Which was the best night fighter?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
luftlover said:
this is my first post, and I hope I haven't posted on a dead thread. hello all.
Click to expand...

Welcome


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
Click to expand...

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

luftlover said:
and more manuverable then the ju-88G.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

That could very well possibly be true, however the He 219 was a would have, could have, should have but did not aircraft.
 
luftlover said:
jee, whats the point in argueing if the other person won't argue
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.


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?
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
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)
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
22
Views
673
Thumpalumpacus
The best fighter of the 1930s
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
11K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register