syscom3
Pacific Historian
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!
B-29s over Germany
- Thread starter Marshall_Stack
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
If those large guided missles are launched from the -262's, wouldnt the jet become momentarily unstable as it drops from the wing?
I cant imagine the pilot concentrating on flying the plane, all of a sudden having to regain stability and then play with the joystick to guide the missle.
And all of this as bullets are flying at him.
I cant imagine the pilot concentrating on flying the plane, all of a sudden having to regain stability and then play with the joystick to guide the missle.
And all of this as bullets are flying at him.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
. If dropped at the same time, no. You may get a bounce but probably no worse than hitting some clear air turbulance.syscom3 said:
Glider
Captain
The Me262 performance was significantly impacted when carrying bombs. Does anyone have any idea how badley it would be impacted carrying these missiles?
Presumably you would need a two seater to start of with and life goes downhill carrying aything externally.
Presumably you would need a two seater to start of with and life goes downhill carrying aything externally.
Erich
the old Sage
my understanding is that would not be used by the 262 as it would have to have special launching rails fitted and the rocket becuase of bulk in size the rail would have to drop the missile downward slightly like a derop tank, something that would not be used due to the neccisity of attacking fast and illuding Allied escorts
~
~
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
plan_D said:
I second this. Sorry, PlanD, my mistake. Something has to be wrong with me.
It's okay, Del. I thought you must have been having a bad day.
Twitch, the plane is still vulnerable when the missile is being guided. And the pilot cannot break off while he's guiding the missile and trying to keep his plane straight. Unless they used a two-seater, which would be the best option. No one is making the X-4 to be a negative thing, so no stress is needed. I'm saying that it wasn't a perfect thing.
Twitch, the plane is still vulnerable when the missile is being guided. And the pilot cannot break off while he's guiding the missile and trying to keep his plane straight. Unless they used a two-seater, which would be the best option. No one is making the X-4 to be a negative thing, so no stress is needed. I'm saying that it wasn't a perfect thing.
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Re: X-4s weight- How much impact does a one or two 132-lb. bombs have on any plane's performance? Not much at that weight. We're not talking 1,000 pounder here. Bottom line is I personally would rather have a stand off weapon fired from 3+ miles away even if my crate was somewhat vulnerable for a quarter of a minute rather than wade into a bomber wing full of boxes bristling with fifties all trained on ME as I began firing guns.
At 3.5 miles distant you don't encounter ordnance from the heavies. And obviously you aren't going to set up fire and guide with escort fighters on your six. You elude them to the point where you you have enough time and space to launch.
The huge benefit of this weapon was that even if the launching aircraft had to break off due to interference the friggin missile would be a doomsday weapon whether the launcher had cut bait or not. The acoustic detonator would still work now wouldn't it?
The acoustic would have been to aerial missiles of the late war era, guided or unguided, as revolutionary as it was for the torpedo. It would suit even a blindfold shot taken in a split second in the basic general direction of the bomber formation.
The "normal" zerstroyer aircraft got through no matter how many were driven off by P-51s or hit by bomber fire. The only problem was that their weapons weren't singluarly potent enough to seriously break up enough bomber boxes to make a difference.
Nothing was going to halt the bomber stream in the end. Of course even singluar heavies would have sought to launch their bombs on their group's intended target even if they'd been dispersed by rocket fire or whatnot. Most would try. They wouldn't all just jettison ordnance and run for home unless damaged. However, in those circumstances they would have been vulnerable to any type of fighter without the protection of the bomber box crossfire.
Back in the 80s I had only one dialogue with General Galland regarding bomber attack and missiles. All I can offer is that HE was excited by the prospect of the missile. He seemed to take for granted that it would be used by the 262s as all other sources I've sen have indicated. Of course he wasn't a crew chief or armorer. But it was tested in Fw 190s, Ju 88Gs and Ju 388Ls. After all if bomb shackles and R4M racks were affixed to 262s certainly missile hardpoints could be to accomodate the 1,300 X-4s sitting in stock since late 1944. Rüstsätze were commonplace in coverting every weapon imaginable to use in nearly every aircraft.
In 1945 the Pudel program was engaged in ways foe the X-4 and other missiles to home on its target acoustically without external guidance. Perceived launch aircraft vulnerability problem solved.
At 3.5 miles distant you don't encounter ordnance from the heavies. And obviously you aren't going to set up fire and guide with escort fighters on your six. You elude them to the point where you you have enough time and space to launch.
The huge benefit of this weapon was that even if the launching aircraft had to break off due to interference the friggin missile would be a doomsday weapon whether the launcher had cut bait or not. The acoustic detonator would still work now wouldn't it?
The acoustic would have been to aerial missiles of the late war era, guided or unguided, as revolutionary as it was for the torpedo. It would suit even a blindfold shot taken in a split second in the basic general direction of the bomber formation.
The "normal" zerstroyer aircraft got through no matter how many were driven off by P-51s or hit by bomber fire. The only problem was that their weapons weren't singluarly potent enough to seriously break up enough bomber boxes to make a difference.
Nothing was going to halt the bomber stream in the end. Of course even singluar heavies would have sought to launch their bombs on their group's intended target even if they'd been dispersed by rocket fire or whatnot. Most would try. They wouldn't all just jettison ordnance and run for home unless damaged. However, in those circumstances they would have been vulnerable to any type of fighter without the protection of the bomber box crossfire.
Back in the 80s I had only one dialogue with General Galland regarding bomber attack and missiles. All I can offer is that HE was excited by the prospect of the missile. He seemed to take for granted that it would be used by the 262s as all other sources I've sen have indicated. Of course he wasn't a crew chief or armorer. But it was tested in Fw 190s, Ju 88Gs and Ju 388Ls. After all if bomb shackles and R4M racks were affixed to 262s certainly missile hardpoints could be to accomodate the 1,300 X-4s sitting in stock since late 1944. Rüstsätze were commonplace in coverting every weapon imaginable to use in nearly every aircraft.
In 1945 the Pudel program was engaged in ways foe the X-4 and other missiles to home on its target acoustically without external guidance. Perceived launch aircraft vulnerability problem solved.
syscom3 said:
Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!
You only wish....
Henk
Master Sergeant
Wow, this has turned way off topic, but I do not mind. The thing is that a missile does drop away from the plane and fall behind until the rocket engine starts and the missile will go and move away from the plane, but that moment is very dangerous and the pilot knows that. Like some of you have said. Today it is way easier to do this than in those days, aircraft are build not have side effect when they launch missiles.
Germany did have technology that made it so that the pilot did not need to guide the missiles any more and this made it very easier. Some even had something like a TV that showed the pilot where he is going with the missile. I saw it on a documentary program years ago.
Germany did have technology that made it so that the pilot did not need to guide the missiles any more and this made it very easier. Some even had something like a TV that showed the pilot where he is going with the missile. I saw it on a documentary program years ago.
Actually Henk, most missiles do fall away from the aircraft. The missiles engine is on a time delay and does not fire off until it safely away from the aircraft.
Now having said that, this should get back on topic.
Now having said that, this should get back on topic.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Yes I know that Adler, but thanks for the pic.
Performing high altitude ops in the ETO, would the B-29 have had the same reliability issues as occured in the PTO?
Or would performance have been better?
If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?
Or would performance have been better?
If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?
wuzak
Captain
Possibly the cooler climate would have helped with reliability, as one of the big issues in take-off was engine cooling - which was marginal.
Higher altitudes may have put them out of effective range of the flak guns, but would also have adversely affected accuracy.
Just bombing at the same altitudes woudl be advantageous compared to the B-17/B-24 because a) the B-29 carried a bigger bomb load, b) the B-29 was a higher performing aircraft and c) the pressurised compartment would have made the crews more comfortable, and there would have been less injury/death due to low oxygen or frostbite.
model299
Airman 1st Class
Wow, a six year old thread suddenly jumps back to life!!
I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm going to assume this point has already been made.
I would think the more advanced gunnery available in the Superfortress would have been a help against the LW.
I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm going to assume this point has already been made.
I would think the more advanced gunnery available in the Superfortress would have been a help against the LW.
mike siggins
Airman
it talked to an old piolt that flew b17 and b 29s he said the b 29 was a piece of crap engie fires was his biggest problem
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
While opinions of those who actually flew the aircraft are valued, I knew many pilots who flew both aircraft, B-17s and B-29s during WW2 and the B-29 in the post war years. Their opinion of the B-29 was entirely different and I think in the end its combat and service record dictates otherwise despite the teething problems encountered when he aircraft first entered service.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes, and consider the shorter distances the B-29 "would have" flown.
Remember however, as the war progressed, it was never intended to send the B-29 to Europe. The B-32 was planned to replace the B-17 and B-24 in Europe.
