Which was the best night fighter?

[Erich]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Erich]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

gee

I post my veiws and are insulted for them

how are my comments distorted?

 

[mhuxt]

You've not been insulted. Grow a skin.