The Natter saw no service and only one manned flight (in a Ba-349 M-23) which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber on 1st March 1945 and it was removed from the test program after the 20th of March.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They were mentioned earlier.
The Natter never saw service and the only major strike using Ohkas was intercepted by Hellcats, most of the Betty mother ships jettisoned their loads to evade destruction.
If I remember there were at least 2 successful Ohka attacks, one of them sank a USN destroyer - the Ohka cut it in half!
Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.Yep, I agree. But I'm assuming here that the Natter would have been operational before those. Neither were ready when the war ended
Nope, was referring to the Natter ànd SAM.Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.
The best thing about the Natter was that it wasn't a plane because it didn't need trained pilots!!Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum
Let me say, the Natter wasn't a plane, and I would agree to a very early statement on this thread, that the worst plane was the Me-163B.
More pilots killed then planes destroyed, too fast to hit anything, 3 seconds time to fire on target, 3-4 min flight endurance, and not to mention the resources spend for nothing.
you are very correct..The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?
Fine that you think so but it would be nice if you would base it on correct information. Optimum altitude could be reached in less than 3 minutes which means 4 to 5 minutes of operational flight which is sufficient if you use the Me 163 as a point defence fighter.
The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?
You got a point on the dangers of gliding back but this also could be countered to a certain degree. While without fuel the Me 163 was the most manoeuvrable fighter aircraft in existence. But again, you need a good pilot to get the most out of it.
You also state that 364 Komets were build. Though there is discussion about the number of Komets built, it's clear that very few became operational.
And to state that the Go 229 was a better alternative shows that you put down a good design as a failure for trading a bad design as a future succes. Recent computer simulations have shown that the Go 229 would have had unsurmountable aerodynamic problems. These problems could have been solved but would have required a lot of time. There is not a chance that the Go 229 could have been fully operational before 1947. But the comparison is moot because they cannot be compared, the Go 229 is a heavy jet fighter (bomber) while the Me 163/263 was a simple/easy to produce design without aerodynamical problems.
I also used to be critical of the Komet but then I read the interview with Rudi Opitz and I noticed that most criticism was based on tales in the same league as Bf 109 narrow undercarriages and Ju 290s flying to Manchuria...
Kris
Somewhat of a myth - the F-86 had radar computing sights and they did have some problems, but when rectified the sights worked fine making targeting highly accurate.And shooting down Mig's in Korea was 8 years later regarding the targeting instrumentation, (or Grabewskis? chewing gum targeting device)
You sure that it is a myth ?
"Gabby" Grabewski - Americas leading Europe WWII ace? And his bubble gum story in Korea ?
Quote: In July, 1951, now-Colonel Gabreski downed his first MiG, flying an F-86 Sabre jet, despite its unfamiliar new gunsight which he replaced with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen
No 300 were ever operational. And there were more than 11 attacks. Perhaps you mean 11 kills.And that about 300 163's only can show for 11 attacks is no tale. Until today besides props. all aircrafts are jet propelled and the Americans and Russians abandoned all their rocket propelled projects (for combat planes). As I mentioned earlier I have never flown a jet or rocket propelled plane, but I could imagine that regulating the speed is the main issue which led to a focusing towards the jet turbines.
Yeah, similar.Junkers in Manchuria ? never heard, what was that about ? Something like the New York flight?