Mistakes in Aviation

[Kruska]

Pretty much every source on the subject. Infrared guidance wasn't developed enough to be accurate. The MCLOS system mostly used could be easily jammed as with the Fritz-X guided bombs. The other guidance system was beam riding, which didn't succesfully work until the 50s with SAMs like Terrier. There were no German radar proximity fuses either, which would massively hinder any system.

Well some sources state differently

The effectiveness of a system like Fliergerfaust is questionable considering the lack of trials with the system.

Since the Wehrmacht ordered 10,000 sets plus 4 million projectiles in March 45, they might have been more convinced then you

You've got to be kidding. V2s were not radar guided. They were simple ballistic missiles with a primitive intertial guidance system. The CEP of the prototypes was 4.5km rising to 12km with acutal firings. The very few missiles fired with radar beam guidance managed a CEP of 2km. Please note that 2000 is a larger number than 20.

So what would be your translation for "Leitstrahl"?,Well it is Beam riding (along a Radar beam), were corrections were transmitted via radio control to sensors/receivers mounted on the fins of the V2.

It was designed in 1944 not 1940.

IIRC, Galland mentioned that he remembered projectiles being used during the Poland campaign and forwarded this in regards to the – within 9 month – developed R4M, so to me that sounds like there must have been a forerunner of the R4M, which would also explain the notable short time of development.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Glider]

Kruska
Thanks for the posting. The ones you mention are the ones that I had seen and considered to be blanket statements. What I hadn't seen are test reports, development papers, that kind of hard evidence. Even lists of targets that the missiles were aimed at compared to the strikes would be a good start.
Its worth remembering that no valuable propaganda targets were hit in London. From what I have read about Germanys methods St Paul's, Downing Street, Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Bank of England are the sorts of target that would have been prioritised.

The history of guided missiles is littered with claims that were never matched and I try to be cautious. The well known early history of the F4 Sidewinder/Sparrow missiles I believe supports a cautious approach and that of course is by no means the only example.

The reference to the RIM-2 Terrier missile is interesting in that my understanding was that beam riders were inaccurate at long range and largely abandoned as a practical proposition and as you say yourself the Terrier had to be developed into a semi active system. Pointing a V2 at a stationary city is very different from pointing it at a moving aircraft.

 

[red admiral]

Since the Wehrmacht ordered 10,000 sets plus 4 million projectiles in March 45, they might have been more convinced then you

No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.

So what would be your translation for "Leitstrahl"?

Its not beam riding as there is no radar beam to ride along given that it is a ballistic missile. The system is more similar to the Oboe blind bombing system used by the RAF. I've little doubt that some test weapons landed within metres of their target, but this isn't statisically representative. Equally the 8th AF bombing from height would drop one or two weapons next to the target with the rest spread over 5 miles around.

Rockets may have been used over Poland. I doubt that small calibre fin folding types similar to the R4M were used.

 

[Kruska]

No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.

Because jets were developed, once Helicopters came into the picture as a threat, Stinger and others were developed, based on exactly the same idea, cheap and effective, shoulder fired - MANPADS -

Its not beam riding as there is no radar beam to ride along given that it is a ballistic missile. The system is more similar to the Oboe blind bombing system used by the RAF. I've little doubt that some test weapons landed within metres of their target, but this isn't statisically representative. Equally the 8th AF bombing from height would drop one or two weapons next to the target with the rest spread over 5 miles around.

Off course "Leitstrahl" translates into guide beam, and that is conducted by a Radar beam, not a torch light. During the take off phase up to maybe 20-30 km, the missile or V2 could be captioned by radar and as such followed up and corrections of its flightpath could be transmitted via radio signals. And exactly that is called beam riding.

Rockets may have been used over Poland. I doubt that small calibre fin folding types similar to the R4M were used.

Well I was just quoting Galland

Regards
Kruska

 

[red admiral]

Missiles like Stinger and Blowpipe have a much longer range and are guided. Fliegerfaust is point in the general direction and shoot. Theres a quantum leap in effectiveness between the two.

Beam riding works as in the illustration below. The missile is launched and gathered into a narrow radar beam (which needs high frequency radars that the Germans didn't have in numbers). It then flies along the radar beam to the target which is in a straight line along the beam. This obviously procludes its use for a ballistic missile or OTH use.

 

[kool kitty89]

Admiral, on the He 280, I think the main reason for the relatively low Mach limit was a result of the tail, with controlls locking up at high speeds iirc. The company's figure for limiting Mach number was .79 according to Delcyros.

There were also some structural problems with the tail (similar to the He 162's?) and it needed to be redesigned to be realy ready for production/combat. I believe a single fin "normal" type tail was suggested for both improving the faults and for easier production. (not sure on that)


However, like most contemporary German jet projects it lacked air brakes. (the Ho IX/229 had brakes though, the He 280, He 162, and Me 262 did not, I don't think the Ar 234 did either)


And on the engines, anything larger than the 003 would be unsuitable, though the airframe could accept the 004 and was tested with them, the range and maneuverability was drastically reduced compared to the original HeS-8 engines, and top speed was about equal to the best obtained with the HeS-8's. The 003 was a decent fit but available a bit late.

The HeS-30 (006) was very goos and about the same weight as the HeS-8 while being only 24 in in diameter and having excelent fuel consumption and thrust output similar to the 004. Due to being cancelled it's hard to tell how soon it could have been in production, but from what I've read, likely around the same time as the 004B. And it obviously would have been very advantageous to all the jet projects' performances.


As the HeS-8 is more well documented and was reliably producing 600+ kp (1,321+ lbf) thrust in realistic flight conditions (~674 kp; ~1485 lbf in testing) before being canceled in 1942 I think it would have been good enough and available earlier than the others if produced as soon as all the major bugs had been worked out. (which it pretty much was at the time of cancelation, albeit well short of the planned thrust) Performance was acceptable and it was well matched to the He 280 (being basicly designed for the a/c). And it could probably have been deployed practically on the He 280 in the 1943 timeframe.


As I've mentioned before, it may also have been a good idea to modify the the He 280's wings in a similar manner as the Meteor was designed (with curved spar going aroung mid mounted engine) to allow the larger (~39 in diameter) HeS 6 engines to be accepted into the airframe. It would have added weight, but the HeS 6 engines were working better early on than the later HeS 8 (being developed along the HeS-3b development at the end of 1939) producing about 1,300 lbf (590 kp), however it was abandoned due to the large diameter and fairly high weight 925 lbs (420 kg), but seing the timeframe, development, and thrust output it may have been a good idea considering the later problems (at leas as an intrim measure), and the HeS-8 wasn't producing similar thrust for another 2 years.
And who knows how performance would have improved with continued development and with Hirth's help.

 

[Kruska]

Hello red admiral,

any weapon, even until today is pointed straight and shoot, (except for the ingenious –round the corner- muzzle fitting of the STG 44)

Off course there is a quantum leap between a Milan or Tow missile to a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck or any bazooka in WW2.
Fact is however that these man held AT weapons were extremely effective. So why shouldn't 5 nine barreled Fliegerfaust (45 projectiles) not be able to hit and destroy an a/c in ww2 including a Meteor F8 in 1949?
Just because nobody else had this kind of weapon?.

Look at this ridiculous rubber band weapon named PIAT, any British soldier will swear to God, that the PIAT was a "Marvelous" weapon. A GI using a bazooka or a German using a Panzerschreck would have probably laughed his head of, but the PIAT actually did hit and even managed to destroy German Tanks.

"If" the Germans were actually using a "Leitstrahl" to guide a V2 rocket, it could only have two explanations or ways of doing this:
I.) A corrective beam riding during the initial starting phase, were the missiles flight path is tracked and defined by a Radar beam and corrective measures are calculated and radio transmitted to the missile.
II.) A predetermined, calculated flight path is radio transmitted to the INS of the Missile in order to re direct the Missile after launch.

In the Pershing (Grandson of the V2) unit, option II., was done before launch via resetting the IGS ST- 120 towards north – and the PTS programmed the trajectory of the missile. Since the V2 for sure did not have a well developed IGS, and did not possess the far more stabilized launch of a Pershing, the corrective measures could only have happened after take off.

Regards
Kruska

 

[kool kitty89]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/players-prolonged-war-12415.html

There was already a long discussion on a lot of this stuff there, particularly on the SAM's.

 

[Haztoys]

Great jet and rocket info guys...