FW 200 Mistel.

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Njaco, Nov 2, 2008.

  1. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Heres a stupid question:

    With the onset of Mistel combinations late in the war and the need to go after (like the Allies were doing) manufacturing centers in England and Russia, could the Fw 200 been made into a Mistel combination? Maybe with a Me 410 or other twin-engined fighter? Or would balance and fuselage frality not work?
     
  2. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Njaco, I think it may have been possible to use a Condor, but the manned aircraft would have to be something smaller, like a fighter.

    The heaviest manned (piggyback) aircraft considered, would have been the Me262 for the Me262/Me262 Mistel concept or the Me262/Ju188-Ju287 Mistel concept.

    The Bf109 or Fw190 probably would have worked fine.
     
  3. HoHun

    HoHun Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Hi Njaco,

    >Maybe with a Me 410 or other twin-engined fighter? Or would balance and fuselage frality not work?

    There is an article on Ta 154 Mistels in the current Jet + Prop that mentions the limiting factors.

    The main limiting factor is the maximum landing gear strength. Jettisonable landing gear legs were considered for the Ta 154 (and for some other Mistel combinations, I believe).

    The Mistel combination is set up so that once in flight, the top aircraft actually exerts a lifting force on the bottom aircraft so that the connection is kept under a tension load (opposed to compression) all of the time. This is achieved by increasing the angle of incidence of the top aircraft over that of the bottom aircraft by the design of the connection geometry.

    Thus once in the air, the loads on the bottom aircraft are actually decreased since some of its weight is supported by the top aircraft. (Of course, the load to the new connection is an additional load, but that has to be taken into account when designing the connection.)

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  4. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    Maybe I'm missing something. What would landing gear strength have to do with the combination? Is the attachments through the landing gear?
     
  5. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Getting the whole show off the ground, Njaco...

    Figure the bomber's gear was originally designed to carry x-amount of weight (crew, fuel, defensive ammo, payload, etc) but not the additional weight of the manned aircraft riding on it's back.

    Once it's in the air, weight becomes less of a factor, and as HoHun mentioned, the manned aircraft has a slight lifting angle built into it's mount to maintain tension on the coupling structure.
     
  6. Njaco

    Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,053
    Likes Received:
    994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Animal Control Officer
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    aaahhhhh...sorry if I'm alittle dense. :) I guess along these lines, what aircraft did the LW have that had the longest range?
     
  7. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Well, there's the Ju 290, He 177B/277B. The late model He 177's (with greatly improved relibility with modifications and DB 610's replacing the earlier 606's) had pretty long range, but not drastically more than the Fw 200, but were a lot faster.
    And of course the Ju 390, but I don't think that's what you meant.
     
  8. rochie

    rochie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,631
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Head chef
    Location:
    billingham nr middlesbrough uk
    as has already been stated i think the weight on the ground would be the biggest problem, didnt they sweep the runways for the 190,ju88 mistels because they worried about tyre damage, as the whole thing sat on unchanged ju88 landing gear ?
     
  9. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    But as the Mistel aircraft gets larger, wont the relative weight of the fighter on top get less and less? Not to mention that the explosive load of the Mistel would be a substantial portion of the weight as well.
     
  10. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Well, consider the bomber's initial design was to have a certain amount of load in a specific area, such as a bomb-bay or external pylons and this was factored into the structural design.

    Placing the manned aircraft on it's back needs to be done in such a manner that it doesn't compromise it's structural integrity.

    Of course, the bomber will have an internal load of fuel and payload, well within it's carrying ability, but the aircraft sitting astride it's back may be taxing it's airframe since the aircraft (and it's landing gear) was designed to carry loads at certain structural points and up to certain weight limits.
     
  11. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Certainly other structural components must be considered, but in the specific case of the landing gear, (with the top a/c at the CoG) it would simply be the weight.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. johnbr
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    630
  2. carman1877
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    14,152
  3. Erich
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,369
  4. Micdrow
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,216
  5. MeyerBMW
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,299

Share This Page