Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?

Shortround6 said:

You have a couple of things going on with the MK 108 cannon, The rate of fire wasn't really that bad, it just wasn't anything above average. However in the Me 163 you had a shorter time of engagement. Now we go back to the velocity, is was about the slowest but then it is a 30mm shell so velocity doesn't fall off quite as bad as some 20mm ( I repeat, SOME). However the speed of the Me 163 was such that the pilot only had a short period of time to fire between when he got into effective range and and when he had to pull up or otherwise maneuver the plane to avoid a collision. A higher velocity gun would have allowed firing sooner and thus extended firing time, a faster firing gun would have allowed more shells to be fired in the same period of time, increasing the chances or number of hits.

Just for illustrations sake, I am making up numbers here, you have the Me 163 doing 500mph and the prop plane doing 400mph. The rocket plane on a stationary target has 25% less firing time with the same gun, adjust as you see fit for tail chase, nose attack, attack from the side. Rocket plane with it's higher speed may have to pull the guns off target sooner than the prop plane further shorting the firing time. Like I said. shorter time of engagement

The Gun was destructive, it was available, it just might not have been the best possible choice for the Me 163, although it may have been the best choice of what the germans had available.

As for the 109E vs the 1940 bombers?
Slower fighter may mean a longer time of engagment and/or a longer time to line up the shot/firing opportunity.

Click to expand...

One thing that also caught my attention was the reference to lack of accuracy associated with MK 108. I did find this link which referenced a large arc associated with the shells.

Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon Luft '46 entry

As well as this link

Mk 108 Cannon

Which gives better detail to the shell drop and how close an aircraft needed to be accurate.

The second article states that an aircraft needed to be within 200 - 300 meters to be effective. For an aircraft traveling at 800 Kph +/- that leaves very little shooting time.

Kk

tomo pauk said:

Somehow the German pilots have had no problem to kill, en masse, the slow moving Welligtons with MG FF that fired at 570 m/s, or the bit faster and much smaller Battles or Pz.630s, or the fast moving and small fighters in 1939-40 with same weapon, yet they were unable to make hits on a huge & slow B-17 with MK 108. Japanese pilots have made a literal killing with their Type 99-1 that have had similar low-ish MV.

Click to expand...

None of those other planes had hordes of 50 caliber machine guns spitting lead at them. A single B17 was no slouch in self defense but when your attacking a box formation and have 2 dozen guys shooting at you at once (whether they can actually hit you or not) you will tend to not close the range like you would on a Wellington

FLYBOYJ said:

I wouldn't want to go up in the worse, I'd want to go up in what I would believe is going to bring me back alive.

There were many good pre war aircraft that were just obsolete at the start of the war. A perfect example of this is the I-16, Gloster Gladiator and the CR-42. At the same time you had aircraft like the Swordfish that was totally obsolete and had a better combat record than its predecessor.

Not a fighter but IMO the "worse" combat aircraft of WW2 was this...

View attachment 583595

Click to expand...

What aircraft is that?

pinsog said:

What aircraft is that?

Click to expand...

Breda 88

NevadaK said:

Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.

Click to expand...

swampyankee said:

More Me163s would be good for Allies...

So would the Bachem Natter

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

Bachem Natter

Doesn't have retracting landing gear

Click to expand...

Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?

wuzak said:

Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?

Click to expand...

The gear were jettisoned just after take off, and the aircraft landed on skids.

BiffF15 said:

The gear were jettisoned just after take off, and the aircraft landed on skids.

Click to expand...

I know that, but does that count as retractable undercarriage?

wuzak said:

I know that, but does that count as retractable undercarriage?

Click to expand...

Well, the skid retracted, or perhaps we should say it extended?

Does landing gear mean it has to be wheels ?
There's been several aircraft that didn't use wheels to land on, and whatever they used retracted too.
The Me 163 had a extendable skid that it landed on.

ssnider said:

Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article

Click to expand...

I just did. Thanks for the link.

NevadaK said:

Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.

Click to expand...

The Me 163 didn't have a retractable undercarriage. The Me 163B was a trial combat aircraft built in a small batch, it had been designed to intercept reconnaissance aircraft not short down massed bomber formations. It's target should have been Mosquito's and F5 (recon P38) . The intention was always to improve the aircraft after lessons learned.

The lessons learned from flying combat operations were to be applied to an improved version.

Problem 1: Endurance was not enough. It was found that the Me 163B could easily intercept a bomber formation but once there needed a few more minutes time to form up into an attack. The first solution to this was to have been replacing the HWK 509 A series rocket motor with the 509 B series rocket motor. This had a second sustained rocket of 28% (300kP) of the thrust of the main rocket chamber (1600kP), the two rockets were integrated with common controls, pumps and supply lines so there was not much of a size increase. The sustainer or cruise motor had half the hydrogen peroxide consumption at cruise setting so would have substantially increased range.

A second solution was to enlarge the Me 163 to carry more fuel. This lead to the Me 163C (simply a scaled up Me 163 with a pressurised bubble canopy cockpit) and the competing Ju 248/Me 163D which added room for more fuel and provided a retractable undercarriage.

Problem 2: Not enough fire power. The high closing speed meant that two Mk 108 could not fire enough rounds to get in a lethal number of hits. The solution was to go from 2 guns to 4 on the Me 163C or install faster firing versions of the Mk 108 or MK213/30 revolver canon on the Me 163D/Ju 248

Problem 3: The skid could not absorb high enough sink rates on to grass fields and it took a while to clear the aircraft from the field This injured pilots backs and sometimes over turned the aircraft. The solution was to improve the skid on the Me 163C and fit a retractable undercarriage to the Me 163D/ Ju 248

Problem 4: the aircraft could be expected to climb to 25,000 to 30,000ft in a minute causing 'bends' issues for the pilots. The solution was to breath oxygen to clear the blood of nitrogen.
The new Me 163 would add presurisation.

Problem 5/Myth. The Me 163 fuel/oxidiser would dissolve pilots on a crash. This happened once but the aircraft had crashed into a tower after a go around caused by a engine failure immediately after take-off. It might have been as lethal as a conventional aircraft. Me 163 pilots can and did survive over turned aircraft in a crash landing (when must fuel was gone anyway).

So an Me 163 coming back with 1 twice the fire power and 2 nearly twice the endurance range and a retractable or improved undercarriage for greater safety would likely have worked at shooting down bombers efficiently. The endurance of the Me 163 was not bad when we consider that it took only a minute or so to get to the bombers instead of 15-20 due to its high climb rate.

tyrodtom said:

Does landing gear mean it has to be wheels ?
There's been several aircraft that didn't use wheels to land on, and whatever they used retracted too.
The Me 163 had a extendable skid that it landed on.

Click to expand...

No, but it might be retractable undercarriage if the undercarriage they land on is the same that they take-off with.

Admiral Beez said:

That's why I've started off with somewhat of an equalizer; monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter. But there are still some once good, now obsolete aircraft in this category such as the Polikarpov I-16.

Click to expand...

Not so, in the first 6 months of operation Barbarossa, mixed groups of MiG-3s and I-16s operated with the later scoring the most kills. My candidate would be the LAGG-3.

Shortround6 said:

I beleive the jet that shot itself down was a Grumman F11 Tiger.

From WIki so take it for what it is.

"The F-11 Tiger is noted for being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down.[3] On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling it and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived. "

Some accounts say the Tiger was going supersonic at some point during this time.

As for WW II aircraft shooting themselves down? This seems rather far fetched. At least for US and British planes using 20mm cannon and .50 cal machine guns.
The MV for those guns were over 1900mph and while the shells do slow down they are still going to be going at supersonic speeds over 1000yds from where they were fired.
It is going to take a truly extraordinary set of circumstances for a prop driven airplane to catch up to it's own shells.

Click to expand...

I've read about it someplace, happening mostly to 9thAF pilots. I think it depended a lot on the angle of attack, and naturally, the speed. I have heard similar things about strafing watercraft in the Pacific, too. I thought it was a bit odd, too, but that's what the pilots were claiming.

Kevin J said:

Not so, in the first 6 months of operation Barbarossa, mixed groups of MiG-3s and I-16s operated with the later scoring the most kills. My candidate would be the LAGG-3.

Click to expand...

Simple comparisons like this can be misleading, it could very well be true that the I-16s scored more kills, but it ignores two things.
Many of the units involved were transitioning over from the I-16s to the Migs when the Invasion started, without knowing how many planes of each type were available when it becomes hard to asses the results.
Which is going to give better results, a plane the majority of the pilots had been flying for a long time or a plane that a pilot only had a few hours on?
The Mig was also not an easy plane to fly, in fact it had some of the bad habits of the I-16 and good I-16 pilots made an easier trasition to the Mig 3 than pilots of other aircraft (the biplanes). Accounts don't say how hard it was for average or poor I-16 pilots.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines or look for what is NOT said.

Shortround6 said:

Well, the skid retracted, or perhaps we should say it extended?

Click to expand...

the skid was extended during takeoff with a jettison able two wheel dolly attached. After lift off the plane leveled off fairly low to gain speed, the dolly was ejected and the skid retracted. The skid was extended again for landing.

I think that counts as retractable gear.

glennasher said:

I've read about it someplace, happening mostly to 9thAF pilots. I think it depended a lot on the angle of attack, and naturally, the speed. I have heard similar things about strafing watercraft in the Pacific, too. I thought it was a bit odd, too, but that's what the pilots were claiming.

Click to expand...

How could they possibly discern between ground fire and their own bouncing back up and hitting them somehow? It's a tough one to believe given the physics of it. If anything it seems like a convenient way to explain away a wingman accidentally hitting his leader.

Pilots claimed a lot of stuff tbh... the fog of war and the lens of memory makes for some interesting reports.

NevadaK said:

the skid was extended during takeoff with a jettison able two wheel dolly attached. After lift off the plane leveled off fairly low to gain speed, the dolly was ejected and the skid retracted. The skid was extended again for landing.

I think that counts as retractable gear.

Click to expand...

Personally I would think that if the aircraft leaves any component of the undercarriage that it cannot take off without behind, it would be "partially retractable undercarriage," or semi-jettisoned undercart or somewhere in there.

But I guess we're saying --landing gear-- aren't we? In which case if could take off from the back of a galloping horse I suppose as that would just be the --takeoff gear--?

wuzak said:

Did the Me 163 have retractable landing gear?

Click to expand...

It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if anything went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.

Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for Luftwaffe ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.

swampyankee said:

It took off from a trolley and landed on a retractable skid. Occassionally, the pilot's back was broken during landing. Also, if there was fuel and oxidizer left, if anything went wrong with the landing, it could leak onto the pilot and dissolve their skin.

Even if nothing went wrong, the Me163 couldn't taxi (it was a glider) and had to wait for a vehicle to tow it off the runway. I'm sure this was a prized assignment for Luftwaffe ground crew: collecting a glider with remnants of hypergolic, corrosive, toxic, and generally unpleasant propellants while Allied fighters were strafing the field.

Click to expand...

The corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer wasn't the only issue. It was inevitable that some small amount of each component would remain in the tanks/pipes at the end of the sortie. Landing damage risked inadvertent mixing of the 2 chemicals which would then spontaneously combust.

It must have been terrifying for a pilot who hurt his back during landing, knowing he's sitting in a mostly wooden airframe, to then see fire break out with often explosive ferocity.