELFE*

An automatic firing device developed by _FFO_ for use in combination with _FuG 216, 217, 218_ and _219_. Had a number of range settings and would automatically fire the guns when an echo indicated that the target was at a pre-determined distance,

There is little difference between trimming in the gun lead into the reticule of a gyro sight and trimming it into the auto-pilot.

The Luftwaffe was developing telemetry to control the autopilot of a nightfighter and then have that nightfighters radar lock on to the target and trim the firing solution into the autopilot and fire the guns or rockets automatically.


The Allies had stolen a March on the Germans in microwave radar but by mid 1944 production was beginning only to be shut down by bombing to the key magnetron manufacturer Sanitas and the key magnet maker Hareaous. About 100-200 managed to get into service. By the end of the war the Germans had 9cm, 3cm, 2.5cm magnetrons, some up to 500kW.

Village in was an interesting and clever weapon but it would be countered and irrelevant with a short time.

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


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2021)

You do me an injustice, I did read your previous postings but the leap to believe that the Germans were close to introducing into service the technology you claim was just too much to accept.

The Fug 247/8 are presumably based on the technology of the Fug 240 of which only a handful of versions were made and installed, I believe that this was less than seventy five. So it isn't as if the Germans were flush with the capacity to develop and build significant improvements in any short time

The 247/8 I have only been aware as being projects. As someone who has been involved in the development of IT projects, will tell you that there is a whole heap of difference between being a project, and a product that is in production. I could be mistaken but I thought that Fug 247 was being developed for the Submarine service to be fitted in the new U Boats, I wasn't aware of any spare development for the Luftwaffe which would have brought considerable additional complexity. In particular making it smaller and dealing with power issues.

EG3 Elfe I have never heard of. That said the history of things firing at set ranges isn't good. Whilst on the topic have you found any more information about the infra red proximity fuse that was mentioned earlier? I have still to find any hint of one being even seriously considered by anyone.

I do agree with you in that the Village Inn system was interesting and clever. But it had other factors in its favour, It had been developed, tested, was in production and most importantly, it worked. 

My guess which is a guess, is that the Germans were the best part of 12 months behind the allies. To use the example you gave:-
_The Luftwaffe was developing telemetry to control the autopilot of a nightfighter and then have that nightfighters radar lock on to the target and trim the firing solution into the autopilot and fire the guns or rockets automatically_ 
The above alone is likely to take a level of computer power which almost certainly didn't exit in the 1940's, at least at a level that could be installed in an aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2021)

Glider said:


> _The Luftwaffe was developing telemetry to control the autopilot of a nightfighter and then have that nightfighters radar lock on to the target and trim the firing solution into the autopilot and fire the guns or rockets automatically_
> The above alone is likely to take a level of computer power which almost certainly didn't exit in the 1940's, at least at a level that could be installed in an aircraft.



Thats technology that was developed in the 1950s was made to work in the 1960s and made to work reliably in the 1970s


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 5, 2021)

Glider said:


> You do me an injustice, I did read your previous postings but the leap to believe that the Germans were close to introducing into service the technology you claim was just too much to accept.
> 
> The Fug 247/8 are presumably based on the technology of the Fug 240 of which only a handful of versions were made and installed, I believe that this was less than seventy five. So it isn't as if the Germans were flush with the capacity to develop and build significant improvements in any short time
> 
> ...



Ok, I've removed the accusation.

The Germans managed to get at least 100 microwave radars into service. Some authors in this area estimate 200 and as high as 400 based on production data but 100 is probably about right..

Most were FLAK radars like the interim "Rotterheim" which was a microwave set integrated into the Mannheim radar using the 3m Wurzburg Aerial or "FuMO 81" which was a PPI set for the German Navy used operationally on Torpedo boats and some capital ships such as Prinz Eugen. It was very useful in keeping a convoy together through a minefields in the Baltic.

The only airborne radar was the FuG 240/N3a Berlin radar (by Telefunken) of which 25 were delivered and 10 installed on Ju 88G6 (with Jumo 213A engines). This radar is directly related to the FuG 224 ground mapping radar copied from a captured H2S. 

FuG 246 Bremen was a 3cm ground mapping radar undergoing testing and development by Siemens and FuG 247 Bremerhaven was a related airborne interception radar.

The Key to making these "Blind Fire" radars was to have conical scan and ideally auto track for the range gate. The Germans had been using conical scan since 1941 on Wurzburg and autolock since 1943 on the FuSE 63 Manheim radar. Autolock is quite good since both the Americans and Germans found it could track through jamming impossible for an operator to see through.

There was nothing stopping Telefunken from adding these features to a FuG 240 to produce a FuG 240"N5" though I think it was intended for FuG 244, whereas FuG 247 was by a different manufacturer.

The simple FuG 248 'range only' radar worked well with gyro sights thereby sparing the pilot the need to adjust the stedometric range finder. With the "Elfe" deivice added it could also be used to fire rockets and such at the correct range by taking into account range, air speed and target closure.

There is no issue with mechanical computers doing this job accurately.




fastmongrel said:


> Thats technology that was developed in the 1950s was made to work in the 1960s and made to work reliably in the 1970s



Systems like the SAGE which turned the F 106 into a remotely controlled missile launcher came into service in the 1950s because they were needed to deal with the speed of jets.
They also integrated multiple radars.

Gebbard Adders in his history of the German Night fighter force points out that the Luftwaffe was heading in this direction. The Luftwaffe wasn't far of doing this in WW2 because they needed it. Track lock radars existed in WW2, so did connecting the bombsight to the autopilot. So did mechanical computing mechanisms to get an intercept or to aim the guns, so did gyro sights. Its not a big jump to transmit a climb rate and heading to a night fighter autopilot by telemetry. The more advanced command guideance systems being developed for the frst SAM missiles such as Wasserfall used autopilots that controlled their heading rather than remote control that controlled their control surfaces/. The Luftwaffe desperately needed systems that were efficient and avoided the weaknesses of voice links. They were also anticipating 500 mph jet night fighters and had experienced the difficulty of slowing them down enough at the end to get an interception.

The mechanical computation tech of the day represented numbers as shaft turns, added and subtracted via differentials and used log/antilog cams to multiply/divide. There were trigonometric cams to compensate for parallax or convert to Cartesian. Time of Flight and Super elevation data was caste into 3D cams.

The Germans had the following telemetry like systems to transmit heading data to an autopilot
1 Ewald II was a midcourse correction guidance system for the V1. Heading data was sent via impulses and stored on a magnetic tape loop.
2 The German Blind Bombing system EGON suffered from jamming of its voice link so a Seduction Jam proof link was developed called Nachfee. It transmitted heading data via a dial and about 12 lamps.
3 Minerva on the V2 transmitted 64 parameters for testing.
4 FuG 510/FuG 540 Kogge/Brigge High Frequency 1200Mhz/25cm impulse
modulated using directional polyrod antenna was to be the core of a
number of German guided missiles with development starting in 1944.
It was designed to be very immune to jamming.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 6, 2021)

I only read the first page of posts, sorry, but is the consensus here really that the He-219 was a waste of time and inferior to the Ju-88 night fighter versions? That surprised me I must say.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 6, 2021)

Acheron said:


> I only read the first page of posts, sorry, but is the consensus here really that the He-219 was a waste of time and inferior to the Ju-88 night fighter versions? That surprised me I must say.



There was a lot of politics. Even allegations of corruption. It appears Erhardt Milch favoured the Ju 88 for its ease of production since it had time to evolve a very efficient production system. He favoured the Ta 154 “Moskito” as an aircraft capable of intercepting the DH Mosquito and made of wood and using an available engine. Heinkel countered that he could get productions cost down lower than Junkers after mass production started.. There was some hope, by Milch, that the Ta 154 could do the job with the Jumo 211N (a slightly evolved Jumo 211J) but this turned out to be a forlorn hope and the Jumo 213 was needed. The Jumo wasn’t available till 1944. No surprise really given that the Merlin was running on 100/130 and approaching 1600 to 1700hp depending on version. The Ta 154 turned into a nothing burger due to the problems with the destruction of the tego film glue factory, problems the the wooden cockpit breaking in a crash. To fix these problems was getting to the point the jets Ar 234 and Me 262 would be entering service so it just seemed pointless.

The political push to promote the Ju 88 and Ta 154 sidelined the He 219. There were problems with the He 219 like gun flash from the wing guns. Also it really needed more power than 1750hp. That was becoming available in late 1944 (Jumo 213A with increased boost 1900hp, Jumo 213A with MW50 2100hp, DB603E with 1800hp, DB603LA 2250hp

He 219 was probably faster than the Ju 88G6/G7 with the same engine power.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 6, 2021)

Which was the best night fighter?


...


I vote me, I have four kids to prove it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jan 7, 2021)

The He 219 was a fine aircraft but it got too heavy rsulting in a high wing loading. That affected maneuverability and low speed flying characteristics. Not nice if you try to get an enemy from your tail.
Milch's interference in the development phase was not very helpful, with higher echolon support Heinkel could have made the aircraft better. Plus Heinkel tended to overdevelop aircraft, including a multitude of proposed/optional armaments instead of focussing on getting the basic aircraft to achieve the best possible performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 7, 2021)

Denniss said:


> The He 219 was a fine aircraft but it got too heavy rsulting in a high wing loading. That affected maneuverability and low speed flying characteristics. Not nice if you try to get an enemy from your tail.
> Milch's interference in the development phase was not very helpful, with higher echelon support Heinkel could have made the aircraft better. Plus Heinkel tended to overdevelop aircraft, including a multitude of proposed/optional armaments instead of focussing on getting the basic aircraft to achieve the best possible performance.



Milch seems to have done alright but two failures stand out. His irascible attitude to Willy Messerschmitt and the conflict it caused and his championing of the Ta 154.

With the benefit of hindsight:
-The effort to develop the Ta 154 ended up a complete waste of time. It was a waste of time trying to make it out of wood to the degree it was as well.
-The effort to convert the Ju 252 (metal) into the Ju 352 (out of wood) was a complete waste of time. I know it was also a partial attempt to use the 323 engine but the lifting performance was terrible with that engine and would have needed the proposed BMW 801 engine version.
-Had the Fw 187 been developed as a single seater and then as a two seater with both seats facing forward the Luftwaffe would have had its Mosquito equivalent in 1939 though just not quite as big. The lightweight Neptune radars developed for single seater giving it its AI capability.

-The He 219 was the only German night fighter that could suffer an engine failure on take-off and still climb out. It had been designed in anticipation of the Jumo 222 engine but when that engine was delayed it was put into production with the DB603A which gave it a much lower performance. It was still about 15-20 mph faster than the Ju 88G6 with the same class of engine Jumo 213A (about 365mph versus 385mph, with radar and gun packs I'm not 100% sure If tried to find the data, Adders probably best)

However early 1945 the DB605LA of 2250hp is available and that engine with C3 fuel especially in its DB603L form can do 2400hp. That's 28% - 37% more rated power and probably 38% to 47% when the better power at altitude from the 2 sate supercharger is considered it was likely faster than the Jumo 222 version.

Of course the Do 335 and the Ju 388 were the only twin piston engine aircraft planed for 1945 which suggests they were making the same mistake again, albeit under pressure.

It seems the Luftwaffe actually killed of excellent aircraft in favour of hypothetical aircraft and ended up with nothing.

Making the He 162 wing out of wood was OK but they should've used metal for the tail surfaces to spare themselves the glue and structural issues.
-

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> However early 1945 the DB605LA of 2250hp is available and that engine with C3 fuel especially in its DB603L form can do 2400hp.



How many a/c were actually produced and entered service with this engine?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2021)

Fingers on one hand after a saw accident?


----------



## poprune (Jan 7, 2021)

My vote goes to the boffins who developed the radars and the fairies that kept it working... and here's a question: just when did RDF become 'radar'... and whodunnit?


----------



## Acheron (Jan 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It seems the Luftwaffe actually killed of excellent aircraft in favour of hypothetical aircraft and ended up with nothing.


Bomber B

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Midnight Mickey (Jan 8, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the P-61 ever engage a target at night?


My Dad did. He was the pilot of Midnight Mickey of the 6th NFS.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 8, 2021)

P-61A serial 42-5524 "Midnight Mickey" of the 6th NFS. 

Fold3 Search

PVT Peter Dutkanicz, Hamden, CT - 6th Night Fighter Squadron, Saipan. Crew chief/gunner for LT McCumber's crew.
Flt Off Daniel L. Hinz, Milwaukee, WI - 6th Night Fighter Squadron, Saipan. Radar operator for LT McCumber's crew, he was officially credited with two confirmed aerial victories.
2LT Myrle W. McCumber, Colorado Springs, CO - 6th Night Fighter Squadron, Saipan. McCumber & his crew flew P-61A 42-5524 "Midnight Mickey." He was officially credited with two confirmed aerial victories.







·

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


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 8, 2021)

Acheron said:


> Bomber B


Bomber B (Ju 288) of course was cancelled due to the problems with the Jumo 222A1/B1 and Jumo 222A2/B2. The backup engine the DB606 (2 DB601) was also seen as a problem whereas the DB610 (2 x DB605) was seemingly OK in the Ju 288 by then it was too late to set up mass production. The Fw 191 probably was the only one of the Bomber B that might have worked since Fw had a 4 engine version using Jumo 211. Germany couldnt afford enough redundant programs.


----------



## Midnight Mickey (Jan 8, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> P-61A serial 42-5524 "Midnight Mickey" of the 6th NFS.
> 
> Fold3 Search
> 
> ...


That my Dad in the middle top photo

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Jan 8, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the P-61 ever engage a target at night?


As it have been said, yes.

Osprey Combat Aircraft have one volume about the P-61.

It get in combat in ETO, MTO & PTO.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Milch seems to have done alright but two failures stand out. His irascible attitude to Willy Messerschmitt and the conflict it caused and his championing of the Ta 154.
> 
> With the benefit of hindsight:
> -The effort to develop the Ta 154 ended up a complete waste of time. It was a waste of time trying to make it out of wood to the degree it was as well.
> ...


 The He219 , required Jumo 222s to intercept the Mosquito. But , the Ju 88G with Jumos 222 would also be able to intercept the mosquito. So why introduce a new type only slightly faster than the cheap ju88? And i am not sure that it was any faster than the Ju88G6/7 and Ju388 . Which also carried an additional crew member
What LW was needing was a Mosqito killer using 1943 engines. That means that should be smaller and lighter . Ideally Fw 187. From the historically available aircraft , i would propose a cleaner Me 410 with GM1. Even better Do335 , if they could focus on the NF variant. He 219 , as Eric Brown wrote, simply did not had the required performance to justify its existence
The various 1945 piston engines are far too late. Also no C3 fuel was available for night fighters.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 19, 2021)

poprune said:


> My vote goes to the boffins who developed the radars and the fairies that kept it working... and here's a question: just when did RDF become 'radar'... and whodunnit?


According to Wiki the US Navy in 1940. Radar in World War II - Wikipedia t


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Making the He 162 wing out of wood was OK but they should've used metal for the tail surfaces to spare themselves the glue and structural issues.



Agree with your post Koopernic, but to be fair to the He 162, it was, being an emergency fighter, intended of being made of non-strategic materials to ease the supply of aluminium since the Germans were suffering shortages of raw materials (just like the Mosquito, oddly enough, although the British were _not_ suffering an aluminium shortage when GdeH drew up the requirement for the aircraft), but in hindsight, a lack of adequate adhesive for wooden aircraft components was a little down the scale in terms of the wider issues affecting the German aircraft industry and the Reich in general, by the time the He 162 enters service.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 19, 2021)

dedalos said:


> What LW was needing was a Mosqito killer using 1943 engines. That means that should be smaller and lighter . Ideally Fw 187. From the historically available aircraft , i would propose a cleaner Me 410 with GM1. Even better Do335 , if they could focus on the NF variant.



A little bit of telescoping going on here - exactly what is a "Mosquito Killer" and exactly when does the Luftwaffe figure out it needs such a thing? By 1943, the Fw 187 is dead in the water. Not a chance of it being revived and let's not forget that it suffered the same fate as the Westland Whirlwind - it was too limited in scope and size to be anything more than a novelty - yes, Tank and Co redesigned it on the drawing board, but the RLM simply wasn't interested, just like Petter and the Merlin-engined Whirlwind Mk.II - no one was interested in the British Air Ministry. 

A cleaner Me 410 with GM1? possibly, but can Messerschmitt spare the extra R & D effort, particularly with the Me 262 undergoing testing, and why would it, with the Me 262 undergoing testing? The Do 335? Too little too late. The RLM and the German aviation industry has made a few too many missteps by 1943 to enable anything beyond the path it was already committed to. Bomber B was dead by then, the He 177 was a BIG problem and would remain so, and what you have left is the Ta 154, the He 219, the Ju 88/188, the Me 410 and the Bf 110. Jets were coming on line, which is certainly a positive, but by late 1944 early 1945 when your Mosquito Killer with its 1943 engines is entering service, the war industry is being pummelled by day and night and the country is under invasion from East _and_ West.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 20, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Agree with your post Koopernic, but to be fair to the He 162, it was, being an emergency fighter, intended of being made of non-strategic materials to ease the supply of aluminium since the Germans were suffering shortages of raw materials (just like the Mosquito, oddly enough, although the British were _not_ suffering an aluminium shortage when GdeH drew up the requirement for the aircraft), but in hindsight, a lack of adequate adhesive for wooden aircraft components was a little down the scale in terms of the wider issues affecting the German aircraft industry and the Reich in general, by the time the He 162 enters service.



One of the driving factors for the "Volkjaeger" was actually fuel not just construction material shortages. The fuel supply available to the Reich was estimated to not be able to generate sufficient missions if the Me 262 was used alone. The He 162 would use less than half the fuel, at least for some missions (daylight interception). Although the aircraft is often criticised for its short endurance it in fact was to receive two fuel volume enhancements: an enlarged fuselage tank and fuel tanks on the inner wing roots that drained into the main tank. Taken to together these would have brought the He 162 to the same endurance level as the Me 262. Of the top of my head 38 minutes full thrust at sea level which is more than the 25 minutes of the basic version. Obviously the He 162 lacked as much fire power unless revolving barrel canon came along.

Why didn't the Germans copy the Mosquito's construction techniques? Their chemists would have no trouble analysing the glue. The Germans if anything had no shame in copying something clever like the STEN and many are anglophiles. Obviously there would be issues with Ecuadorian balsa but it must be something else. From my understanding the issue was the TEGO film factory that actually made the plywood by a process that involved heat cured glue and roller presses or maybe mouldings. How they made the plywood after this factory was damaged in bombing s a question I don't understand. I do know that the Ta 154 cockpit was made of wood and shattered in a crash landing leading to plans to make at least that out of metal.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 20, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> A little bit of telescoping going on here - exactly what is a "Mosquito Killer" and exactly when does the Luftwaffe figure out it needs such a thing? By 1943, the Fw 187 is dead in the water. Not a chance of it being revived and let's not forget that it suffered the same fate as the Westland Whirlwind - it was too limited in scope and size to be anything more than a novelty - yes, Tank and Co redesigned it on the drawing board, but the RLM simply wasn't interested, just like Petter and the Merlin-engined Whirlwind Mk.II - no one was interested in the British Air Ministry.
> 
> "The redesigned Fw187 was ordered in to production in 1942, then cancelled again. It certainly could be produced instead of Me410 and enter service in mid 1943 with Db 605 engines."
> 
> ...


Also lighter Ju 88 versions could be used against the Mosquito path finders. 
I really can not see why He219 was produced


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 21, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Also lighter Ju 88 versions could be used against the Mosquito path finders.
> I really can not see why He219 was produced



I don't think there was a snow flakes chance in hell that any Ju 88 even with a Jumo 213E with MW50 could intercept a Mosquito except in cases of good luck. Mosquito pathfinders and recons were pressurised and routinely able to do 440mph when fitted with two stage Merlin engines.

Data is hard to find on the Ju 88G7 (wwith Jumo 213E) tthat clearly states whether radar, flame dampers was fitted along with the speed but the fastest might have been the Ju 88G7 with Jumo 213E at about 400mph.

We know that Junkers from test data of Ju 388 with Jumo 213E with MW50 stated it could do 407mph and that the Ju 388 and Ju 88S and Ju 388G all had about the same aerodynamic performance. (EG the Ju 88S3 with BMW 801TJ had the same speed as the Ju 388L1 with the same engine)

The He 219 was a little lighter and more aerodynamic so with Jumo 213E+ MW50 it would be faster than the Ju 388

There is data for the Ju 388, which is effectively a Ju 88 variant with the same performance, with Jumo 213E, Jumo 222A3/B3, Jumo 222E/F and BMW801TJ.

Ju 388JHeavy fighter / night fighter.
Ju 388KHigh-altitude bomber.
Ju 388LPhoto-reconnaissance aircraft.

The fastest was the Ju 388L3 recon with Jumo 222E/F at an estimated speed of 444mph but when equipped with gun packs radar and flame dampers this dropped to about 432mph or so.

The only hope of intercepting the Mosquito ever was the Fw 187 built as Kurt Tank had intended with DB601/DB605 engines as a single seater or as a two seater with both crew facing forward. That chance was squandered.

If Willy Messerschmitt or Kurt Tank had of designed an exact Replica of the DeHaviland Mosquito in 1938 the Luftwaffe/RLM would have spent years forcing them into turning it into a two seat zerstoerer with rear armament and 60 degree dive bombing capability probably forced to use BRAMO 323 radials.

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


----------



## dedalos (Jan 21, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I don't think there was a snow flakes chance in hell that any Ju 88 even with a Jumo 213E with MW50 could intercept a Mosquito except in cases of good luck. Mosquito pathfinders and recons were pressurised and routinely able to do 440mph when fitted with two stage Merlin engines.
> 
> Data is hard to find on the Ju 88G7 (wwith Jumo 213E) tthat clearly states whether radar, flame dampers was fitted along with the speed but the fastest might have been the Ju 88G7 with Jumo 213E at about 400mph.
> 
> ...


 
Hi, stripped- lighter Ju 88s , of course would not guarantee Mosquito interception. Eric brown reports that he managed 644km/h after the war on a captured G6. The radar had been removed but otherwise was complete. No MW 50 used. 
I feel special prepared ju 88g6 s could manage a little better than that. Then would use tactics similar of the Fw190 s trying to intercept day recce Mosquitos. Patrol the expected target area at high altitude and dive on the incoming Mosquitos. It did not provide high rate of succes but some kills were scored . I believe a ju88 G6, even in standard form, would be as fast or faster than a Fw190A8
at 9000m.
Anyway would be an effort using a type already in production. He 219 was a new type still incapable to do the job.
I even i am not sure that operational he219 s were any faster than Ju88G6 standard. If the junkers was using Mw50,and erich says than some did, was certainly faster.
Heinkel was designing versions with 3rd crew member and defentive Mg131. That would slow the heinkel further.
Finally the ju 88G6 with the berlin radar would not need Mw50 to achieve 620-640km/h. Could the he219 use the Fug240? I am not sure
I agree the 1942 design of the Fw187 was the answer for the night fighter units, as the Fw 190 v13,v15,v16 was the answer for the day fighter units. Both using standard engines and simple airframes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 21, 2021)

> The redesigned Fw187 was ordered in to production in 1942, then cancelled again. It certainly could be produced instead of Me410 and enter service in mid 1943 with Db 605 engines.



And you've just demonstrated exactly why it was a non-starter. The RLM wasn't interested.



> Such a configuration was in service in limited numbers with reconnaissance units. I would add annular radiators , already developed for the He219. The Me262 NF was 2 years away"



But not with fighter units. Again, the 262 had been researched since 1940 and in 1943 was being readied for service, so by then, redoing the Me 410 how you describe is STILL not going to give you a production airframe until late 44 early 45 at the earliest. Might as well focus on the 262.



> True, historicaly. But possible if cancel the Ta 154, He219, Me410 and use the resources for the much more promising Do335. Also a development effort focused on the NF variant. The Do335 deserved the effort because had competitive performance using the historicaly produced, badly outclassed german engines



And when do you plan to do this? Problem is with cancelling these projects is you already have resources invested in them that can't just be switched off, like a tap. The LW needs aircraft immediately. Doing so would leave it short in the interim, creating more of a problem. As for the Do 335, even by April 1945 and the end of the Reich, it simply was not ready for service. Throwing extra production capacity of other firms at it is not going to change that.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 21, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Why didn't the Germans copy the Mosquito's construction techniques? Their chemists would have no trouble analysing the glue. .


The Mosquito wasn't just a good aircraft because of glue, and analysing glue doesn't tell you anything about how it is used, like temperature and pressure and curing times. Analysing the captured aircraft doesn't tell you all about how to select the woods used. The Mosquito wasn't a great aircraft because of a special glue or wood, that is incidental. The Mosquito was on a par with the P-51 in cooling drag design and overall aerodynamic cleanliness and slightly behind in choice of aerofoil profile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The Mosquito wasn't just a good aircraft because of glue, and analysing glue doesn't tell you anything about how it is used, like temperature and pressure and curing times. Analysing the captured aircraft doesn't tell you all about how to select the woods used. The Mosquito wasn't a great aircraft because of a special glue or wood, that is incidental. The Mosquito was on a par with the P-51 in cooling drag design and overall aerodynamic cleanliness and slightly behind in choice of aerofoil profile.



Germans might have had a slight problem getting balsa wood from Ecuador/Honduras during the war.

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


----------



## Denniss (Jan 22, 2021)

higher-powered or lightened Ju 88/188 or He 219 might be able to catch Mosquito bombers on their run-in path when loaded but getting them on their way back would be hard. For the Pathfinder/Recon mosquitos only the Me 262 had any chance of success if even radar-directed high-powered Bf 109 failed to achieve anything in daylight.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Germans might have had a slight problem getting balsa wood from Ecuador/Honduras during the war.


 That's what I never understand about the Mosquito proposition. Balsa may not have been considered to be a "strategic material" but as soon as your best night fighter, recon and pathfinder aircraft is made of it, it becomes "strategic" and it isnt laying around in every warehouse in UK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2021)

I find it interesting that the title of the thread is '_Which was the best Night Fighte_r'. After 610 postings there seems to be a unanimous agreement, that it was the *Mosquito*

Is this the first time practically everyone has the same view?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That's what I never understand about the Mosquito proposition. Balsa may not have been considered to be a "strategic material" but as soon as your best night fighter, recon and pathfinder aircraft is made of it, it becomes "strategic" and it isnt laying around in every warehouse in UK.


 There is what you tell the politicians/bureaucrats and then there is reality.  

We went over this in an old thread. Balsa at the time was not grown on plantations and had to be harvested from the forest and Balsa trees in the forest are not closely spaced. 
High quality straight grain spruce is not all that common either.

Wood as a strategic material has a long history, England used to get a fair amount of certain timber from the Baltic.
Coal came into use as a fuel in England (profitable to mine) when the glass industry was prohibited from using wood in their glass furnaces and causing an alarming deforestation in England that threatened naval construction. 
One reason that the British wanted to hang onto the Colonies was that in the mid 1700s the RN was sourcing a lot of their masts and spars from the colonies (primarily Maine, then part of Massachusetts.) This was a 2nd source and should access to the Baltic be cut off then it would have become primary. 

However the Air Ministry had taken pains in the late 20s and early 30s to move away from wood and to "all metal" airplanes, a fair number of which, while having metal structures were still fabric covered

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> There is what you tell the politicians/bureaucrats and then there is reality.
> 
> We went over this in an old thread. Balsa at the time was not grown on plantations and had to be harvested from the forest and Balsa trees in the forest are not closely spaced.
> High quality straight grain spruce is not all that common either.
> ...


It has a VERY long history, the Yew tree is still rare in Europe because of this...… from wiki 
The trade of yew wood to England for longbows was such that it depleted the stocks of yew over a huge area. The first documented import of yew bowstaves to England was in 1294.[_citation needed_] In 1470 compulsory practice was renewed, and hazel, ash, and laburnum were specifically allowed for practice bows. Supplies still proved insufficient, until by the Statute of Westminster 1472, every ship coming to an English port had to bring four bowstaves for every tun.[15] Richard III of England increased this to ten for every tun. This stimulated a vast network of extraction and supply, which formed part of royal monopolies in southern Germany and Austria. In 1483, the price of bowstaves rose from two to eight pounds per hundred, and in 1510 the Venetians obtained sixteen pounds per hundred.
In 1507 the Holy Roman Emperor asked the Duke of Bavaria to stop cutting yew, but the trade was profitable, and in 1532 the royal monopoly was granted for the usual quantity "if there are that many". In 1562, the Bavarian government sent a long plea to the Holy Roman Emperor asking him to stop the cutting of yew and outlining the damage done to the forests by its selective extraction, which broke the canopy and allowed wind to destroy neighbouring trees. In 1568, despite a request from Saxony, no royal monopoly was granted because there was no yew to cut, and the next year Bavaria and Austria similarly failed to produce enough yew to justify a royal monopoly.

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


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 23, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Hi, stripped- lighter Ju 88s , of course would not guarantee Mosquito interception. Eric brown reports that he managed 644km/h after the war on a captured G6. The radar had been removed but otherwise was complete. No MW 50 used.
> I feel special prepared ju 88g6 s could manage a little better than that. Then would use tactics similar of the Fw190 s trying to intercept day recce Mosquitos. Patrol the expected target area at high altitude and dive on the incoming Mosquitos. It did not provide high rate of succes but some kills were scored . I believe a ju88 G6, even in standard form, would be as fast or faster than a Fw190A8
> at 9000m.
> Anyway would be an effort using a type already in production. He 219 was a new type still incapable to do the job.
> ...



I'm going to make some long arguments and reasonings.

You're possibly right in that the He 219, while slightly faster than a Ju 88 with the same engine, would probably also be incapable of catching a Mosquito.

The problem is that the 650kmh/407mph Ju 88G/Ju338J with Jumo 213E is not going to catch a 715kmh/440mph Mosquito. In fact even a Mosquito NF probably couldn't catch a Pathfinder or Photo Reconnaissance Unit Mosquito.

The He 219 may have been the quickest opportunity around to make something that could at least match a Mosquito as the DB603L came in to use. I will argue that this engine would have allowed a 440mph He 219 even if the Do 335 was clearly much faster.

Luftwaffe programs were always messed up by either:
1 Cancelling them in order to get something better in the future eg Fw 187 to get Ta 154, He 219 to get Do 335. Ju 89/Do 19 to get He 177
2 Cancelling them to standardise eg He 219 versus Ju 388
2 Forcing them to use inferior engines in more plentiful supply thus converting a superior aircraft producing an uncompetitive aircraft not worth building at all. Fe 187.
3 Trying to convert them into "Multi Roll Combat Aircraft". Schnell(fast) bombers that were also forced to become dive bombers and often zerstoerers as well that then had to become night fighters. As a result these aircraft were too heavy and slow.
4 Heavy bombers that were also dive bombers. He 177 with 4 separate engines. They waited till 1942 to rescind this.
5 Giving up on concepts like long range single seat fighter entirely in order to force every specification into the suffocating zerstoerer concept.

The DB603L with 2400hp and two stage supercharger was starting to make a showing in 1945 on the Ta 152C. 

With the DB603L engine the Do 335 was estimated to achieve 790km/h/490mph but our He 219 with this engine might be able to match a Mosquito at 710/440mph.

The He 219 existed and didn't need a complicated leading edge radar array like the Do 335. Both Ju 88/388 and He 219 aircraft could match the Mosquito in speed with the Jumo 222E/F. This engine was benching at 2800hp with B4+MW50 in 1940 and put on the production program but then removed when the standard was raised to 3000hp.

The problem is that the 650kmh/407mph Ju 88G/Ju338J with Jumo 213E is not going to catch a 715kmh/440mph Mosquito. In fact even a Mosquito NF probably couldn't catch a Pathfinder or Photo Reconnaissance Unit Mosquito.

So really nothing is available though the Me 262, Ar 234 and Do 335 are close.

And of course the British weren't standing still, There was still a little development potential in the Merlin they could have done such as 3 speed supercharger and with considerable work on the Mosquito the Griffon could be adapted. By June 1945 the Derwent V (scaled down Nene) was flying in modified Meteor III. The aircraft integrated into the Meteor III with eventually became known as the Meteor IV and was as fast as the Me 262 and could fly to 46000ft. It would be able to perform the Mosquitos Night Fighter role with a second cockpit, and its daylight reconnaissance role. It might be able to do pathfinding with an external bomb/marker load.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2021)

440 mph D.H. Mosquito in ww2? afaik wartime Mosquito topped at around 410 mph, only the Mk 34 was faster, ~425 mph, but was aoperational after the Germany surrender but did some recce flight in the Far east theater


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It has a VERY long history, the Yew tree is still rare in Europe because of this...… from wiki
> The trade of yew wood to England for longbows was such that it depleted the stocks of yew over a huge area. The first documented import of yew bowstaves to England was in 1294.[_citation needed_] In 1470 compulsory practice was renewed, and hazel, ash, and laburnum were specifically allowed for practice bows. Supplies still proved insufficient, until by the Statute of Westminster 1472, every ship coming to an English port had to bring four bowstaves for every tun.[15] Richard III of England increased this to ten for every tun. This stimulated a vast network of extraction and supply, which formed part of royal monopolies in southern Germany and Austria. In 1483, the price of bowstaves rose from two to eight pounds per hundred, and in 1510 the Venetians obtained sixteen pounds per hundred.
> In 1507 the Holy Roman Emperor asked the Duke of Bavaria to stop cutting yew, but the trade was profitable, and in 1532 the royal monopoly was granted for the usual quantity "if there are that many". In 1562, the Bavarian government sent a long plea to the Holy Roman Emperor asking him to stop the cutting of yew and outlining the damage done to the forests by its selective extraction, which broke the canopy and allowed wind to destroy neighbouring trees. In 1568, despite a request from Saxony, no royal monopoly was granted because there was no yew to cut, and the next year Bavaria and Austria similarly failed to produce enough yew to justify a royal monopoly.





My family come from generations of musical instrument makers. They made mandolins and violins. The immense collection of fine tropical timbers my cousin has is mind boggling. Almost any characteristic can be found. Woods that are good in compression, others good in tension, others that resist any parasite, light, heavy, strong. Some even provide lubrication some are grainless for practical purposes. Other have immense beauty and colour. John Harrison was able to make accurate clocks completely out of wood using timers with the correct properties.


One can see that sensible people were trying to implement sustainable harvesting of timber in medieval and renaissance Europe but short term greed over ruled that so they killed the golden goose. Mining and Timber interests are no longer able to corrupt common sense conservation measures and stewardship of forest in Western nations (Mostly gone now) but they do in Africa and Indonesia. Other monied interests do the influencing in the west. These are primarily banking and finance and their control is via ownership of media and big tech and their ability to bestow favourable media coverage on politicians "left wing" or "right wing" is an illusion. Why did Europeans (including the British) clear their forests when clearly many at the time were warning of their loss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> My family come from generations of musical instrument makers. They made mandolins and violins. The immense collection of fine tropical timbers my cousin has is mind boggling. Almost any characteristic can be found. Woods that are good in compression, others good in tension, others that resist any parasite, light, heavy, strong. Some even provide lubrication some are grainless for practical purposes. Other have immense beauty and colour. John Harrison was able to make accurate clocks completely out of wood using timers with the correct properties.
> 
> 
> One can see that sensible people were trying to implement sustainable harvesting of timber in medieval and renaissance Europe but short term greed over ruled that so they killed the golden goose. Mining and Timber interests are no longer able to corrupt common sense conservation measures and stewardship of forest in Western nations (Mostly gone now) but they do in Africa and Indonesia. Other monied interests do the influencing in the west. These are primarily banking and finance and their control is via ownership of media and big tech and their ability to bestow favourable media coverage on politicians "left wing" or "right wing" is an illusion. Why did Europeans (including the British) clear their forests when clearly many at the time were warning of their loss.


Among Yews many properties is it is extremely poisonous to livestock and associated with death. There were many reasons to cut it down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 23, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> 440 mph D.H. Mosquito in ww2? afaik wartime Mosquito topped at around 410 mph, only the Mk 34 was faster, ~425 mph, but was aoperational after the Germany surrender but did some recce flight in the Far east theater


Maybe with the 21 psig boost or 25psig boost?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Maybe with the 21 psig boost or 25psig boost?


probably much lower, mk 34 is high altitude recce it's highest speed would be to around 30,000 feet, high pressure is for low altitude flight


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2021)

During the "age of sail", the British had _oak farms (_forests_)_ for the timber used in the construction of their warships. The limbs of the trees would be shaped while growing for frames.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I'm going to make some long arguments and reasonings.
> 
> You're possibly right in that the He 219, while slightly faster than a Ju 88 with the same engine, would probably also be incapable of catching a Mosquito.
> 
> ...


The top speed of the Mosquito was only part of the problem. The PR version maximum cruise speed was 358 MPH and it carried up to 850 gallons of fuel
. If it were to intercept the same type at 25,000ft in the 16 minutes it takes to get to 25,000 ft its target has cruised 100 miles, but while climbing it is doing much less than 358 MPH. The Mosquito had a service ceiling near to 40,000, in practice vectoring an interception with prop aircraft is very difficult. The RAF had the same problem with Jabo raids at the end of the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> 3 Trying to convert them into "Multi Roll Combat Aircraft". Schnell(fast) bombers that were also forced to become dive bombers and often zerstoerers as well that then had to become night fighters. As a result these aircraft were too heavy and slow.
> .


Many aircraft were multi role combat aircraft in WW2 but you cant make them what they aren't. The Mosquito was a fast bomber, heavy fighter (zerstorer), nightfighter and recon aircraft, so was the P-38. The Typhoon was still a very competent fighter when it dropped its bombs or rockets and its bomb load/ fire power was equal to a D-17. The allies in the west had a huge number of designs and engines to choose from and many niches to fill, the Russians were fighting a different war with different niches to fill. Germany just couldnt come up with a technical superiority to overcome this obvious disadvantage, especially since it didnt really start applying itself to the issue until 1942/43 by which time it was way too late.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Many aircraft were multi role combat aircraft in WW2 but you cant make them what they aren't. The Mosquito was a fast bomber, heavy fighter (zerstorer), nightfighter and recon aircraft, so was the P-38. The Typhoon was still a very competent fighter when it dropped its bombs or rockets and its bomb load/ fire power was equal to a D-17. The allies in the west had a huge number of designs and engines to choose from and many niches to fill, the Russians were fighting a different war with different niches to fill. Germany just couldnt come up with a technical superiority to overcome this obvious disadvantage, especially since it didnt really start applying itself to the issue until 1942/43 by which time it was way too late.



I have Dietmar Hermann's book on the Fw 187 (a famous author on the Fw 187, Fw 190D and Ta 152). In his Fw 187 book there are many illustrations of the effort Focke-Wulf was forced to go to in order to try and adapt the Fw 187 into the "zerstoerer" role in order to try and get sale.

The observer was made to face rearward, the cockpit canopy was raised and rearward facing armament was added. I think dive brakes were added as well. These modification resulted in an aircraft that lost performance and gained a high wing loading.

Focke-Wulf was easily able to provide both a single seat Fw 187 and also a duel seat with the radio operator facing forward. The "radio operators" job is to take navigation fixes in bad weather and at night, operate the radio and radar if fitted to alleviate the pilot so he may concentrate on instrument flying, retain his night vision and keep a lookout ahead. With a mirror he could have provided a second set of eyes.

The basic unmodified Fw 187 would have provided one key trick: immense speed on the DB605 engine when that engine was slightly inferior to the Merlin in power and altitude performance. Here was a high speed interceptor that had the best chance of intercepting a mosquito in both the day and at night with a radar, a high speed long range reconnaissance aircraft that could evade interception (possibly the most critical role of all) and a long range fighter that would use its speed to overcome its high wing loading.

So I find it interesting that 'group think' can take hold and some of these outdated ideas become unassailable.

The Zerstoerer concept was a good concept when used within its limitations, no other nation had an aircraft as good in that role for 1-2 years.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I have Dietmar Hermann's book on the Fw 187 (a famous author on the Fw 187, Fw 190D and Ta 152). In his Fw 187 book there are many illustrations of the effort Focke-Wulf was forced to go to in order to try and adapt the Fw 187 into the "zerstoerer" role in order to try and get sale.
> 
> The observer was made to face rearward, the cockpit canopy was raised and rearward facing armament was added. I think dive brakes were added as well. These modification resulted in an aircraft that lost performance and gained a high wing loading.
> 
> ...


The Fw 187 was the equal of the British Whirlwind. You cannot just bolt on engines with twice the weight power fuel consumption and cooling requirements without a complete re design, that is why they both ended up on the shelf.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jan 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The Fw 187 was the equal of the British Whirlwind. You cannot just bolt on engines with twice the weight power fuel consumption and cooling requirements without a complete re design, that is why they both ended up on the shelf.



The Fw187 was designed from the begining for the Db 600 series of engines. Also in 1942 it was design modified to enter production with up to date modifications.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Jan 23, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I'm going to make some long arguments and reasonings.
> 
> You're possibly right in that the He 219, while slightly faster than a Ju 88 with the same engine, would probably also be incapable of catching a Mosquito.
> 
> ...


 Hajo hermannn in his book reports that he intercepted a Mosquito with his Fw190 during night, 440mph sounds me a little high for cruising speed
Theres no point to speak about the DB 603 L . It was available in1945 ,even this is not certain , and its performance is controversial
With realistically available engines ,there was no reason he 219 to be produced.Also could NOT carry the Berlin radar
Lets not forget the Me 410. It s a mystery to me why was not used as NF. It was the faster of all german twins, it was employed as night intruder, was available in numbers especially after spring 1944, had good range to wait on height for the Mosquitoes, and with Gm1 should be pretty close in speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2021)

We have the ever changing, rubber FW 187 rearing it's head again



Koopernic said:


> The observer was made to face rearward, the cockpit canopy was raised and rearward facing armament was added









single seat




two seat. 

No raised canopy. The added reward firing armament was a single MG 15 with about 6 drums of ammo. It also could NOT point below a 15 degree angle from horizontal. Fueld of fire was poor but it didn't require the canopy to be raised. 
Drawings are in the book listed as are photos of the rear cockpit without gun but with mount and the slot in the canopy roof. 
not all two seaters got the rear gun





No real increase in drag over the single seater from the addition of the 2nd seat.
However the provision of a useful armament may have added drag. 
The upper machine gun was not the most streamline installation and the blast troughs for the 20mm guns (which the single seater didn't have either) may have also added drag.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 24, 2021)

dedalos said:


> The Fw187 was designed from the begining for the Db 600 series of engines. Also in 1942 it was design modified to enter production with up to date modifications.


You could say the same about the Bf109 but that resulted in a plane that was too small later in the war. To me the Fw 187 just looks all wrong to do all the tasks I am told it would have been great at. The radiator design is draggy, the fuselage has no space and the pilot view is poor. It has a smaller wing span and area than a Mosquito, larger than a Whirlwind. Everything just seems to be in the wrong place, like a sport version of a HS 129.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Germany just couldnt come up with a technical superiority to overcome this obvious disadvantage, especially since it didnt really start applying itself to the issue until 1942/43 by which time it was way too late.



I agree. There was certainly sense in the desire to make the He 177 and Bomber B into reality, but the resources, planning and co-operation was just not there to produce advanced projects of their scope within the industry, plus some of the bizarre decisions coming from the RLM didn't help. This folks, is what happens in a dictatorship. The B-29 is a great example of how a programme should have been structured, with sub-contracting, vast expenditure and effort working toward one goal, so it is a surprise when a closer look is made and all sorts of flaws reveal themselves, not to mention the issues the aircraft suffered with its engines. New technology is hard and even in a bureaucratic system that wasn't the mess that Nazism thrived in didn't work out so well and only advanced with throwing money and even more vast amounts of effort at it. It's just not surprising that these programmes failed under the circumstances they evolved in.



Koopernic said:


> The observer was made to face rearward, the cockpit canopy was raised and rearward facing armament was added. I think dive brakes were added as well. These modification resulted in an aircraft that lost performance and gained a high wing loading.



This was for a stuka variant that was a vain attempt at producing the type as a specialist dive bomber to a two-seat, twin engined dive bomber requirement in 1940/1941. No interest from the RLM and Fw was told not to carry out any further work on the type, that is, until May 1942...



Koopernic said:


> So I find it interesting that 'group think' can take hold and some of these outdated ideas become unassailable.



...By August 1942, the RLM had stopped all work on the type when the Kampfzerstorer (excuse the lack of umlaut) prototypes were underway. No specific reason was given, but resources were going to be devoted to the He 219 and Me 410. Certainly on paper the Fw 187 variant looked like a winner, but again the age old debate about its ultimate value to the Germans and its impact on production of existing types comes into play - what was Fw NOT doing to have to do to build it? In the Petrick book it explicity states that Tank and co were working nights and weekends to get the thing on paper - their resources were stretched and there was little excess to offer to the programme.

Had it gone into production, we could have expected to see it in late 1943/early 1944 entering squadron service, but then what? Even with it in service in high-ish numbers - difficult to predict what kind of numbers, given the politics that surrounded the He 219 development and the delays that afflicted the Me 410 programme, both of which worked on a similar timeline to what we are guesstimating our Fw 187 Destroyers are working to, the type is effective, but to what extent? Is it going to change the course of the war effective? Probably not with the growing resources available to the Allies and their foot hold in Europe (not to forget the Soviets advancing from the East), but obviously it would have boasted excellent performance, and could have been a contender for one of the war's most brilliant multi-role aircraft, but for one thing; the previously mentioned unpredictability of the personalities at work in the RLM, the aviation industry and the armaments industry.

There's no guarantee this aircraft, had it gone into service would have been anything more than being remembered as an excellent type that served with the Luftwaffe, but what we can guarantee is that the German hierarchy would have induced delays that would have made the programme as dysfunctional as everything else they were working on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 24, 2021)

The Fw 187's primary, critical and uncompromised role should have been exclusively:
1/ Long range high speed escort fighter.
2/ High Speed Interceptor fast enough to be useful against the Mosquito.
3/ High Speed Photo reconnaissance aircraft.
To fulfil there rolls it must be about 6%-7% faster than any Merlin powered Spitfire or Mosquito while using the best contemporary engine the Germans had at that time the slightly inferior DB601 or DB605 engines.
Any compromises in the design to broaden the mission scope would be completely unacceptable.
There must be no increases in weight and drag for the following:
No ultra heavy armament to destroy bomber formations, no second crew member, no rearward facing crew member, no ultra heavy bomb loads, no dive bombing capability.

An armament of 2 x 20mm MG151 canon and 2 x 13.2mm MG131 machine guns is more than enough. It is twice the fire power of the Me 109G and slightly more than the 2 Hispano Spitfire. It's about 60% of the 4 canon Fw 190A6 in consideration of the higher rate of fire of the unsynchronised armament,

Minor variations in specialist variants would allow the carriage of 4 x 20mm canon with slight speed penalty or a second crew member to operate radio, navigation and lightweight radar (if fitted) for a night fighter, bad weather fighter role. The aircrafts fuel capacity would be impacted but its speed would not be impacted.

Scope drift would increase weight and drag and kill this aircrafts primary role as it has with so many other aircraft modern and old.

The aircraft would be fitted with a centreline mountings and shackles for a centreline 900L (200 Imp gallon) drop tank and that would allow it to carry a 500kg or 2 x 250kg bombs with little impact on performance. In due course it might take underwing drop tanks.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Heavier more adaptable aircraft need bigger engines and those engines just come too late.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> You can't have your cake and eat it.



I agree. Whilst I do believe the Fw 187 would have been an excellent aircraft in its 1942 incarnation, it is worth keeping the aircraft and its multifarious uses in context. The problem that I see is that, and Hermann and Petrick tend to be a little guilty of this in their book, with all the subsequent design concepts for the airframe that Tank produced, people tend to believe that the airframe that _was_ produced would have been capable of ALL of them. That's just not the case. Clearly in its initial incarnation, like the Westland Whirlwind, it's too small and offers no growth potential for improvement, or a multi-role specification, which the RLM was initially looking at to begin with.

After the disappointment of not receiving the Zerstorer order, Tank used the airframe as the basis of a number of projects, but these would have been quite different to one another had they been built, unlike using the same basic airframe for the Mosquito. For example, the dive bomber variant drawn up in 1940 shares the same appearance, but you can guarantee it would have been structurally strengthened and undertaken considerable structural redesign as a result of the new role. It was also to have been powered by BMW 801s, so significant design differences between it and the actual aircraft built. In fact, the only resemblance between it and the actual machine is the tail. The forward fuselage looks like a completely different aircraft.

By the time the 1942 variant of the design appears, the two-seater that was built was merely a reconstructed original model, which shares the same defect as the original - just adding a heavy cannon armament and stretching the cockpit to enable it to carry two persons does not immediately turn a single-seat fighter into a multi-role Zerstorer. The same issues of limited internal space and minimal growth potential exist. The drawings of the potential Fw 187C in the book bear this out; there is precious little space for avionics for anything other than a strictly day fighter role and as far as the hope of installing cameras internally for reconnaissance - forget it. Discussion revolves around the 'C model being used as a night fighter, but without an increase in internal volume, including an extension to the nose to include incorporating radar, there's no way that the Fw 187C could have done it, and I am led to believe that the intent was that the Fw 187C was to operate in a day fighter-bomber role only. There also doesn't appear to be any provision for drop tanks either, which limits it's range carrying a bomb load.

The high altitude fighter/night fighter variant, approved by the RLM looks different again, and was likely to have been a different take on the same appearance, and the fuselage appears longer in one of the drawings, with, once again, a redesigned forward fuselage. It is, however a single-seater, which is often _not_ acknowledged by pundits when the night fighter is discussed, space for avionics taking up where the second crewmember of the 'C model sat, although there are no aerials of any kind shown in the illustrations provided. This would have been a proposition for only the most skilled pilots, which severely limits its useability.

So all of this points to the fact that the Fw 187 is severely limited in potential as a design. It is not capable of undertaking other duties other than that which it was strictly designed to do simply because it was too small. Each role would have required a very different airframe to the last because of this, which means that strictly speaking, IT WAS NOT a multi-role aircraft. It could be built as a dive bomber, it could be built as a day fighter-bomber, OR it could be built as a high altitude fighter OR night fighter, BUT NOT all of those things in one airframe.

Could it have pulled off the performance that it is credited with? Quite possibly - it was a great little design, but again, start adding the detritus required of a contemporary combat aircraft and its performance edge begins to be swept away. What performance figures Tank drew up for his fighter should be taken with a grain of salt bearing this in mind. Nonetheless, it would have been an awesome little aircraft, pretty too.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I agree. There was certainly sense in the desire to make the He 177 and Bomber B into reality, but the resources, planning and co-operation was just not there to produce advanced projects of their scope within the industry, plus some of the bizarre decisions coming from the RLM didn't help. This folks, is what happens in a dictatorship. The B-29 is a great example of how a programme should have been structured, with sub-contracting, vast expenditure and effort working toward one goal, so it is a surprise when a closer look is made and all sorts of flaws reveal themselves, not to mention the issues the aircraft suffered with its engines. New technology is hard and even in a bureaucratic system that wasn't the mess that Nazism thrived in didn't work out so well and only advanced with throwing money and even more vast amounts of effort at it. It's just not surprising that these programmes failed under the circumstances they evolved in.
> .


The people involved didn't seem to know what they were involved in and when they learned they seemed to instantly forget it. The B-29 had all of the USAs resources put into it but still wasn't available in time to have any effect on the war in Europe and in any case wasn't needed. Work on the B-29 started in 1938 and Boeing also produced other 4 engine designs, you cant put a value on that experience. To have any effect on the course of the war the He 177 would have to be in service in numbers in 1940 which would mean work starting almost as soon as Adolf came to power. If it did and was like a B-29, the B-29 was a different beast, even the USA couldn't withstand sustained losses of 4% on missions.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The people involved didn't seem to know what they were involved in and when they learned they seemed to instantly forget it.



I don't quite understand where you are going with this in the context of the discussion. My point was that it's difficult enough for a major technologically advanced project to go smoothly under circumstances where the government isn't a fascist dictatorship, so it's no surprise that the He 177 and the Bomber B, both of which were technologically advanced failed under the Nazis when the entire bureaucracy was a viper's nest full of backstabbing and countermanding in order to gain one-upmanship.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 26, 2021)

The Fw 187 could certainly have entered production in 1942, in place of the Me410 and He 219. Not in parallel with them.
Germany already had a decent multi role aircraft ,the Ju 88. The fw 187 did dont need to cover the roles the Ju 88 (and Bf110) did. Only the 3 roles Koopernic described.1)long range fighter(inthe bay of Biscay i would add)
2)interceptor of recce and pathfindet aircraft
3) reconnaissance
Again i agree with koopernic, for those roles he should be as light and small as possible.
It did not have to carry heavy avionics, Fw 190s and Bf109s on wild sau missions intercepted Mosquitos without radar. 
Its airframe should be just strong enough for aerial combat and fuel drop tanks . No bomb load capability, no excessive armor for ground attack, because of the weight penalty. He should be a race horse, the dirty works could be done by the various Ju88s and Bf110G. 
It had no business to go for the lancastet s and halifaxes, JUST the Mosquitoes. So no schrage music guns, no armored windshield just 2 Mg151 s with 250 rpg
While it had a small fuselage, the Bf109 had an even smaller one and still could accept cameras.
I have pictures of it with annular radiators. On Db605A would have power to weight ratio on take off weight superior to the Fw190 and slightly superior to the Bf 109G. 
(With reasonable armament....)
Using Mw50 should have a fantastic rate of climb. 
And all of the above using the standard Db605 already on massive production. On Db605D would be near Do335 performance with far simpler and cheaper airframe
Me410s and He219 required Db603 s to deliver very little,(he219 none) improvement over the Ju88
Fw 187 would not have changed the war outcome. Still its units would be badly outnumbered, would operate with broken communication codes, with sabotaged spare parts, and the pilots undertrained.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I don't quite understand where you are going with this in the context of the discussion. My point was that it's difficult enough for a major technologically advanced project to go smoothly under circumstances where the government isn't a fascist dictatorship, so it's no surprise that the He 177 and the Bomber B, both of which were technologically advanced failed under the Nazis when the entire bureaucracy was a viper's nest full of backstabbing and countermanding in order to gain one-upmanship.


Maybe my post was badly written, I agree with the point you made. Goering was a politician who used to be an aviator. as the top guy he got the organisation he deserved. Since he was in charge but never responsible if things went wrong, everyone around him developed the same habit. Germany stole a march on re arming but started to lose ground from the start of hostilities. Goering as a WW1 ace and head of the LW must have known that as designs became more powerful and complicated they took longer and had more problems. Their progress in engines and designs had to go ahead at the same speed as it started. but it didnt. The He 177 had to go ahead and be in service as the Stirling, Halifax and Manchester/ Lancaster did. If one engine fails like the Vulture and Sabre, get another, or change the design or put everything you can into it to make it work as the US did with the B-29. Goerings outburst about the He 177 is typical of him. In 1942 he hasked why the He 177s "silly engine had turned up". Was he really saying that for 4 years as head of the LW he didnt even know what engine was in his flagship heavy bomber. of course he did, and he should have done something but didnt so he pretended not to know and blamed "others". If it had been in production in 1940 it may have had some use and effect, producing less than a thousand from 1942 to the end of the war was pretty much a waste of time.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

dedalos said:


> 1)long range fighter(inthe bay of Biscay i would add)
> 2)interceptor of recce and pathfindet aircraft
> 3) reconnaissance



Long range fighter/interceptor BY DAY ONLY and NOT a recon aircraft. There is simply no provision in any of the drawings Tank produced for cameras. In the Fw 187C you'd have to remove the rear seat or the fuselage fuel tank. In the high altitude fighter variant you'd have to remove the fuel tank and avionics aft of the single-seat cockpit.



dedalos said:


> It did not have to carry heavy avionics, Fw 190s and Bf109s on wild sau missions intercepted Mosquitos without radar.



In night/bad weather flying the Fw 187 would have been terrible to fly. It's cockpit was small and not very ergonomic, and there are instruments outside on the engine nacelles - a bad idea for a night/all-weather fighter. As for radar, any self respecting bomber destroyer by night and bad weather _had _to use it. In the Fw 187 the placing of radar aerials in the nose is impossible because of the propeller arcs. Not only that, the night fighter variant was a single-seater, which means the pilot has a heck of a workload flying an aircraft by instruments only in a not very pilot friendly cockpit, listening to radio intercepts and trying to search for an enemy aircraft in the dark with nothing more than his eyes.



dedalos said:


> Its airframe should be just strong enough for aerial combat and fuel drop tanks .



In the Fw 187C there was no provision for drop tanks; the drawings in Hermann and Petrick's book bear that out, mind you, there was nothing stating that plumbing couldn't have been put in to enable it. I have no doubt it would have been a good manoeuvrable high performance day fighter bomber though, but a rival to the Bf 110 and Me 410? Not by a long chance - it's too inflexible.



dedalos said:


> While it had a small fuselage, the Bf109 had an even smaller one and still could accept cameras.



Only one, which restricted the mission it could carry out. Again, in the Fw 187C there is no space unless you remove the back seat or the fuel tank. In the long range fighter variant Tank proposed, the same - it was a single-seater and fuel and avionics took up aft of the cockpit.

It's worth remembering that these aircraft mentioned did not have a common fuselage/engine. They were all different to one another. The Fw 187C WAS NOT the same as the heavy fighter/night fighter variant that the RLM asked Tank to investigate. The fuselage and engines were different on both aircraft. One was a two-seater, the other had a longer fuselage and was a single-seater.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2021)

Not all photo recon cameras are the same size.




I am not sure but this camera was in the cockpit, perhaps aimed through the window that appears to be in the belly of the plane just to the right of the pith helmet of the man carrying the camera. A lot of good work was done with smaller cameras but fitting something this size in a 109 was going to be impossible and it was going to be darn difficult to stuff one in a Fw 187.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2021)

Design issues on the Fw 187 were solved by.
1. A new baton and a pair of pink boots.
2 A nice art collection
3 Occupying North Africa, invading the Soviet Union and declaring war on the USA.

See? After point 3 you aren't bothered about the Fw187 range or payload at all.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I don't quite understand where you are going with this in the context of the discussion. My point was that it's difficult enough for a major technologically advanced project to go smoothly under circumstances where the government isn't a fascist dictatorship, so it's no surprise that the He 177 and the Bomber B, both of which were technologically advanced failed under the Nazis when the entire bureaucracy was a viper's nest full of backstabbing and countermanding in order to gain one-upmanship.





nuuumannn said:


> I agree. Whilst I do believe the Fw 187 would have been an excellent aircraft in its 1942 incarnation, it is worth keeping the aircraft and its multifarious uses in context. The problem that I see is that, and Hermann and Petrick tend to be a little guilty of this in their book, with all the subsequent design concepts for the airframe that Tank produced, people tend to believe that the airframe that _was_ produced would have been capable of ALL of them. That's just not the case. Clearly in its initial incarnation, like the Westland Whirlwind, it's too small and offers no growth potential for improvement, or a multi-role specification, which the RLM was initially looking at to begin with.
> 
> After the disappointment of not receiving the Zerstorer order, Tank used the airframe as the basis of a number of projects, but these would have been quite different to one another had they been built, unlike using the same basic airframe for the Mosquito. For example, the dive bomber variant drawn up in 1940 shares the same appearance, but you can guarantee it would have been structurally strengthened and undertaken considerable structural redesign as a result of the new role. It was also to have been powered by BMW 801s, so significant design differences between it and the actual aircraft built. In fact, the only resemblance between it and the actual machine is the tail. The forward fuselage looks like a completely different aircraft.
> 
> ...





nuuumannn said:


> I agree. There was certainly sense in the desire to make the He 177 and Bomber B into reality, but the resources, planning and co-operation was just not there to produce advanced projects of their scope within the industry, plus some of the bizarre decisions coming from the RLM didn't help. This folks, is what happens in a dictatorship. The B-29 is a great example of how a programme should have been structured, with sub-contracting, vast expenditure and effort working toward one goal, so it is a surprise when a closer look is made and all sorts of flaws reveal themselves, not to mention the issues the aircraft suffered with its engines. New technology is hard and even in a bureaucratic system that wasn't the mess that Nazism thrived in didn't work out so well and only advanced with throwing money and even more vast amounts of effort at it. It's just not surprising that these programmes failed under the circumstances they evolved in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The original Fw 187 concept, with DB600/601 engines merely fulfilled the same requirements as a single seat fighter but by keeping the aircraft light and compact a two engine fighter had 50-60% greater range and better speed than a single. Doing anything else to it would be as silly as mounting a rear gunner and/or dive brakes to a Me 109 or Spitfire. Once they stepped beyond that the idea of it being a P-38 or Whirlwind like fighter it was dead.

Without this the Luftwaffe had no long range escort, recon etc until 1945 when 10 examples of the 750 mile range Ta 152H-1 with wing tanks were delivered.

Ernst Udet wasn't worried about the range of his fighter force when he allowed Fw 187 development to continue but only with Jumo 210 engines thereby saving the program but guaranteeing that the airframe would not be viable when a production decision could have been made. 

Udet was worried about the supply of DB601 and Jumo 211 engines and the Fw 187 wasn't getting any of these.

Here is the thing: the men in charge of Luftwaffe procurement and German aircraft production: Milch, Udet and Jenkonshenk all opposed significant investment in heavy or 4 engine bombers.

Why would you need a long range fighter? A large number of interceptors was needed.

They favoured aircraft that could support the German Army tactically with precision bombing. Dive bombers were particularly favoured and, "zerstoerers" which had a ground attack role.

This is actually sensible. The nightmare scenario for Germany was an invasion by France (they'd done so when they occupied the Ruhr and attempted to anex the Sarr) and a concurrent invasion by Poland (one both both highly plausible, Poland and to defeat that thereat a large and well equipped and supported German Army would be needed. No point strategically bombing your enemy and waiting for his production to decline when his army is already half way into your country. To add to this Italy, Czechoslovakia, USSR and UK migh jump in to such a war. Treaties diffused USSR and Italy tensions.

What also needs to be referenced here is the von Schlieffen "plan" which was claimed to be a plan by the Kaisers Germany to invade all of Europe and the world.

The actual 'plan' was unearthed in 1955 in East Germany and rediscovered after German Unification. You can read about this in "Terrence Zubehor's The real German war plan"

It wasn't a plan but a military simulation exercise of 1905. When Germany bumbled into WW1 like every other nation the German high command had to send officers to von Schlieffen's daughters home (he and his wife having passed on) to collect his hand written notes and plans for the simulation exercise.

Post war a combination of allied propagandists seeking to impose German war guilt and hide their own incompetence, German leftists seeking to discredit conservatives and most of all the German High Command itself, who didn't have a plan, presented this exercise as a plan rather than what it was.

In order for Germany to successfully defeat France at the Marne it needed at least 60% more divisions.

The reason it didn't have those divisions is because Tirpitz got his navy built.

In the minds of nearly any German officer at the time was that not primarily supporting the army is what caused German defeat. They weren't going to make the same mistake in WW2 and invest money on the High Seas fleet or its equivalent a 4 engine long range strategic bomber force.

***********************************

The mess with Bomber A (He 177), Bomber B (Ju 288, Fw 191, Do 317) has got some history.

When the Ju 89 and Do 19 were cancelled in 1936/37 what was called Bomber A (He 177) was immediately begun. The long range strategic bomber wasn't ignored but only one type was built. I'm not sure to what degree Udet, Jenkonshenk and Milch supported it.

The opportunity for a 4 engine aircraft such as a Do 19 with 4 x 1000hp radials able to support the German navy from 1939 was thus lost. There were no plans for war with Britain so no real plans were made or unrealistic assumptions of bomber range used. Hitler in fact forbade preparing for war with Britain in any way for this.

Either way it was only 1 bomber (the He 177). Britain had 4 less ambitious designs (Stirling, Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Warwick) and spread the risk.

The US also had multiple 4 engine bomber designs.

Germany couldn't afford that. However in 1939 and 1940 Ernst Heinkel pressed the Luftwaffe to allow the development of the He 177 as a separate 4 engine bomber and the remove the dive bombing requirement. The answer to him was that that funding for the program couldn't be justified unless the He 177 was also a dive bomber and Heinkel kept going as best it could.

Bomber B also died on the back of its engines. The engine that could have powered it Jumo 222, DB604, BMW 802, DB606 and DB610 all were cancelled because they weren't the front runner (DB604, BMW 802) or had absurd requirements for power or restrictions to bearing materials due to tin shortage fears, technical problems etc.

To compound this the DB606 seemed to work without trouble in the He 119 and Me 261 Adolophine. An extreme misplaced sense of material shortages often drove the Germans into absurd measures such as insufficient nickel in their jet engines or tin in the bearings of the Jumo 222.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Not all photo recon cameras are the same size.
> View attachment 610318
> 
> I am not sure but this camera was in the cockpit, perhaps aimed through the window that appears to be in the belly of the plane just to the right of the pith helmet of the man carrying the camera. A lot of good work was done with smaller cameras but fitting something this size in a 109 was going to be impossible and it was going to be darn difficult to stuff one in a Fw 187.



There are smaller highly capable cameras half this size capable of sufficient performance for gathering intelligence, fuel tankage can be compromised and moved to the wings, or the nose lengthened. How did Britain fit cameras in PRU Spitfires? One thing is for sure a Fw 187 had more room than a Me 109.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The opportunity for a 4 engine aircraft such as a Do 19 with 4 x 1000hp radials able to support the German navy from 1939 was thus lost. There were no plans for war with Britain so no real plans were made or unrealistic assumptions of bomber range used. Hitler in fact forbade preparing for war with Britain in any way for this.
> 
> .


He isn't here to defend himself or that argument. However the discussion is of a long range strategic bomber, you don't need a particularly long range to reach most of England from Germany and a He 111 could reach the Whole of UK and did, in 1940, from occupied land.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> There are smaller highly capable cameras half this size capable of sufficient performance for gathering intelligence, fuel tankage can be compromised and moved to the wings, or the nose lengthened. How did Britain fit cameras in PRU Spitfires? One thing is for sure a Fw 187 had more room than a Me 109.



The point is made pretty clearly in that pic SR posted, there is no way the Fw 187 could have carried that camera, not without removing an extra crew member or fuel tanks. Let me point something out for you. Aeroplanes are not made of Lego - you can't just remove fuel tanks and extra crew positions without major redesign work, which takes up time and valuable resources, which then interrupts production lines when implemented, which then introduces delays to deliveries. That this sort of thing was frequently done is remarkable, and a reflection on the individual design of an aircraft and the design team, but, this quality has to be designed in first and, in terms of space, as I have pointed out, there_ is no provision_ in the drawings in Hermann and Petrick's book for the location of cameras in the Fw 187.

The Bf 109 could only carry _one_ camera, and it was size and weight limited, which reduced its useability and operational scope. The PR Spitfires, were purposely designed for the carriage of a range of different cameras, which required the removal of operational equipment to save weight. I'm sure Messerschmitt could have done the same with the Bf 109, but they didn't. Now, I'm sure it could have been done with the Fw 187 too, don't get me wrong, but once again, you are having to do so much to the airframe in order to do it - the exclusively PR Spits were unarmed, remember and couldn't function as anything but PR Spitfires. There were Fighter Recon variants, but, like the Bf 109, they had one camera only. 

The standard Fw 187C that everyone bangs on about simply does not have the space to do it. Not unless you do what the Spitfire designers did, that is, create a special recon variant, which I'm sure could have been done. The fuselage could have been modified like the Spitfire's or Mosquito's, but, like the Spit - it would have had to have been a single-role exclusively PR variant, unlike the Bf 110, that was multi-role, because it had space.

Like I keep saying, you can have a dive bomber, you can have a Zerstorer, you can have a recon machine, you can have a night fighter, _but you can't have them in the same airframe_. Tank knew this. Every iteration he drew up had a different fuselage.

Oh, and the night fighter, no, simply because there is no space for radar in the nose. The prop arcs preclude extending the nose, that is, unless you move the cockpit further back, which then upsets the C of G and requires, guess what, _yet another fuselage_.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2021)

I'm not sure why is such a beef against the Fw 187. 
Need a high-performing fighter? DB 601 installation was done, unike the Merlin on Whirly Fw 187 being a bigger A/C was easier to do the engine upgrade. Toss the Bf 110 in the bin, and Me 210/410 just after the Bf 110. No Ta-154 hussle. 
Need LR recon? Ditch the guns, and second crew member if needed, install the camera(s) - take a page from Spitfire PR.
Radar was not in the nose of German aircraft, aerials were _outside_ the nose. Much easier to turn a bigger Fw 187 into a night fighter than the smaller Fw 190, yet 190 was turned into a radar-outfitted NF sometimes. More guns on a NF? Stick two cannons under the fuselage. Need more firepower on a day fighter? Just one crew member, but 4 cannons in the fuselage sides.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> There are smaller highly capable cameras half this size capable of sufficient performance for gathering intelligence, fuel tankage can be compromised and moved to the wings, or the nose lengthened. How did Britain fit cameras in PRU Spitfires? One thing is for sure a Fw 187 had more room than a Me 109.



The British cameras used it the Spitfire and the Cameras used in the 109 used film that was about 1/4 the size of that big camera per photo. This meant you need about 4 photos to get the same detail per photograph (negative) assuming the same grain size/structure of the emulsion. Taking more photographs closer in succession helps but you either need to fly twice on parallel courses or fly lower (with a lot more photos taken) or some other work around. 

British cameras.





Three on the left use 5 in X 5 in negative size and the two on the right use 8.5 in x 7in negatives. The cameras could be fitted with different length lenses. 

Changing the film magazine on a camera in a 109.





Some 109s used two smaller cameras. 

The Fw 187 may or may not do what you want it to do. It probably isn't going to cover the range of camera setups the 110 could hold.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Need LR recon? Ditch the guns, and second crew member if needed, install the camera(s) - take a page from Spitfire PR.



Yup, I'm not saying a specialised PR variant couldn't have been built, not at all, but in the proposed airframe that was the Fw 187C? Not a chance. Like I said, no room and no provision for it in the drawings Tank produced.



tomo pauk said:


> Radar was not in the nose of German aircraft, aerials were _outside_ the nose. Much easier to turn a bigger Fw 187 into a night fighter than the smaller Fw 190, yet 190 was turned into a radar-outfitted NF sometimes.



And that's precisely why the Fw 187 was not ideal. The prop arc would have knocked those aerials right off! You have to redesign (eyeroll) the fuselage to accommodate them - move the cockpit back, relocate fuel, change the CG, all that. Again, not possible in the Fw 187C and according to the drawings that Tank produced of the single-seat night fighter, there WAS no provision for radar in the nose - avionics (and extra fuel) were located to where the rear seater previously sat in the Fw 187C.

The Fw 187 would have been a terrible night/all-weather fighter. Its cockpit was small and its instrument layout was not conducive to instrument flying - engine instruments were OUTSIDE the cockpit! Combine that with no radar and no back seater (remember, the night fighter/heavy fighter variant was a single-seater) and you have a near useless night fighter.

I'm not hating on it, don't get me wrong - I think it's an awesome aircraft, but it wasn't what most people make out that it was. It wasn't a multi role aircraft. It simply could not have been all those things in the one airframe.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 27, 2021)

pbehn said:


> He isn't here to defend himself or that argument. However the discussion is of a long range strategic bomber, you don't need a particularly long range to reach most of England from Germany and a He 111 could reach the Whole of UK and did, in 1940, from occupied land.



The Luftwaffe was almost incapable of attacking Britain's Eastern Seaboard and naval approaches, especially to the North. The Ju 88 was just too short ranged. The He 111 and Ju 88 might have theoretical ranges of 1600 but in reality it was less than 1200 when a bomb load was carried which leads to a radius of action of little over 400.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe was almost incapable of attacking Britain's Eastern Seaboard and naval approaches, especially to the North. The Ju 88 was just too short ranged. The He 111 and Ju 88 might have theoretical ranges of 1600 but in reality it was less than 1200 when a bomb load was carried which leads to a radius of action of little over 400.



He 111H-4 theoretical range was beyond 2500 km with 2x1 ton bombs hanging out in the breeze, in February of 1940. link
It was not the range of German bombers that needed extension, but the range of their Bf 109s. He 111s were bombing Belfast during the BoB.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 28, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure why is such a beef against the Fw 187.
> Need a high-performing fighter? DB 601 installation was done, unike the Merlin on Whirly Fw 187 being a bigger A/C was easier to do the engine upgrade. Toss the Bf 110 in the bin, and Me 210/410 just after the Bf 110. No Ta-154 hussle.
> Need LR recon? Ditch the guns, and second crew member if needed, install the camera(s) - take a page from Spitfire PR.
> Radar was not in the nose of German aircraft, aerials were _outside_ the nose. Much easier to turn a bigger Fw 187 into a night fighter than the smaller Fw 190, yet 190 was turned into a radar-outfitted NF sometimes. More guns on a NF? Stick two cannons under the fuselage. Need more firepower on a day fighter? Just one crew member, but 4 cannons in the fuselage sides.



Im pretty sure you're misreading that chart. It gives a usefull payload specification “Nutzlast” but the fuel consumption figures are for a bomber equipped with bomb racks “abwurfgeraete” but without actually carrying the bombs SD1000 or LMB mines). It’s also rather lightly armed wit 3 MG15 and a skeleton crew of 4.

Finally it academic, the Luftwaffe lacked the range to attack the shipping approaches to the east of England which drove Goering furious

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Im pretty sure you're misreading that chart. It gives a usefull payload specification “Nutzlast” but the fuel consumption figures are for a bomber equipped with bomb racks “abwurfgeraete” but without actually carrying the bombs SD1000 or LMB mines)..



You are that misreading the chart

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Finally it academic, the Luftwaffe lacked the range to attack the shipping approaches to the east of England which drove Goering furios.



This is a recurring theme. Who was he furious with and why? Why didn't he vent his fury on the man who had been in charge of aviation since 1933? Or the man who was Plenipotentiary from 1936 and did such a great job he was named Reichsmarschall in 1940 getting another baton and a nice pair of boots.. Having plunged the world into a world war, he then spent more and more of his time blaming anyone and everyone for not having what was needed and even complaining that his enemies were not fighting the war he wanted. Since he has been dead for 75 years it is staggering that people continue with these arguments. Any suggestion that Goering was furious about anything can be answered with "You were in charge of the whole deal and you took part in starting the war"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Finally it academic, the Luftwaffe lacked the range to attack the shipping approaches to the east of England which drove Goering furios.



Wasn’t Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe, including its procurement? Or, in the style of bad administrators in general, did he blame others for his errors?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Wasn’t Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe, including its procurement? Or, in the style of bad administrators in general, did he blame others for his errors?


Only Aviation from 1933, he only became head of everything from 1936.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Only Aviation from 1933, he only became head of everything from 1936.


So any hardware shortcomings after about 1940 were his fault.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 28, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> You are that misreading the chart



Yes I did take a while to work it out but it’s still not a realistic range in the sense that you can’t just allow 15% and halve it. This because this is a planning document that gives fuel burn at each phase So that a detailed flight plan can be calculated.
1 The aircraft lands with only 200L or about 44 gallons reserve.
2 No allowance for headwinds, this is still air range.
3 Carrying only 4 crew and 3 x rifle caliber MG 15 is not survivable. Ventral and waist gunner needed.
4 No allowance for combat fuel
5 The 2500km range while in between econ cruising speed range (2800km) and fast cruise (2250km) is optimistic in British airspace. Must fly max speed.
5 no allowance for forming up or different altitudes.
6 it was the ju 88 in particular that was a disappointment in range.

Range would be better without external load.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> So any hardware shortcomings after about 1940 were his fault.



Three men were put in charge: Udet Germany’s highest ranking ace and Jenkoschenk. Both men suicided. Milch was eventually kicked out of the job because he had an argument apparently over the Me 262 bomber. Jenkoschenk made a miscalculation by stating the supply of the 6th Army in Stalingrad by airlift was possible. When Jenkoschenk realised his error and wanted to tell Hitler Goering wouldn’t let him tell Hitler because it would embarrass Goering.

Hitler had made a public speech saying there would be no retreat and when the gravity of the Stalingrad situation was realised he was relieved that the airlift gave him a way out. Had Hitler been told the truth he likely would have ordered a breakout which might have saved half the 6th Army.

A guy called Siegfried Kneymeyer took over I think. He was regarded as highly competent and was certainly a man of action.

Udet was a well liked man but in over his head in politics and technology.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> So any hardware shortcomings after about 1940 were his fault.


In my opinion everything from 1933 was his fault, he was head of aviation, he has to say what he intends to do and whats he wants to do it, he was Hitlers second in command, if he doesn't know then who does? His position after 1936 had him in charge of rearmament and the LW. With tens of millions dead and Europe wrecked Hitler was convinced that he had been let down, not the other way around. Goering was exactly the same, not only furious with his organisation that he built and ran but also with his enemies for not following the "plan". When he was made Reichsmarschall in 1940 the UK alone was out producing him in everything that mattered, he was too dim to realise it and did nothing until 1942/43 by which time it was too late.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Three men were put in charge: Udet Germany’s highest ranking ace and Jenkoschenk. Both men suicided. Milch was eventually kicked out of the job because he had an argument apparently over the Me 262 bomber. Jenkoschenk made a miscalculation by stating the supply of the 6th Army in Stalingrad by airlift was possible. When Jenkoschenk realised his error and wanted to tell Hitler Goering wouldn’t let him tell Hitler because it would embarrass Goering.
> 
> Hitler had made a public speech saying there would be no retreat and when the gravity of the Stalingrad situation was realised he was relieved that the airlift gave him a way out. Had Hitler been told the truth he likely would have ordered a breakout which might have saved half the 6th Army.
> 
> ...


Goering was in charge of the LW he told Hitler or was responsible for Hitler being told. Hitler took forces from the sixth army before Stalingrad and was late providing reinforcements. Hitler as usual forbade retreat or surrender to people in a hopeless position I have no idea what the air lift was supposed to achieve, Germany had no chance of closing the gap and relieving Stalingrad and the occupants had no chance of breaking out. Obviously not Adolf or Herman's fault though, they were "let down".


----------



## dedalos (Jan 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The British cameras used it the Spitfire and the Cameras used in the 109 used film that was about 1/4 the size of that big camera per photo. This meant you need about 4 photos to get the same detail per photograph (negative) assuming the same grain size/structure of the emulsion. Taking more photographs closer in succession helps but you either need to fly twice on parallel courses or fly lower (with a lot more photos taken) or some other work around.
> 
> British cameras.
> View attachment 610460
> ...


 Whats the benefit of Bf110 big cameras, since it did not have the speed to penetrate the enemy airspace even in 1940? There was no comparison Fw187 recce vs Bf110 recce. It was small photos and optical observation against no photos at all


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 28, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Whats the benefit of Bf110 big cameras, since it did not have the speed to penetrate the enemy airspace even in 1940? There was no comparison Fw187 recce vs Bf110 recce. It was small photos and optical observation against no photos at all



We've seen that the Fw 187 could have a second cockpit added by simply lengthening of the cockpit area. That's plenty of space for the biggest of cameras.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 28, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> We've seen that the Fw 187 could have a second cockpit added by simply lengthening of the cockpit area. That's plenty of space for the biggest of cameras.


Obviously i agree with you

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 29, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Goering was in charge of the LW he told Hitler or was responsible for Hitler being told. Hitler took forces from the sixth army before Stalingrad and was late providing reinforcements. Hitler as usual forbade retreat or surrender to people in a hopeless position I have no idea what the air lift was supposed to achieve, Germany had no chance of closing the gap and relieving Stalingrad and the occupants had no chance of breaking out. Obviously not Adolf or Herman's fault though, they were "let down".



Whatever policies Goerings appointees Milch, Jenkonshenk and Udet followed they were very sucessfull until mid 1940 and quite possibly the only sensible policies. The tight focus on tactical aircraft, twin engined bombers, fighters, non duplication of aircraft types to ensure efficient mass production ensured the Luftwaffe was far better equipped than France (or Poland) and Germany was not defeated in a two front war against 3 nations.

Examination of French aircaft manufacturing policy in this era deserves its own book but it’s is one of energy dissipated across many types built in smaller less efficient factories.

While we might note that the Luftwaffe failed to equip its fighters with drop tanks its also worth considering that Happ Arnold specifically ordered drop tanks to NOT be supplied to P-47 which lead to the Schweinfurt disaster and the P51 myth.

After about 1941 almost everything ran into technical problems and delays: Me 210, He 177, Ju 288. Only the Fw 190 was a success.

Even if these aircraft technical problems became fixed as they were on the Me 210/410 it was now too late since the factory expansion investment needed had been put into modified older types and resources no longer existed.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Whatever policies Goerings appointees Milch, Jenkonshenk and Udet followed they were very sucessfull until mid 1940 and quite possibly the only sensible policies. The tight focus on tactical aircraft, twin engined bombers, fighters non duplication of aircraft types to ensure efficient mass production ensured the Luftwaffe was far better equipped than France (or Poland) and Germany was not defeated in a two front war against 3 nations.
> 
> While we might note that the Luftwaffe failed to equip its fighters with drop tanks its also worth considering that Happ Arnold specifically ordered drop tanks to NOT be supplied to P-47 which lead to the Schweinfurt disaster and the P51 myth.
> 
> .


By mid 1940 the UK was producing twice as many single engine fighters than the country that declared war on Europe. What on earth is the "P-51 myth" a 1943 P-47 could not escort to Schweinfurt with tanks or without them.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 29, 2021)

Bf 110 recces during BoB got the engine upgrade to DB 601P as soon as it was available. Its higher altitude power enabled them to get a speedbump urgently needed for their recon duty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> While we might note that the Luftwaffe failed to equip its fighters with drop tanks its also worth considering that Happ Arnold specifically ordered drop tanks to NOT be supplied to P-47 which lead to the Schweinfurt disaster and the P51 myth.



Sources for Hap Arnold specifically ordering that P-47s are not supplied with drop tanks? What the heck is the "P-51 myth"?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Sources for Hap Arnold specifically ordering that P-47s are not supplied with drop tanks? What the heck is the "P-51 myth"?


discussed on this very forum P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2021)

pbehn said:


> discussed on this very forum P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery



My question still remains.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> My question still remains.


Well its a well worn hobby horse, post no 118 on that thread and others before and after are very informative. basically you cant just randomly bolt tanks onto war planes, its a bit complicated.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Sources for Hap Arnold specifically ordering that P-47s are not supplied with drop tanks? What the heck is the "P-51 myth"?



As others have posted.
P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery. - YouTube
1 Happ Arnold document ordering no development of drop tanks in produced in the first few minutes: minute 4.07
2 P-47B/C with 305 gallons internal and one 205 gallon external drop tank could reach Schweinfurt from Newmarket UK with combat and military power. 14 minutes into video.
3 Latter P-47C/D had 370 gallon internal and 2 x 205 gallons drop tanks and escort range of 700 miles.
4 P-47 in Europe were equipped for drop tanks and the drop tanks were developed and tested. They just weren't supplied. *They weren't supplied deliberately.*



Summary
1 Bomber Mafia in USAAF/USAAC dominated politically and supressed proponents of fighters because didn't want to spend money on fighters.
Claire Chenault was a victim of this which is why he ended up in the AVG.
2 Initial USAAF bomber mafia response to 25% and 26% total loss rate of bombers on the two Schweinfurt raids was to use B-26 as decoys and try and develop a YB-17 armed with more guns to escort the bombers rather than ship drop tanks to Europe.
3 Tested, certified, Drop tanks were available because Republic developed them to ship aircraft and USN wanted them. (USN drop tanks for Hudson and Ventura were used on P-38)
4 Bomber Mafia policy ensured neither the P-47 had the drop tanks or improved tankage available.
5 P-51 myth is that the P-51 was the only way to escort. P-47 could have been developed with more fuel earlier.
6 P-51 was convenient ass covering exercise as well as good aircraft.

7 Distance Dover to Schweinfurt is 640km (408 miles) and distance Newmarket to Schweinfurt is 720km (460 miles) both within range of basic 305 gallon P-47 with one 200 gallon drop tank.

Even the Spitfire VIII could have escorted:
1 Spitfire VIII replaced the 48 and 36 gallon fuselage tanks with 2 x 48 gallon tank and added two leading edge wing tanks (I think 10.5-12 gallons each) also had retractable tail wheel.
2 Few Spitfire VIII produced as airframe used for thirsty Griffon variants. Mainly used in near and far east due to its greater range (600+ miles I think)
3 Older Spitfire IX produced in large numbers lacked wing tanks and increased fuselage tank but was given a 40 gallon(approx.) tail tank often called a ferry tank because half would need to be burned of as it prevent combat manoeuvring due to CoG issues.
4 Put the tail tank of the Spitfire IX into the Spitfire VIII and burn half of if of during take-off and climb and use the standard British jettison tank 45-55 gallons and the Spitfire VIII has enormous range.

It was USAAF policy that suppressed development of the escort fighter, not lack of technology.

Just saying the USAAF could do stupid politically things as well, not just Luftwaffe. They did learn from their mistakes.

The US could afford to make more mistakes because it could afford to correct them more. The attempts by Curtiss to produce a replacement for the P-40 are almost as legion as napkinwaffe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> As others have posted.
> P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery. - YouTube
> 1 Happ Arnold document ordering no development of drop tanks in produced in the first few minutes: minute 4.07
> 2 P-47B/C with 305 gallons internal and one 205 gallon external drop tank could reach Schweinfurt from Newmarket UK with combat and military power. 14 minutes into video.
> ...


You post a link and then ignore what is in it yourself.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> You post a link and then ignore what is in it yourself.


Specifically what are you talking about me ignoring? The video reinforces the following statements:
1 A P47C with 305 gallons internal fuel and a 205 gallons drop tank could escort 470 miles radius which is sufficient to cover the USAAF UK base at Newmarket to Schweinfurt (460 miles) with careful use of military power and WEP to engage in combat with Luftwaffe fighters. That would require phased escorting to spare the P47 from burning fuel in early combat.

2 Happ Arnold ordered drop tanks NOT to be supplied to fighters in 1939. He did so because he thought he was doing the right thing by ensuring the USAAF funded development of bombers rather than escort fighters, much like Udet, Milch and Jenkonshenk made decisions that turned out to be wrong.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 30, 2021)

Arrogant U.S. Generals Made the P-51 Mustang a Necessity | by War Is Boring | War Is Boring | Medium 

A long but good article on drop tanks and politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Specifically what are you talking about me ignoring? The video reinforces the following statements:
> 1 A P47C with 305 gallons internal fuel and a 205 gallons drop tank could escort 470 miles radius which is sufficient to cover the USAAF UK base at Newmarket to Schweinfurt (460 miles) with careful use of military power and WEP to engage in combat with Luftwaffe fighters. That would require phased escorting to spare the P47 from burning fuel in early combat.
> 
> 2 Happ Arnold ordered drop tanks NOT to be supplied to fighters in 1939. He did so because he thought he was doing the right thing by ensuring the USAAF funded development of bombers rather than escort fighters, much like Udet, Milch and Jenkonshenk made decisions that turned out to be wrong.


Is every video on youtube a fact? Read the comments in the thread not the video. What people said and did in 1939 has no relevance to what they said and did in 1943, Germany hadn't declared war on the USA in 1939 and the USA was a neutral country. The distance a plane can cruise unmolested is not the distance it can escort a bomber formation, the fighters have to form up, then form up with the bombers then cruise at a speed that means they don't get bounced above bombers cruising at a ground speed of 180 MPH. A fully loaded P-51 could cruise from UK to Berlin, return to UK airspace and then turn round and go to Berlin and back again, but only in peacetime, that is an illustration of how much extra fuel the operation of escort needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Arrogant U.S. Generals Made the P-51 Mustang a Necessity | by War Is Boring | War Is Boring | Medium
> 
> A long but good article on drop tanks and politics.


It doesn't say what anyone planned to do with a P-36 fitted with a 56 gal drop tank in 1939, it doesn't seem to recognise the invention and deployment of RADAR.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> As others have posted.
> P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery. - YouTube
> 1 Happ Arnold document ordering no development of drop tanks in produced in the first few minutes: minute 4.07
> 2 P-47B/C with 305 gallons internal and one 205 gallon external drop tank could reach Schweinfurt from Newmarket UK with combat and military power. 14 minutes into video.
> ...



Arnold's policy didn't "specifically ordered drop tanks to NOT be supplied to P-47", as you've claimed. Order was general.
Disagree about the 700 mile radius of P-47C/D, under the AAF rules as posted under; Pacific might be different.



> 5 P-51 myth is that the P-51 was the only way to escort. P-47 could have been developed with more fuel earlier.
> 6 P-51 was convenient ass covering exercise as well as good aircraft.
> 7 Distance Dover to Schweinfurt is 640km (408 miles) and distance Newmarket to Schweinfurt is 720km (460 miles) both within range of basic 305 gallon P-47 with one 200 gallon drop tank.



Yet, the P-47D with 305+2x150 gal tanks was rated by AAF of having a 425 mile radius under the AAF rules (210 mph IAS cruise at 25000 ft - around 310 mph TAS - with 15+5 min combat duration, and 30 min fuel reserve). P-51B-5 was rated for 700 mile radius under the same conditions. Even the P-47s with 370+2x150 gal, used from mid-1944, were rated for 600 miles. Source the AAF table from pg. 599 of the AHT book.
The P-51 was not the only way to escort, it was just the best way to escort in 1944.



> It was USAAF policy that suppressed development of the escort fighter, not lack of technology.
> Just saying the USAAF could do stupid politically things as well, not just Luftwaffe. They did learn from their mistakes.



Agreed.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 30, 2021)




----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

Milosh said:


> View attachment 610762



It’s an interesting chart but it’s deceiving because of what it doesn’t show. As Greg’s Planes and Automobiles pointed out there was a Republic developed and certified 205 gallon drop tank available and most P-47 were plumbed to use it. It was available at the time of the Schweinfurt raids. It’s Range would be perhaps a little less than the 2 x 108 gallon tanks.

Republic had developed it using private funding for purposes of ferry flights and overseas customers. The response of the “bomber mafia” to the 25% attrition of the Schweinfurt raids was to use B26 raids as decoys to draw of Luftwaffe and develop the YB-40(edited) (upgunned ) B-17 as an escort, both failed. They could have just shipped the 205 gallon tanks Immediately. Even the Luftwaffe caught out on lack of drop tanks in the BoB responded faster and they actually had to modify Me 109 on the production line.

Ranges can be extended by compromising combat power time and WEP power time as well as careful use of relay escorts. Even if some of P47 exceed this and have to break of early (say 90 miles out from target) at least the B17 are only exposed 25 minutes to German fighters before they drop bombs and can accelerate away.

Any drop tank is better than no drop tank and an escort that might have to turns back 30-60 minutes away from target is better than one that turns back 2-3 hours out.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It’s an interesting chart but it’s deceiving because of what it doesn’t show. As Greg’s Planes and Automobiles pointed out there was a Republic developed and certified 205 gallon drop tank available and most P-47 were plumbed to use it. It was available at the time of the Schweinfurt raids. It’s Range would be perhaps a little less than the 2 x 108 gallon tanks.
> 
> Republic had developed it using private funding for purposes of ferry flights and overseas customers. The response of the “bomber mafia” to the 25% attrition of the Schweinfurt raids was to use B26 raids as decoys to draw of Luftwaffe and develop the YB-17 as an escort, both failed. They could have just shipped the 205 gallon tanks Immediately. Even the Luftwaffe caught out on lack of drop tanks in the BoB responded faster and they actually had to modify 109 on the production line.
> 
> ...


A ferry tank is not a drop tank as explained in the comments on the link both you and I posted.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Arnold's policy didn't "specifically ordered drop tanks to NOT be supplied to P-47", as you've claimed. Order was general.
> Disagree about the 700 mile radius of P-47C/D, under the AAF rules as posted under; Pacific might be different.
> 
> 
> ...



The key point Gregs Planes & Automobiles makes is that the 205 gallon republic developed and fully certified drop tanks were available to extend the range of the P47 at the time of the Schweinfurt raids but because of the internal politics of the bomber mafia, which Arnold was part of, ensured they were not in the inventory. Not only that they wasted time trying other methods such as diversionary raids using medium bombers and heavily armed escort bombers and developing their own tanks.

While under the then USAAF cruise speed, 30 minute reserve plus 15+5 combat power WEP rules the P47 couldnt make it to Scweinfurt they could by relaxing those rules. This would mean that statistically some P47 would need to turn back before the bombers reached target but many likely would not. It’s a lot better than no escort at all.

Finally let’s consider some of the failures of USAAF fighters in the early war years that have puzzled Americans.

P-38 late into production: This was caused by lack of proper funding of the P-38 so that only one prototype was built. This meant that when the prototype was lost nearly a year was lost making the second prototyp.

P40 and P39 poor altitude performance. The country that had all of those world renowned machine tool factories areound Philadelphia, Cincinnati etc shouldn't have had a smidgen of trouble making a two speed integrated planetary gearbox for the Allison V-1710.

Yes, you could blame congress but you can also blame the guy in the USAAF asking for the money and budgeting for it.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It’s an interesting chart but it’s deceiving because of what it doesn’t show. As Greg’s Planes and Automobiles pointed out there was a Republic developed and certified 205 gallon drop tank available and most P-47 were plumbed to use it.


The tanks were unpressurized and unreliable, with only half the fuel being able to be used. Dual 75 gal pressurized and more reliable tanks allowed the P-47 to barely penetrate the German border. July1943

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> P-38 late into production: This was caused by lack of proper funding of the P-38 so that only one prototype was built. This meant that when the prototype was lost nearly a year was lost making the second prototyp.
> 
> .


One prototype was built and it crashed setting a speed record, as a result production of others was ordered, this was in February 1939, just short of 3 years before Germany declared war on the USA.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> P-38 late into production: This was caused by lack of proper funding of the P-38 so that only one prototype was built. This meant that when the prototype was lost nearly a year was lost making the second prototyp.


To quote Wiki, 
Kelsey then proposed a speed dash to Wright Field on 11 February 1939 to relocate the aircraft for further testing. General Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the USAAC, approved of the record attempt and recommended a cross-country flight to New York. The flight set a speed record by flying from California to New York in seven hours and two minutes, not counting two refueling stops.[31] Kelsey flew conservatively for most of the way, working the engines gently, even throttling back during descent to remove the associated speed advantage. Bundled up against the cold, Arnold congratulated Kelsey at Wright Field during his final refueling stop, and said, "don't spare the horses" on the next leg.[39] After climbing out of Wright Field and reaching altitude, Kelsey pushed the XP-38 to 420 miles per hour (680 km/h).[40] Nearing his destination, Kelsey was ordered by Mitchel Field tower into a slow landing pattern behind other aircraft, and the prototype was downed by carburetor icing short of the Mitchel runway in Hempstead, New York, and was wrecked. However, on the basis of the record flight, the Air Corps ordered 13 *YP-38*s on 27 April 1939 for US$134,284 each.[4][41] (The "Y" in "YP" was the USAAC's designation for a prototype, while the "X" in "XP" was for experimental.) Lockheed's Chief test pilot Tony LeVier angrily characterized the accident as an unnecessary publicity stunt,[42] but according to Kelsey, the loss of the prototype, rather than hampering the program, sped the process by cutting short the initial test series.[43] The success of the aircraft design contributed to Kelsey's promotion to captain in May 1939. 

Manufacture of YP-38s fell behind schedule, at least partly because of the need for mass-production suitability making them substantially different in construction from the prototype. Another factor was the sudden required expansion of Lockheed's facility in Burbank, taking it from a specialized civilian firm dealing with small orders to a large government defense contractor making Venturas, Harpoons, Lodestars, Hudsons, and designing the Constellation for TWA. The first YP-38 was not completed until September 1940, with its maiden flight on 17 September.[45] The 13th and final YP-38 was delivered to the Air Corps in June 1941; 12 aircraft were retained for flight testing and one for destructive stress testing. The YPs were substantially redesigned and differed greatly in detail from the hand-built XP-38. They were lighter and included changes in engine fit. The propeller rotation was reversed, with the blades spinning outward (away from the cockpit) at the top of their arc, rather than inward as before. This improved the aircraft's stability as a gunnery platform.[46]

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It’s an interesting chart but it’s deceiving because of what it doesn’t show. As Greg’s Planes and Automobiles pointed out there was a Republic developed and certified 205 gallon drop tank available and most P-47 were plumbed to use it. It was available at the time of the Schweinfurt raids. It’s Range would be perhaps a little less than the 2 x 108 gallon tanks.
> 
> Republic had developed it using private funding for purposes of ferry flights and overseas customers. The response of the “bomber mafia” to the 25% attrition of the Schweinfurt raids was to use B26 raids as decoys to draw of Luftwaffe and develop the YB-17 as an escort, both failed. They could have just shipped the 205 gallon tanks Immediately. Even the Luftwaffe caught out on lack of drop tanks in the BoB responded faster and they actually had to modify 109 on the production line.
> 
> ...


So far you havnt mentioned the increase in internal fuel capacity of the P-47 Internal fuel capacity for the D1-23( Razerback) was 305 US gal. The D-25 to-40 (bubble canopy) and the hotrod M model carried 370 US gal. The N carried 556 US gal. Internal fuel is the deciding factor, that is what you have to fight with and get home after dropping external tanks.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Milosh said:


> The tanks were unpressurized and unreliable, with only half the fuel being able to be used. Dual 75 gal pressurized and more reliable tanks allowed the P-47 to barely penetrate the German border. July1943


And that with Spitfires or others performing the escort on bomber form up. It is all very well discussing the P-47s external fuel, its engine consumed approximately twice as much per hour as a Merlin did, 150 gallons didnt last long in a P-47, maybe 90 minutes cruising or 30 minutes in combat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> P40 and P39 poor altitude performance. The country that had all of those world renowned machine tool factories areound Philadelphia, Cincinnati etc shouldn't have had a smidgen of trouble making a two speed integrated planetary gearbox for the Allison V-1710.



File this with the great myths.

Yes a two speed supercharger _can _offer better altitude performance than a single speed supercharger but it is often not dramatic (big difference).
It rather depends on the existing supercharger and the gears used. It also depends on the fuel used (planned).

For the US the radials that changed to two speed superchargers rarely had critical altitudes much above 14,000ft, they used a low gear to improve take-off performance. 
The Allison with 8.80 gears was the highest gear set Allison was offering at the time. The supercharger flowed enough air to support 1040hp at about 14,000ft. It would do about 1125-1150hp at 11,500ft or so, the change to the 9.60 gears raised the 1125-1150hp to 15,000ft but those were not the only changes (new guide vanes?) 
You can only spin an impeller so fast before the tips go supersonic inside the supercharger and the flow gets destroyed. 
You can hit areas just below that were the efficiency of the supercharger is falling off and you are heating the intake charge at a faster rate than you are compressing the air and the intake charge temperature is a major factor in hitting the detonation limits. Combining a set of low gears (like between 6.44 and 7.48) might have allowed the early P-39s and P-40s an extra 100-200hp for take-off and low altitude without using WEP ratings but wouldn't have done a thing for high altitude work. 

Merlin X didn't perform that much better at altitude than a Merlin III
Merlin XX didn't perform that much better at altitude than a Merlin 45.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A ferry tank is not a drop tank as explained in the comments on the link both you and I posted.



The Republic developed 200 gallon drop tank was a fully capable jettisonable drop tank. It’s only limitation was a restriction to 23000ft as it could not be pressurised. Operationally this was not a impediment to long range operations as around half this fuel was burned of in takeoff to 23,000-25,000ft. Effective escorting of bombers requires 3-4 fighters per bomber and the long range P47 escorts would themselves be positioned and escorted to avoid contact with the Luftwaffe till they had jettisoned. Eaker, in charge of the 8th at the time managed to get improvised tanks built in Britain in operation within 2 months. They could have just shipped him some 200 gallon tanks in 5-6 weeks.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> So far you havnt mentioned the increase in internal fuel capacity of the P-47 Internal fuel capacity for the D1-23( Razerback) was 305 US gal. The D-25 to-40 (bubble canopy) and the hotrod M model carried 370 US gal. The N carried 556 US gal. Internal fuel is the deciding factor, that is what you have to fight with and get home after dropping external tanks.



I did mention it in my first post. With 305 gallons internal fuel and 200 gallons external drop tank fuel a P47C could fly 470 miles radius with carefully restricted use of combat power and WEP. The latter razor back P47C had the increased 370 gallon internal fuel.

The wet wing technology used in the P47N was already debugged in the Republic P-43 Lancer though initially troublesome and lacking armour.

Had US doctrine permitted the investment in escort fighters the larger tank, wing tanks and wett wing tanks might all have already been available by 1942.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Republic developed 200 gallon drop tank was a fully capable jettisonable drop tank. It’s only limitation was a restriction to 23000ft as it could not be pressurised. Operationally this was not a impediment to long range operations as around half this fuel was burned of in takeoff to 23,000-25,000ft. Effective escorting of bombers requires 3-4 fighters per bomber and the long range P47 escorts would themselves be positioned and escorted to avoid contact with the Luftwaffe till they had jettisoned. Eaker, in charge of the 8th at the time managed to get improvised tanks built in Britain in operation within 2 months. They could have just shipped him some 200 gallon tanks in 5-6 weeks.


 This is a well worn subject, discussed over many years on many threads. You know all the ins and outs of these discussions as you knew all about dropping of parachute mines on UK. You pretend not to know everything until presented with a sourced document and then immediately forget it for the next discussion. You posted a link, the same link I posted, so you read it and stop pretending that you dont know what you do. It is getting VERY tiresome.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2021)

The P-43 used integral tanks. Now perhaps known as a wet wing, but they never got them to seal properly even with a "self sealing" internal coating. having planes leak fuel while sitting on the apron or in their stands is not a good thing.

The P-47N did have fuel tanks in the wing, but just like it says, those were tanks placed into spaces in the larger wing on the P-47N, not sealed up spaces in the wing. 

P-47N had the wing roots extended to make space for the tanks. The wing tips were clipped to keep the span nearly the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I did mention it in my first post. With 305 gallons internal fuel and 200 gallons external drop tank fuel a P47C could fly 470 miles radius with carefully restricted use of combat power and WEP. The latter razor back P47C had the increased 370 gallon internal fuel.
> 
> The wet wing technology used in the P47N was already debugged in the Republic P-43 Lancer though initially troublesome and lacking armour.
> 
> Had US doctrine permitted the investment in escort fighters the larger tank, wing tanks and wett wing tanks might all have already been available by 1942.


As you know the P-47N doesn't apply because it didn't serve in 1943, or 44 or even in Europe. As you also know the "bubble top" P-47 wasn't in service in 1943, to extend the range of a fighter you have to increase internal fuel, external fuel can be increased as much as you like and can result in flying to a place and a fight you cant fly back from, but you know that don't you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 31, 2021)

Question: just how good was the Ju-88 as a night-fighter? Did it really do so well that development of a dedicated night-fightercraft was a waste of time and resources?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 31, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> As others have posted.
> 
> Initial USAAF bomber mafia response to 25% and 26% total loss rate of bombers on the two Schweinfurt raids was to use B-26 as decoys and try and develop a YB-17 armed with more guns to escort the bombers rather than ship drop tanks to Europe.



The above statement is factually incorrect.

(1) It was the YB-40, not the YB-17. (There was also the XB-41, the bomber escorter version of the B-24).

Admittedly the above is a minor correction. The more important correction:

(2) The bomber escorter project was started well *before* the first Schweinfurt raid.

The work to convert a B-17 into a more heavily armed escort version was commenced in September 1942, some eleven months before the first Schweinfurt raid (Aug. 17, 1943). The resulting YB-40 flew its first operational mission on May 29, 1943, nearly three months before the first Schweinfurt raid. The type flew its last operational mission on July 29, 1943, nearly three weeks before the first Schweinfurt raid.

In short, the losses on the Schweinfurt missions had *nothing* to do with the YB-40/XB-41 bomber escorter projects.

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


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Apr 9, 2021)

dedalos said:


> Heinkel was designing versions with 3rd crew member and defentive Mg131. That would slow the heinkel further.
> Finally the ju 88G6 with the berlin radar would not need Mw50 to achieve 620-640km/h. Could the he219 use the Fug240? I am not sure


If the B-series had been fully developed, the Mg 131 would most likely have been dropped and a more aerodynamic canopy would have been employed (just look at the B-2 variant for example). Why would the He 219 be unable to use the FuG 240?



Koopernic said:


> With the DB603L engine the Do 335 was estimated to achieve 790km/h/490mph but our He 219 with this engine might be able to match a Mosquito at 710/440mph.


I believe Heinkel projections had the He 219B-1 fitted with 2,500 Jumo 222 engines at 435-440 mph. This is of course without FuG 240 but with defensive armament, a worse canopy, and a third crewman.

However, Nowarra holds that the B-1 with Jumo 222 reached 422 mph, while the B-2, a much more streamlined version (retaining the shorter fuselage of the A variant and less cannons than the B-1) using DB 603/TK 13 only reached 376 mph. The B-2 number seems flat out wrong, but in any case, it seems that if you give the He 219 2,500HP+ engines and forgo the added weight of the B-1/C-1, the He 219 could probably have gotten close to the 440 mph range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Apr 9, 2021)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> If the B-series had been fully developed, the Mg 131 would most likely have been dropped and a more aerodynamic canopy would have been employed (just look at the B-2 variant for example). Why would the He 219 be unable to use the FuG 240?
> 
> 
> I believe Heinkel projections had the He 219B-1 fitted with 2,500 Jumo 222 engines at 435-440 mph. This is of course without FuG 240 but with defensive armament, a worse canopy, and a third crewman.
> ...



The idea that the He 219 with Jumo 222’s could reach 440+mph is not just my speculation, it is also supported by the estimates of another Jumo 222 powered He 219 project at the time, the Hütter 211, which was projected at 441 mph.

Also, did Mosquitoes regularly reach 440+ mph themselves over Germany in 1944-45? Would the He 219 really needed to get to that speed or faster themselves, or would 420-430 have sufficed?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 9, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The observer was made to face rearward, the cockpit canopy was raised and rearward facing armament was added. I think dive brakes were added as well. These modification resulted in an aircraft that lost performance and gained a high wing loading.



Dumb question time, again: why would anyone put dive-brakes on a night-fighter?

I get not wanting to overshoot a target, but dive-brakes? Seems like overkill.

Also, not sure of the utility of an extra gun and gunner (with all that implies about weight and performance) facing rearward in a plane operating offensively in the dark.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Apr 9, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Also, not sure of the utility of an extra gun and gunner (with all that implies about weight and performance) facing rearward in a plane operating offensively in the dark.


The Germans were so concerned with defensive armament that on the C-series they lengthened the fuselage by 1 meter, discarded the single Mg 131, and replaced it with a 4xMg 131 turret in the tail.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Jun 1, 2021)

Based on its body of work and what was achieved, I think the Ju.88 has to be seriously considered as the finest night-fighter of the war, and overall, one of the best twin-engined aircraft of the war. Performance-wise the He.219 may have been better, but I do not believe there were as many claims made using this aircraft. Again, based on its body of work and what was actually achieved, the Mosquito should be seriously considered as one of the better "night fighter killers" of the war. Remember there are fewer night fighters in the skies over Germany as there were bombers, so one should expect that there would be more bombers shot down than night fighters. 

I think too many people get wrapped up over theoretical performance characteristics of an aircraft rather than what was actually achieved.

Jim

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I did mention it in my first post. With 305 gallons internal fuel and 200 gallons external drop tank fuel a P47C could fly 470 miles radius with carefully restricted use of combat power and WEP. The latter razor back P47C had the increased 370 gallon internal fuel.
> 
> The wet wing technology used in the P47N was already debugged in the Republic P-43 Lancer though initially troublesome and lacking armour.
> 
> Had US doctrine permitted the investment in escort fighters the larger tank, wing tanks and wett wing tanks might all have already been available by 1942.



Nope. The combat radius of the P-47C w/200 gal Ferry tank was far short of 470mi. First the 200 gal tank was unpressurized and only 100 useful gallons could be used before altitude necessary for B-17 escort above ~ 18K ft reduced useful fuel by half. Second, the drag of that tank was horrendous. The longest recorded fight radius was by the 4th FG on July 28,1943 in a fight with LW at Emmerich GY - approximately 225mi from Debden. The streamlined 75 gal combat tank had better combat range performance than the 200gal Ferry Tank.

Wing tanks were available at Lockheed for P-38 as kits for P-38E and F4 in December 1941. The A-36 proposal contained both bomb racks and planned internal wing plumbing for combat fuel tank in November 1941. Tested on Mark I Mustang in May-June 1942.

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


----------



## Dana Bell (Jun 1, 2021)

I'd have to call it for the Mosquito NF.30. While the Germans had the home field advantage over Germany (tracking radar, ground controllers, strategically stationed night fighter units), the RAF was still able to regularly send Mossies out to tear those Junkers a few new ones. I've never heard of Ju 88 night fighters having an established ability to hunt the Beaus and Mossies defending the UK.

I've noticed a similar pattern in daylight. When KG 40's Ju 88s went over the Bay of Biscay to savage Allied ASW aircraft, the Brits send Mosquitos to hound the Germans.

In both cases, if the Ju 88 was superior, the Mosquitos should have failed. But the Mosquitos succeeded.

(I still intend to model a 1/48th Ju 88 G6 one day - love the colors - but I'll probably build a half dozen Mosquitos...)

One man's opinion!

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 1, 2021)

Operations Steinbock and Gisela were clear wins for the Mosquito, though it is only part of a defence system.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> I'd have to call it for the Mosquito NF.30. While the Germans had the home field advantage over Germany (tracking radar, ground controllers, strategically stationed night fighter units), the RAF was still able to regularly send Mossies out to tear those Junkers a few new ones. I've never heard of Ju 88 night fighters having an established ability to hunt the Beaus and Mossies defending the UK.
> 
> I've noticed a similar pattern in daylight. When KG 40's Ju 88s went over the Bay of Biscay to savage Allied ASW aircraft, the Brits send Mosquitos to hound the Germans.
> 
> ...



I can only support this post and if I can add some detail
Mosquito as a night fighter hunter
Probably the best of these was Wing Commander Branse Burbridge who shot down 21 aircraft at night including four night fighters in one night. The difficulty in finding and shooting down enemy nightfighters on your own, over enemy territory, without any external help cannot be overemphasised. The German nightfighters had all the advantages.

JU88's Over the Bay of Biscay
Initially the RAF used Beaufighters to combat the Ju88 and the standing orders for the Ju88 were not to fight the Beaufighters unless they held a clear numerical or tactical advantage. Against the Mosquito the standing order was simple, not to engage the Mosquito.

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


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 1, 2021)

The Mosquito was a good night fighter but the space for the navigator/radar operator is very cramped and must have degraded efficiency. 

Maybe a tandem cockpit might have been better but don't know if there was the space.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The Mosquito was a good night fighter but the space for the navigator/radar operator is very cramped and must have degraded efficiency.
> 
> Maybe a tandem cockpit might have been better but don't know if there was the space.


If your going to do that you might as well narrow the fuselage and end up with something closely akin to the Hornet NF

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


----------



## JDCAVE (Jun 1, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> I'd have to call it for the Mosquito NF.30. While the Germans had the home field advantage over Germany (tracking radar, ground controllers, strategically stationed night fighter units), the RAF was still able to regularly send Mossies out to tear those Junkers a few new ones. I've never heard of Ju 88 night fighters having an established ability to hunt the Beaus and Mossies defending the UK.
> 
> I've noticed a similar pattern in daylight. When KG 40's Ju 88s went over the Bay of Biscay to savage Allied ASW aircraft, the Brits send Mosquitos to hound the Germans.
> 
> ...


Very good points Dana. WRT my comments, perhaps not a superior aircraft to the Mosquito, only that based on aircraft it shot down, it was probably the most successful.

The Mosquito Mk XXX was not without its flaws. It occasionally suffered catastrophic failure, as shown below:

F/Lt. A.E. Marshal DFC DFM (47124) was operational with 25 Squadron flying Mosquitoes (Mk XVII and Mk XXX) and tasked with shooting down "Chuff's" (AKA V-1 flying bombs) and He.111 with "Chuffs".

Marshall was killed in a flying accident November 27, 1944. The 25 Squadron ORB for November 27, 1944: "Towards the end of the afternoon, we witnessed a tragic accident. F/L A.E. Marshall DFC DFM (Pilot 47124) and his navigator F/O C.A. Allen (145496) having completed their "NFT" were carrying out a "Beat-up." They dived over B Flight at great speed and pulled up sharply. Immediately, vapour trails appeared at the wingtips and then there was a loud bang and we saw that both wings had broken off outboard of the engines. The remainder of the aircraft continued to climb under great impetus to about 1500 feet where it turned over and fell to the ground and exploded. Both pilot and navigator were killed." The aircraft, MT.472 was a Mosquito Mk. XXX.

AIR 27/307/21 25 Sqn Summary Squadron Number: 25 Summary of Events: Y | The National Archives

Marshall is credited with 19 victories. He was a good friend of my father when he served at Fairoaks. *Edit *Marshall on the *Right not Left*. Photo by F/Lt. HHM Cave. Apologies if this has been posted before.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2021)

If vapour trails were coming off the wingtips the pilot was pulling too much g at too low a level. Pilot error not aircraft failure seems to have been the problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 2, 2021)

D
 Dana Bell
the luftwaffe not targetting the fighters but the bombers over Brittain, wasnt that a stategy and a shortcomming?


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 2, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> If vapour trails were coming off the wingtips the pilot was pulling too much g at too low a level. Pilot error not aircraft failure seems to have been the problem.



_"They dived over B Flight at great speed and pulled up sharply."_ Pretty much covers it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Jun 2, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> If vapour trails were coming off the wingtips the pilot was pulling too much g at too low a level. Pilot error not aircraft failure seems to have been the problem.


I’m guessing you’ve read the Court of Inquiry on this? Problems with the laminates were known issues with Mosquitoes, particularly in the tropics. There is one record of sabotage of the glue used in the laminates. It’s a fighter combat aircraft, deigned for violent manoeuvres at speed. The pilot a decorated Battle of Britain Pilot, probably with a couple of thousand hours Flying time, and trained prewar. My point is that the Mosquito had known issues.

Sorry! I was lazy and lifted this out of Wikipedia:

de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia

”In November 1944, several crashes occurred in the Far East. At first, these were thought to be a result of wing-structure failures. The casein glue, it was said, cracked when exposed to extreme heat and/or monsoon conditions. This caused the upper surfaces to "lift" from the main spar. An investigating team led by Major Hereward de Havilland travelled to India and produced a report in early December 1944 stating, "the accidents were not caused by the deterioration of the glue, but by shrinkage of the airframe during the wet monsoon season".[nb 15] However, a later inquiry by Cabot & Myers firmly attributed the accidents to faulty manufacture and this was confirmed by a further investigation team by the Ministry of Aircraft Production at Defford, which found faults in six Mosquito marks (all built at de Havilland's Hatfield and Leavesden plants). The defects were similar, and none of the aircraft had been exposed to monsoon conditions or termite attack.[_citation needed_]

The investigators concluded that construction defects occurred at the two plants. They found that the "... standard of glueing...left much to be desired."[88][89] Records at the time showed that accidents caused by "loss of control" were three times more frequent on Mosquitos than on any other type of aircraft. The Air Ministry forestalled any loss of confidence in the Mosquito by holding to Major de Havilland's initial investigation in India that the accidents were caused "largely by climate"[90] To solve the problem of seepage into the interior, a strip of plywood was set along the span of the wing to seal the entire length of the skin joint.[88]”

Jim

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

Interesting that they'd claim that humidity would cause the wood to shrink.
It's been my experience that wood swells when exposed to moisture and shrinks when dry...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting that they'd claim that humidity would cause the wood to shrink.
> It's been my experience that wood swells when exposed to moisture and shrinks when dry...



It's because the British Isles are so notoriously hot and dry that when Mosquitos were exported to humid India the wood didn't know what it was supposed to do.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting that they'd claim that humidity would cause the wood to shrink.
> It's been my experience that wood swells when exposed to moisture and shrinks when dry...


I've come across the notion that the problem was not so much any particular kind of whether, but climate. In many tropical areas the whether stays the same for many weeks, whereas north west Europe have constantly changing whether. The tropical conditions meant the wood had longer time to dry out or get soaked, thereby reaching extremes they usually did not 'at home'. Yes i know the English language has 73 different words for 'rain', but at the risk of insulting our resident Britons I'd say it does not often rain for half a year at a time.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 2, 2021)

It bl**dy does where I live !!!

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 2, 2021)

Airframes said:


> It bl**dy does where I live !!!



That's because Terry has his own, personal rain cloud:

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


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2021)

It's not rain it's liquid sunshine


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting that they'd claim that humidity would cause the wood to shrink.
> It's been my experience that wood swells when exposed to moisture and shrinks when dry...



Exactly what I was thinking. When it's humid, my guitars go sharp in tuning, indicating that the wood between the bridge and the nut (mainly the neck) has expanded, pulling the strings tauter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

When my piece of sh*t swamp cooler works, it swells several of the door jambs, either trapping the door or preventing them from closing.
Right now, since it broke down again, it's 95° in the house at about 10% humidity.

The doors work fine...

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> When my piece of sh*t swamp cooler works, it swells several of the door jambs, either trapping the door or preventing them from closing.
> Right now, since it broke down again, it's 95° in the house at about 10% humidity.
> 
> The doors work fine...



Come to think of it, the doors in my mom's house have gotten pretty sticky.

It's rained almost every day the last three weeks. The humidity right now is 61%, about 25% above the average here in Hill Country. That's about 10% higher than normal, and well above our August lows of 40%.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 9, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> I’m guessing you’ve read the Court of Inquiry on this? Problems with the laminates were known issues with Mosquitoes, particularly in the tropics. There is one record of sabotage of the glue used in the laminates. It’s a fighter combat aircraft, deigned for violent manoeuvres at speed. The pilot a decorated Battle of Britain Pilot, probably with a couple of thousand hours Flying time, and trained prewar. My point is that the Mosquito had known issues.
> 
> Sorry! I was lazy and lifted this out of Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


With respect it is two different issues. This is a Dornier dropping on London trying to do something it wasnt designed for and ripping the outer wings off.


----------



## Akuma (Jul 9, 2021)

Best night fighter of WWII? The Bf-110 would probably not be on the best list, but Heinz Schnaufer managed to put there. More often than not it's the man rather than the machine.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2021)

Besides Schnaufer, there was:
Lent
Streib
Meurer
Radusch
Zorner
and a long list of others..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Jul 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> With respect it is two different issues. This is a Dornier dropping on London trying to do something it wasnt designed for and ripping the outer wings off.
> View attachment 631751


How do you know what it was or was not designed to do and whether or not it was a result of failure of the laminate? this was a very experienced pilot who had far more experience flying this type than yourself—a fighter aircraft designed for violent manoeuvres. 77 years after the incident, we have no more information than would have been available to the “Court of Inquiry” of the incident.

Jim


----------



## pbehn (Jul 12, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> How do you know what it was or was not designed to do and whether or not it was a result of failure of the laminate? this was a very experienced pilot who had far more experience flying this type than yourself—a fighter aircraft designed for violent manoeuvres. 77 years after the incident, we have no more information than would have been available to the “Court of Inquiry” of the incident.
> 
> Jim


It was a light bomber converted to other used not designed for high G fighter type turns, every crash at an air show is by a highly skilled pilot. A lot of pilots were lost in that era "beating" things up.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Jul 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It was a light bomber converted to other used not designed for high G fighter type turns, every crash at an air show is by a highly skilled pilot. A lot of pilots were lost in that era "beating" things up.


I guess we agree to disagree then. My point remains: you don’t know and I don’t know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> I guess we agree to disagree then. My point remains: you don’t know and I don’t know.


We do know.
That Do17Z (WkNmr. 2361) F1+FH of 1./KG76, that fell on Victoria Station on 15 September 1940, was impacted by a Hurricane flown by Sgt. Holmes, sending the damaged and abandoned Dornier into a spin, severing it's rear fuselage and outter wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 12, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> We do know.
> That Do17Z (WkNmr. 2361) F1+FH of 1./KG76, that fell on Victoria Station on 15 September 1940, was impacted by a Hurricane flown by Sgt. Holmes, sending the damaged and abandoned Dornier into a spin, severing it's rear fuselage and outter wings.


I think JDCAVE was talking about the Mosquito.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think JDCAVE was talking about the Mosquito.


Ahh...ok, thanks


----------

