 | Which was the best night fighter?| Aviation Discuss Which was the best night fighter? in the World War II - Aviation forums; I understand where you are coming from and you are correct but if your going after the heavy bombers then ... |
|
11-14-2007, 11:31 PM
|
#196 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,826
| I understand where you are coming from and you are correct but if your going after the heavy bombers then a Ju88 would be a better bet as it can stay in the air longer.
As for the mossies a number had rear warning equipment which could make life very difficult
PS I would prefer the reliability of the Ju88 engines. Landing a 262 at night with one engine would scare the heck out of me!! |
| |
11-15-2007, 09:05 AM
|
#197 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 968
Country: | Hi Luftlover,
>And as far as the Mk 108, I love the weapon myself, it's just that those shots need to hit, and that I'm not sure about wether that could happen (tajectory doesn't help matters, the one glaring fault of the weapon)
You have to realize that it's not really the absolute curvature that counts, but rather the curvature in relation to the sight line. For harmonization, you can simply depress the sight line so that the trajectory intersects the sight line at the range of your choice.
For the Bf 109G-6, intersection occurred at 80 m and at 400 m, with the greatest height of the trajectory being 64 cm above the sightline at 250 m out.
This meant that you could simply put the crosshair centrally on a fighter-sized target and expect solid hits (if it kept flying steadily) out to 450 m. At 500 - 600 m, you'd have to compensate by aiming slightly high (at the tip of the vertical stabilizer).
Beyond 600 m, the trajectory dropped so quickly that the problem of range estimation prevented hits in my opinion.
(The MK108 trajectory would have allowed depressing the sightline even more to give "boresight" hits out to 500 m, but as realistic combat ranges regardless of the gun type were usually half that figure, that would not have made much sense. The rule of thumb in air combat was that the number of hits for a given number of rounds was inverserly proportional to the square of the range.)
The strong point of the MK108 was not only firepower, but also low dispersion. As it was an advanced-primer blowback weapon with short barrel and low muzzle velocity, it didn't suffer from barrel oscillations in rapid fire mode as badly as weapons with higher muzzle velocity, resulting in a very dense pattern.
However, for night fighters, all of that is academic anyway since as far as I can tell, the combat distances were usually 100 m and less.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) |
| |
11-15-2007, 11:41 AM
|
#198 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | Yet another magnificent post Henning. I seem to learn something from you each time. Respect!
Really interesting about that sight line.
But yes, it wouldn't be important for close range night fighting. Quote:
Originally Posted by luftlover however, like glider said, the final interception still had to be done by eyeball, and the whole visibal thing i brought up was that the bomber crew would see the me-262 far before it saw the bomber. A corkscrewing bomber I've heard is hard to track at night, and considering the bomber could go into manuvers before the me 262 could see the bomber, well, it would be difficult (hey pilot, see those twin fireballs heading toward us? I think it would be prudent to go into evasive manuvers now  )
as well, throttals only help so much, the me 262 was not know for it's acceleration, and considering the bomber in a corksrew was changing speed, hieght, and direction, it would be hard to keep with the bomber. the me 262 was also not known for its low speed agility
the metor nf was intcepting buzz bombs, very visable, flying near 400mph on a straight and level course, no where near the same as intercepting a bomber (they had to firewall the throtal just to catch the bloody things) | You have to be kidding me. Meteor NF was intercepting buzz bombs??????????
And what about those twin fireballs heading towards the bombers?? How does that work?? Since when do jet engines look like fireballs?
Kris
__________________ |
| |
11-15-2007, 08:10 PM
|
#199 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Country: | as usual forced to defend myself
erich, yes, they did attack from below, but did the b-2a have the upward firing guns(scorage muzic or something), it doesn't seem likely looking at the trainer 2 seat versions, and given this they would have to attack from behind, where the tail gunner would see them. I know that they could pull up below the bombers, but this was dangerous due to 1, falling debris and 2, if you screwed up you were a sittling duck for the gunners. and searchlights?...thats reinstaling the whole "wild boar" thing, good, but not great(were searchlights THAT reliable for finding bombers, radar seems to be better) and I think most admit even without jets if a bomber is in the searchlights the liklyhood of it not making it increases dramaticly
and civi, the fireballs are coming out of the jet engines, the flickering of the exhust  In other words, perhapes not a fireball per say but it sounds better then 2 big red lights
and about the meteor, as far as I know... what else was over england at the time?????? If it came across a few planes, fine, but how many? overal the metor was not a very sucessful fighter in any role, only intercepting buzz bombs because it could catch them, but so could the top piston engined fighters. and, on a second thought, this is the first time I've heard the metor was used as a night fighter. was it equiped with radar at all? no radar operator...
hohun, great info on the mk 108(darn fine weapon dontcha think  ), but on a sub-note, in day fighting hitting a target beyond 300m was rare, and although accurate, it still has a low rate of fire, it just made up for it by haveing the hitting power. the 20mm was still prefered for destroying fighters, the 30mm for blasting bombers(this is all refering to day fighting)
altogether the me 262 was flying at about 500 mph and lanc about 250mph, I don't think anyone can convince me that won't create problems of some sort(to what degree is debatable, and if I hear 1 comment about the throttle...)
Last edited by luftlover : 11-15-2007 at 08:45 PM.
|
| |
11-15-2007, 08:43 PM
|
#200 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,264
Country: | I shall no longer respond to the Me 262 except by saying wait for my book and you will find out first hand what really went on ........... |
| |
11-15-2007, 11:08 PM
|
#201 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Country: | aaaawww, come on, no spoilers
yeah, probably argued enough, like beating a dead cat, but fun nevertheless
but, gee, you must be really sick of the me 262 to be saying that
when will your book come out do you think? I'm impatient, the youth of this nation have beter things to do then wait, but if its worth it... 
Last edited by luftlover : 11-15-2007 at 11:13 PM.
|
| |
11-16-2007, 06:59 AM
|
#202 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,828
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by luftlover as usual forced to defend myself
erich, yes, they did attack from below, but did the b-2a have the upward firing guns(scorage muzic or something), it doesn't seem likely looking at the trainer 2 seat versions, and given this they would have to attack from behind, where the tail gunner would see them. | The word you are looking for is Schräge Musik which is a German term used for Jazz Music. Schräge actually stand for tilted or slanted.
The 262B-2 was designed to be fitted with Schräge Musik but none were built.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" |
| |
11-16-2007, 09:29 PM
|
#203 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Country: | ah, thanks adler, could never spell it
well that helps matters a lot, I guess the bomber crew could see them getting into position, but far, far less likely. maybe erich is right about the b-2 slaughtering bombers then(maybe, just maybe  )
I heard an interesting article that suggests that if the british had built large numbers of misquitoes it would have been a lot beter off, it cost only a 1/3 as much as a lanc, carried half the bombload to berlin( half... i'm not sure about that), had only 1/10 the lose rate, and only required two crew. it sounds interesting, after all the misq. could outrun anything in the night sky. the article also sugests that used as a day bomber it could have been a lot more sucessful then the b-17, quoting modern bombers rely on speed and low alt hill hopping to survive.
what do you think would happen if this came about. would the luftwaffe be able to even compete in such a situation?
the day part is really hard to believe, given the fighters could still catch them and could take their sweet time blowing them up, but the night part is, well, far more plausable
hears the site. De Havilland Mosquito
Last edited by luftlover : 11-16-2007 at 09:37 PM.
|
| |
11-17-2007, 09:45 AM
|
#204 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10
Country: | Definatly the Mosquito as it had a sting. 4 20mm cannon and 4 .303 machine guns, mixed with the Night radar
__________________ lancaster mad
My fav bombers are :
1) Avro 683 Lancaster
2) Handley Page H.P.57 Halifax
3) Short S.29 Stirling
4) de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito
5) Boeing B29 Superfortress |
| |
11-17-2007, 09:46 AM
|
#205 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10
Country: | sorry if it causes fuss
__________________ lancaster mad
My fav bombers are :
1) Avro 683 Lancaster
2) Handley Page H.P.57 Halifax
3) Short S.29 Stirling
4) de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito
5) Boeing B29 Superfortress |
| |
11-17-2007, 09:47 AM
|
#206 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10
Country: | The BF-110 had a Schräge Musik? As they shot down the lancs and everyone but the mossies. Also, JU-88's had them
__________________ lancaster mad
My fav bombers are :
1) Avro 683 Lancaster
2) Handley Page H.P.57 Halifax
3) Short S.29 Stirling
4) de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito
5) Boeing B29 Superfortress |
| |
11-17-2007, 10:08 AM
|
#207 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,264
Country: | instead of multiple postings why don't you put your ideas edited all on one post ?
yes the Bf 110G-4 had the Schragwaffen and the 110 also shot down Mossies besides the Ju 88G's |
| |
11-26-2007, 08:02 PM
|
#208 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Country: | just curious...(and saving a dead thread I hope  )
what 1946 nf would have been the best
germans had their jets, new radars coming into service(the ones without the radar ariels) and for kicks lets say they finally worked out the bugs on there piston engines(note, early 1946, no wacky futuristic space age stuff)
the british misq. was the best in 1945, what about 1946? what plans were they cooking up for it?
and america, this one scary, the p-82. fast, rediculous range, decint firepower, manuverable, good radar...
my votes for P-82, but I dont know much about british plans, and germans, well, I have my doubts about jets in a night fight, and they were behind in radar
and also, which would be the best destroying bombers, and which would be best fighting one another(the night infiltrater role the misq. became lengendary for)
Last edited by luftlover : 11-26-2007 at 08:06 PM.
|
| |
11-26-2007, 11:42 PM
|
#209 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Country: | but... about our old friend the he 219 WW2 Warbirds: the Heinkel He 219 Uhu - Frans Bonné
A-7/r1
416 mph at 22965 ft
Initial climb rate 1,810 ft per min. Heinkel He 219 Uhu Night fighter
Maximum speed at altitude 7000m (22,966ft) 665km/h (413 mph)
from wiki(suposedly sourced from janes fighing aircraft)
616 km/h (333 knots, 385 mph) , but no altitude given Ju 88G, Heavy Night Fighter, Luftwaffe
Specification Ju-88G
Ju-88g-6 535km/h 6000m
alright erich, 130km/h faster then the ju-88/G-6 at 1000m higher.
confession, i'm inclined to believe 385mph, the 413mph is probably without the drag of radar, but....
still a good 80km/h faster at a higher alt.
the argument once again rages over the he-219
will it ever RIP  |
| |
11-27-2007, 07:14 AM
|
#210 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | Don't believe everything you read luftlover. IIRC there were no He 219A-5s or A-7s build, except for a couple of prototypes after production was stopped.
the standard He 219 didn't reach 600 kmh.
kris
__________________ |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 PM. |  | |