Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2009, 12:26 PM   #961
Senior Member
 
fly boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightHawk View Post
but it can shoot down a flying tank.
flying tank what?
__________________
fly boy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 12:27 PM   #962
the old Sage
 
Erich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 10,775
sorry for reasons that I have already stated in the best nf thread about the He 219, the Ju 88G-6 was superior. in fact due to the over-arming of the 219 the underfuselage arms were reduced in I./NJG 1. Two man crew was a prob, the ejection seat had its fallacies with too many crews busting out through glass. no rear mg 131 for a Mossie deterent, on it goes. he 219 was a sitting duck in daylight making transfer flights and being hunted down by RAF fighters. the Uhu's record was not impressive as some would believe.

I'll make no comment about twin seat B-1a/U1 262's during the day.
Erich is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 12:36 PM   #963
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
sorry for reasons that I have already stated in the best nf thread about the He 219, the Ju 88G-6 was superior. in fact due to the over-arming of the 219 the underfuselage arms were reduced in I./NJG 1. Two man crew was a prob, the ejection seat had its fallacies with too many crews busting out through glass. no rear mg 131 for a Mossie deterent, on it goes. he 219 was a sitting duck in daylight making transfer flights and being hunted down by RAF fighters. the Uhu's record was not impressive as some would believe.

I'll make no comment about twin seat B-1a/U1 262's during the day.
That about sums it up.

On the B-1a/U1 - AFAIK it never flew a day mission, not sure what the operational history was - my only point is if I had to choose between a 219 and a 262 to perform both day and night there would be no contest for me.

The actual operational status would have a bearing on even considering the 262 in actual night ops?
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 01:38 PM   #964
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Plainwell, MI
Posts: 460
"Bill - good choice for night time. Would you choose over the 262 two seater night fighter that could also be 'pressed into' daylight role?

Conversely how would He 219 do in daylight?"

drgondog:

Both are good questions.

The Me-262 two seater isn't as good as a single seater. But that is a given. It would still be an improvement over all of the piston engined fighters. I guess you could give the back seater the day off. Yep, pun intended!

The He-219 would be better than most of the twin piston engined fighters of the Luftwaffe. Given a chance to slip inside of the fighters, the He-219 would be very damaging to B-17s and B-24s. The trick would be to stay outside of the effective range of massed 50 cal fire. The He-219 would be death to any straggling bomber.

An optimized He-219 for day operations would strip the radar (drag, weight) and delete the radar operator position and gear. And remove the upward firing cannons and ammo. This would lighten the He-219 and give it a higher top speed. The P-38 was one of the few twin engined fighters that got it right. Two engines don't mean you need two crew members and rear weapons.

The He-219 isn't a dog fighter. It's only defence is to use it's 400+MPH speed to escape. I am not a big fan of rear defence weapons on a fighter. You are outgunned every time. You are better off being able to break off the fight or at least stretch out the fight to the point the escort will break off to save fuel and stay in the area of the bombers. This is live to fight another day.

And to all. I took this thread to be all bomber killers. If my jumping into night fighting offended anyone by going in an unwanted direction, I am sorry. I mean no harm.

Bill G.
Bill G. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 01:47 PM   #965
the old Sage
 
Erich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 10,775
Bill

I have chatted many times with the historian of I./NJg 1 out of Venlo, the Uhu never could hit 400 mph plus there were so many technical entanglements besides the beast being way too big over all. A Mossie hunter A-6 was invisioned but even with it's stripped armor and armament it was felt there ws nothing gained in producing it. In regards to I./NJG 1 they approved and loved the Uhu in comparison to the Bf 110G-4 which was cramped and way too slow but yet still flew with success with the other 3 gruppen of NJG 1. another aspect quite often overlooked was the the missing component of most Uhu's on ops and that is lack of rearward radar a standard fit to the Ju 88G-6. As I said flying the Uhu in whatever variant during the day or even any twin engine job NF by the LW in 44-45 was suicidal.

back the the twin seater 262 with radar, it was needed, driving a single engine at night just with ground searchlights was not where the LW NJG's had to go they had to face it - they needed a back seater to drive home the Zahme Sau taktics with radar and that was the essence had jet portion of NJG 11 been able to go into 1946 this indeed is where it would of led. We know this from the pilots/crewmens mouths
Erich is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 02:13 PM   #966
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
Bill

I have chatted many times with the historian of I./NJg 1 out of Venlo, the Uhu never could hit 400 mph plus there were so many technical entanglements besides the beast being way too big over all. A Mossie hunter A-6 was invisioned but even with it's stripped armor and armament it was felt there ws nothing gained in producing it. In regards to I./NJG 1 they approved and loved the Uhu in comparison to the Bf 110G-4 which was cramped and way too slow but yet still flew with success with the other 3 gruppen of NJG 1. another aspect quite often overlooked was the the missing component of most Uhu's on ops and that is lack of rearward radar a standard fit to the Ju 88G-6. As I said flying the Uhu in whatever variant during the day or even any twin engine job NF by the LW in 44-45 was suicidal.

back the the twin seater 262 with radar, it was needed, driving a single engine at night just with ground searchlights was not where the LW NJG's had to go they had to face it - they needed a back seater to drive home the Zahme Sau taktics with radar and that was the essence had jet portion of NJG 11 been able to go into 1946 this indeed is where it would of led. We know this from the pilots/crewmens mouths
Erich - I look to you for the NJG stuff and have always heard (other than Green) that the 219 never met expectations - even for early production.

I had never heard of the 262b-1a/u1 ever being in combat but certainly built for test before the war ended. Was there ever an operational flight against RAF?
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 02:27 PM   #967
the old Sage
 
Erich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 10,775
Bill

without taking away from my future volume, yes the twin seater flew minimum of 5 flights, scoring 1 Mossie kill, A/C number was red 12 flown by H. Altner.
Erich is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 02:47 PM   #968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Plainwell, MI
Posts: 460
Erich:

I am still young enough to learn new information. You have such a great source of what happened.

My answer on the night fighter Me-262 was based on using it during the day time. I agree with you at night, you need the radar operator. No debate at all from me!

I know only what I have read on the He-219. The bulk of that is William Green's book Warplanes of the Third Reich. Your first hand data trumps the book.

I will still stand by my answer on what I would do if I had to use the He-219 during the day to attack B-17s and B-24s. I would want to use the best of the Uhu to it's greatest advantage. And not to fight the escorts on the escort's best terms.

Even though the Uhu couldn't top 400MPH, it would still be faster than the Bf-110, Me-410, and Ju-88. This would give the Uhu some advantages in both attacking the bombers and evading the escorts.

Still I wouldn't want to take the Uhu into an heavily escorted bomber stream. I would attack where the escorts were absent.

Bill G.

Last edited by Bill G.; 01-30-2009 at 04:12 PM. Reason: Better phrasing on first sentence!
Bill G. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 03:59 PM   #969
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,152
I would still take a Ju 88 over the He 219. Everything I have ever read (and Erich our signature night fighter expert will probably agree with me) is the He 219 was not that great of an aircraft.
__________________


fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 04:55 PM   #970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lazio
Posts: 806
It's easy understand that Ju 88G it's more efficency weapons system for nighter fighter of He 219 but it's for me more hard understand that Ju 88G was simply a best fighter of He 219, can explain, give info on speed, turn rate, roll rate and so...
thank
Vincenzo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 04:59 PM   #971
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincenzo View Post
It's easy understand that Ju 88G it's more efficency weapons system for nighter fighter of He 219 but it's for me more hard understand that Ju 88G was simply a best fighter of He 219, can explain, give info on speed, turn rate, roll rate and so...
thank
I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.

If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.
__________________


fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 05:13 PM   #972
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet View Post
I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.

If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.
It seems to me that the fundamental criteria for successful night fighter is good radar and operator to minimize what the pilot must manage, adequate speed and climb to get on station at the altitude loiter position, high closing speed on the bomber and firepower.

as long as the roll rate is better than the bomber that should be good enough.

For evasion from night fighter - then ability to detect presence and enough manueverability to get out of the radar scan seems to be adequate.
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 06:05 PM   #973
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet View Post
I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.

If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.
I think what Vincenzo meant was that he understands that the Ju 88 is a better nightfighter than the He 219, but doesn't think that it is the better (heavy) fighter of the two per se.

And I would agree with him as many of the deficiencies of the He 219 would not have mattered had it been used as a heavy fighter and the Ju 88 was never all that successful in that role iirc. However I doubt it (the He 219) would've been markedly superior to a Me 410 and certainly would've had similar problems against escorts. Considering how moderately the EKdo 335 estimated the Do 335 to perform in that role in early '45, I don't think a somewhat/considerably slower plane would've fared better.
KrazyKraut is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 06:45 PM   #974
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 33,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog View Post
It seems to me that the fundamental criteria for successful night fighter is good radar and operator to minimize what the pilot must manage, adequate speed and climb to get on station at the altitude loiter position, high closing speed on the bomber and firepower.

as long as the roll rate is better than the bomber that should be good enough.

For evasion from night fighter - then ability to detect presence and enough manueverability to get out of the radar scan seems to be adequate.
I agree.

As for the Uhu, I think it could have been developed into a good night fighter. My belief however is that was not quite that. Could have, should have, would have, did not...
__________________


fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 06:47 PM   #975
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog View Post
...high closing speed on the bomber...
would this be desirable at night?
Colin1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118