Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Luftwaffe A10-style aircraft in 1944-45?

Aviation Discuss Luftwaffe A10-style aircraft in 1944-45? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Could the Luftwaffe have had a jet powered CAS/Ground Attack aircraft in 1944-45 similar to the A10? Of couse I ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    684
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like

    Luftwaffe A10-style aircraft in 1944-45?

    Could the Luftwaffe have had a jet powered CAS/Ground Attack aircraft in 1944-45 similar to the A10? Of couse I don't think the Germans would have had a chain gun with AP rounds nor would the aircraft have the same capabilities, but it could have had rockets (Panzerblitz), autocannons, etc. I suppose it would be a jet powered Hs129. Would it have been possible and would it have made a difference for German forces in the East?


  2. #2
    Senior Member altsym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    228
    Country
    Canada
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe the Me 262 A-3a fits that bill nicely.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    684
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by altsym View Post
    I believe the Me 262 A-3a fits that bill nicely.
    I don't. It wasn't designed as a CAS/Ground Attack aircraft, but rather as a fighter. I'm talking about a purpose build aircraft like the Hs129 or A10, rather than a fighter shoe horned in to the role. Also the 'Sturmvogel' was a failure in that role AFAIK.

  4. #4
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,056
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like

    jet powered CAS/Ground Attack aircraft in 1944-45

    Possible but why? Even today with mature jet engine technology many think prop aircraft work better for CAS. If anything 1945 Germany would field a Junkers turboprop for this mission.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,989
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not with the exiting engines.

    Pure jets do not work well at low speeds. The A-10 uses turbo-fans. In fact it uses hi-bypass ratio turbo fans (6.2-6.3 to one by pass ratio) which give a very good low speed thrust. They tend to loose thrust as aircraft speed goes up. (low exhaust speed)

    Pure jets move much less air air at a higher speed exhaust and and are more efficient at higher air speeds.

    High speed passes aren't very effective for CAS/Ground Attack aircraft.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,989
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by davebender View Post
    Possible but why? Even today with mature jet engine technology many think prop aircraft work better for CAS. If anything 1945 Germany would field a Junkers turboprop for this mission.
    They would be better off using Junkers jet engines in air superiority aircraft and piston engines in the CAS aircraft.

    A turbo prop won't give enough performance to allow the CAS aircraft to survive against piston engine fighters. And the turbo prop is harder to build and needs more resources than the jet equivalent/cousin.

  7. #7
    Senior Member GrauGeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    9,261
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Bulgaria
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wiking85 View Post
    Could the Luftwaffe have had a jet powered CAS/Ground Attack aircraft in 1944-45 similar to the A10? Of couse I don't think the Germans would have had a chain gun with AP rounds nor would the aircraft have the same capabilities, but it could have had rockets (Panzerblitz), autocannons, etc. I suppose it would be a jet powered Hs129. Would it have been possible and would it have made a difference for German forces in the East?
    Why, when they had the Fw190 (radial engined and armored to survive ground fire) or the Ju87G-1 for anti-armor (and other targets of opportunity) and of course, the Hs129 "flying infantryman" that could do the job and were already proven performers.

    To try and create a new ground attack aircraft, let alone a jet version, would consume time and materials they were desperately in need of at that point in the war.

    Also keep in mind that the Jumo or BMW jet engines were not as reliable as the engines in the afore-mention aircraft and they were not well suited to being struck by small arms fire, schrapnell or anything else that would be encountered by an aircraft in a GA role...
    Last edited by GrauGeist; 05-28-2013 at 10:17 PM. Reason: stupid iPhone...need I say more?

    "Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future."
    - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome


    > I Support Doug Gilliss <

  8. #8
    Senior Member altsym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    228
    Country
    Canada
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wiking85 View Post
    I don't. It wasn't designed as a CAS/Ground Attack aircraft, but rather as a fighter. I'm talking about a purpose build aircraft like the Hs129 or A10, rather than a fighter shoe horned in to the role. Also the 'Sturmvogel' was a failure in that role AFAIK.
    Well then, you got yourself a dilemma. I can't think of any other A/C to fit the roll. But I would equate the A-10 to the Ju 87 G-1 "Kanonenvogel".

  9. #9
    Senior Member A4K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The back of beyond
    Posts
    11,178
    Country
    New Zealand
    Country II
    Hungary
    Post Thanks / Like
    Luftwaffe A10-style aircraft in 1944-45?

    Heinkel He 162. High mounted engine, protected against ground fire, and bent wing tips for tighter manoeverability... just like the later A-10...

  10. #10
    Senior Member parsifal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orange NSW
    Posts
    7,808
    Country
    Australia
    Post Thanks / Like
    whats wrong with the AR234. not exactly CAS, admittedly, but a pretty good tactical bomber and a very good recon aircraft. what the LW really needed at the very end was the ability to see what was coming, and where, the AR234 could fulfil that mission perfectly
    Fr President Clemenceau’s speech to the AIF 7th July 1918: “ we expected a great deal of (Australians)… We knew that you would fight a real fight, but we did not know that from the beginning you would astonish the whole continent. I shall go back and say to my countrymen “I have seen the Australians, I have looked in their faces …I know that they will fight alongside of us again until the cause for which we are all fighting is safe for us and for our children”.



  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    pound va
    Posts
    2,129
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Every countries first jet engines were extremely delicate when it come to sudden throttle changes, they'd flame out very easy.
    And very inefficient at low altitude.
    Not the best combination for a aircraft flying low level in a high threat enviroment.

  12. #12
    Senior Member N4521U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Botany Bay
    Posts
    7,724
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Australia
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a segment on TV a few days ago, said the Germans were working on Everything that has ever been developed for jet aircraft!
    Planes are so simple....... damned helicopter builds!


  13. #13
    Senior Member A4K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The back of beyond
    Posts
    11,178
    Country
    New Zealand
    Country II
    Hungary
    Post Thanks / Like
    Clever buggers, no doubt about it. Look at many of the early postwar US and Russian jets, and you'll find their origins in a captured German design.

  14. #14
    Senior Member drgondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scurry, Texas
    Posts
    6,531
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    You need substantial air superiority for slow CAS. Even the A-10 took lumps in Gulf War to ZU-23s with Complete air dominance over Iraq.

    Short answer - no it wouldn't help or significantly augment over Fw 190F or G. Hs 129 and Ju 87 couldn't survive in late 1944/1945. 262 more survivable at high speed but less likely effective CEP for bombs although four Mk 108s would be awesome against light T-34 engine covers.
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

  15. #15
    Senior Member bobbysocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,539
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Belize
    Post Thanks / Like
    why would you waste something new like a jet engine in this kind of role? the inception of the JE was able to give your planes an airspeed superiority by a vast amount. of all the 262s shot down the vast majority were taken when they were vulnerable during landing and take off ( when at low speeds ) not at high altitudes. its been argued that hitler wasted the 262 by making it a bomber instead of a fighter/interceptor....now you want to make it a ground attack ac??? that is just as bad or worse. the lw had many more prop planes better suited for gs....or ones that could have been improved to make them better.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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