Mistakes in Aviation

[Graeme]

Mistakes in aviation?

Big one for Fonck and Sikorsky was turning the S-35 from this...



...into this...



The plane that was in the opinion of most experts, the aircraft that would "be able to make the trans-Atlantic flight to Paris with little difficulty".

the trans Atlantic flight of Alcock and Brown

YouTube - Sikorsky S-35: The plane that should have beat Lindberg

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

This is obviously turning into another pointless battle of will that seem common here, so I will leave you to your opinion even though I think you base them on wishful thinking rather than trying to be objective. You are comparing an aircraft that didn't become operational until 2 years after the war to one that was available in mid to late '44 and assume that it would make it in time to be operational in numbers by late '45 (wishful thinking) and that it's potential enemy in question would've remained the exact same, eventhough evidence of its progress is plentiful. You also tell me, contrary to the all the books I have read on the subject, the developments of the 003 are in fact not (despite having the same German design team, which you continuously ignore), maybe you ought to contact some aviation historians and tell them they're all wrong.

KK already forwarded my thoughts in regards to these always repeating endless discussions between Allied developments after WW2 in contrast to finished and partially in action proven German developments before 8th May 1945, endlessly referring to “if”, “when, and “could, ”would” and ending in mathematical, aerodynamically concluded statistics, stall, wing design, flaps, airbrakes and inferior burned out German jet engines.

Allied jet a/c developments before 8th May 1945: and their numbers in action on the field

Meteor F1 (20-30)?
Meteor F3 (20-30)?1 Squadron)
Vampire MK I ( 0 )?
Airacomet (6? Came to Italy)?
P-80 (4 a/c, 2 to England, 2 to Italy)

German jet a/c developments before 8th May 1945: and their numbers in action on the field

Ar 234B (80?)
Ar234C ( ? )

He 162 (60?)
Me 262 (400?)
Me 163 (80?)

So this comparison discussion is based on the “experience” and “flight/combat” evaluation of approx. 50-60 allied jets in operation (who downed in air combat about (1 Fieseler Storch ?), - okay let’s not forget about the 14 V1’s, in contra to 600-700 German jets in operation that downed in air combat about (400-450?) a/c.

So I might end my post by forwarding that the “Wasserfall”, “if” pushed, instead of the V2, “could” have devastated the Allied Air forces in conjunction with the German jets (no matter how fantastic the British jet engines where), and “would” have changed world’s history at least until August 1945.

So IMO the neglect of the “Wasserfall”, "Rheintochter" and "Enzian” are the biggest German mistakes in aviation and not it’s “inferior” jet engines.

Regards
Kruska

[kool kitty89]

Though the Me-262 HG-I was built and flown (swept tailplane, low profile canopy, and 35 degree sweep added inlay inboard of nacelles) and the HG-II was built, but not flown (destroyed iirc) featuring swept tail (V-tail origninally planned) and redesigned wings with 35 degree sweepback.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the HG series was even close to production, and I'n not sure on the considerations to produce it either. (more experimental)

I think an improved 'standard' Me 262 with maybe minimal improvements to the airframe would have been more concevable. With 2,300-2,450 lbf 004D/E engines with improved handeling, reliability, service life, altitude performance, and fuel efficiency. (note I don't consider the afterburning versions with over 2,600 lbf) Similar to the improvements made on the P-80, Vampire, and Meteor.



Of course there's still the HeS-30 (006) to consider as well but who knows... (in light of this as well as the problems with the 011, I think the 011 should have stayed on the Drawing board, and Heinkel-Hirth focused on the 006, possibly with the 001/ HeS-8 as an intrim/alternate)


And the BMW 003D with 1,200 kp thrust (2,645 lbf) with new compressor (reaction blading like the 006) and greatly improved specific fuel consumption. (actual consumption similar to 003A/E at similar RPM, so 20-25 % reduction in SFC) Note the 004E produced ~2030 kp with overrev. (rated for 30 sec max in combat at full overrev)

One problem with the 003A/E actually produced is that, unlike the 004, it couldn't be restarted by the pilot after a flameout. (a serious consideration, even though flameouts were somewhat less likely than on the 004B)



I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, particularly seeing the 2-year delay with rover and the relatively low priorety of the Vampire. Even as things went the Derwent V was coming on line and the Meteor 4 could have probably been in production by mid '45 if pushed. Without the Rover problems an equivelent a/c to a late model Meteor III (long nacelles) with Derwent IV (or W.2/700) engines could have been in service by late '44. (Top speed probably ~560 mph climb ~4,500 ft/min)

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, particularly seeing the 2-year delay with rover and the relatively low priorety of the Vampire. Even as things went the Derwent V was coming on line and the Meteor 4 could have probably been in production by mid '45 if pushed. Without the Rover problems an equivelent a/c to a late model Meteor III (long nacelles) with Derwent IV (or W.2/700) engines could have been in service by late '44. (Top speed probably ~560 mph climb ~4,500 ft/min)

Hello kk89,

I also don’t think it would be wishful thinking for the He290 and Me262 entering full operational status as front line fighters in their hundreds by Jan 1943 and thousands by Jan. 44.

Due to a far better resources situation before 1943 the engines would have shown a far better quality and due to more or less non-occurring allied bomber flights over Germany (Due to the jets) the continuation of further developments would have massively progressed.

These improved versions would have contributed massively on the eastern front since Wasserfall, Rheintochter, Enzian and Fliegerfaust would have taken over the majority of air defense against whatever allied prop. or jet a/c.

Regards
Kruska

[red admiral]

I think we're at cross purposes between reality, best case and fantasy.

The LW could have had the He 280 in service in 1943 with large scale service in 1944. Masses of new materials and labour resources aren't going to fall from the sky. The He 280 is good enough to shoot down lots of the 8th AF but is quite limited for later development. However, it is available early and it works. I'm not sure whether 003s or 004s could fit onto the airframe but i'd expect Mcrit to be the problem at around 0.80. Not much can be done to get the Me 262 into service faster, with the introduction of the He 280 it would probably take longer to come into service, but would be better than historical with pilots more familiar with jets. The Atar is not going to suddenly spring from nowhere, uprated versions of the 003 and 004 appearing in late 44 to early 45 are the best hope giving up to 2500lbf but still with problems.

The stuff about the German SAMs is rather fanciful given that they didn't actually work. It took until 1953 to actually get a working SAM into service. You could probably get a more limited missile into service in early 1945 with the capability to hit in the middle of a 1000yd wide bomber formation buts thats about it. Even then you've got the problems of producing enough of them and having the launch sites shot up.

For the Meteor, the problem was the availability of engines because of the choice to go with the Power Jets/Rover design. Having a Power Jets/RR partnership accelerates the program by two years, proably around 18months when talking of service dates. So F.I in service in early 1943 with 1943 being a development year and shooting down a few V-1s. Then in early 1944 there are a bunch of options because of the longer nacelles improving Mcrit and the more powerful engines available;

1. Historical Meteor F.III with long nacelles and Derwent Is more than equal to He 280 and slightly inferior to Me 262
2. Meteor F.III with clipped wings improving speed
3. Meteor with Goblin engines in slightly larger nacelles giving around 560mph, 7000fpm
4. Meteor with W.2/700 engines (2500lbf) for around 550mph, 6000fpm
5. Meteor with Metrovick F.2s giving 2500lbf in underslung nacelles, around 570mph, 6000fpm

Around late 1944, early 45 there are a few more options;
6. Meteor with uprated Derwents
7. Meteor with Metrovick F.3 or F.5 turbofans giving 5000lbf. Speed limited by Mcrit so around 610mph max, 10-11000fpm rate of climb, range more than doubled

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by red admiral

The stuff about the German SAMs is rather fanciful given that they didn't actually work. It took until 1953 to actually get a working SAM into service. You could probably get a more limited missile into service in early 1945 with the capability to hit in the middle of a 1000yd wide bomber formation buts thats about it. Even then you've got the problems of producing enough of them and having the launch sites shot up.

Aha, who say's they didn't work.?

The Wehrmacht ordered Rheintochter already in 1942. Starting in August 1943, 82 test firings were made. An air-launched version was also designed. Wasserfall already existed in 1943 but was not pushed. The guidance systems where in its initial stage of already working, a new system known as Rheinland was under development. Rheinland used a radar unit for tracking the target and a transponder in the missile for locating it in flight, read by a radio direction finder on the ground). A simple analog computer guided the missile into the tracking radar beam as soon as possible after launch, using the transponder to locate it, at which point the operator could see both "blips" on a single display, and guide the missile onto the target during night as during the day.

Steering during the launch phase was accomplished by four graphite rudders placed in the muzzle of the combustion chamber, and (once high airspeeds had been attained) by the four air rudders mounted on the rocket tail. Commands were sent to the missile using a modified version of the "Kehl-Strassburg" later proven by the sucessful Hs293.

Enzian could be started of from a 88 lafett mounting, and the Fliegerfaust already existed in April/May 45

Feuerlilie25/50 already got off as early as in 1941

A 306 kg warhead from a Wasserfall would indeed have been enough destructive power even within a 1000 yards diameter. The V2 was actually a very exact weapon, it is due to misinformation and choice of targets that gave the V2 the image of a blind fired inaccurate weapon.

Ragar guided V2's actually could hit targets within a range of 20m. So the technology was there it was not fantasy it existed.

"IF" Wasserfall and Co. would have been given priority, they "would" indeed have stopped the allied bombers. No one needed a guided Missile that actually slamed into the target in 43/44 or 45 due to very low speeds (400km/h) of the bombers, a close proximity fuse at 100m with a 300kg liqiud explosive warhead would have desintigrated or blown of 2-4 bombers at ease.

Have a look at EMW Wasserfall Luft '46 entry it is quite interesting;

Costing for a V2 was estimated at 100,000 RM/pc, a Wasserfall at 8000/pc.

Last not least, even though not a SAM, the R 4/M "Orkan" did its job perfectly and was IIRC already developed to a useful stage in 1940.

Regards
Kruska

[red admiral]

Aha, who say's they didn't work.?

Pretty much every source on the subject. Infrared guidance wasn't developed enough to be accurate. The MCLOS system mostly used could be easily jammed as with the Fritz-X guided bombs. The other guidance system was beam riding, which didn't succesfully work until the 50s with SAMs like Terrier. There were no German radar proximity fuses either, which would massively hinder any system.

The effectiveness of a system like Fliergerfaust is questionable considering the lack of trials with the system.

Radar guided V2's actually could hit targets within a range of 20m.

You've got to be kidding. V2s were not radar guided. They were simple ballistic missiles with a primitive intertial guidance system. The CEP of the prototypes was 4.5km rising to 12km with acutal firings. The very few missiles fired with radar beam guidance managed a CEP of 2km. Please note that 2000 is a larger number than 20.

Last not least, even though not a SAM, the R 4/M "Orkan" did its job perfectly and was IIRC already developed to a useful stage in 1940.

It was designed in 1944 not 1940.

[Glider]

My understanding on German SAMS are as follows
Rheintochter
This depended on remote control from the ground a very imprecise method even with todays technology. I have seen live Seacat firings using this method and observed the problems and talked to the operators who had to use it. One simple problem was that the flare tended to blind the target to the operator and that was with a short range missile. It also depended on remote detonation of the warhead. Again very imprecise, the chances of success are limited. The weather would also be a major problem, any cloud would ruin the chances of a hit.
Wasserfall
Basically the control was similar to the Rheintochter, the development you describe was still under development. Its worth noting that the reason it was given a large warhead was because of concerns of the accuracy that could be achieved. Detonation was still remote and simlar sized explosions from air dropped bombs I believe were tried against US bomber streams with limited success.
Enzian
In some ways the more practical option for production but considered by the Germans to be even more difficult to control than the other missiles as it wasn't a line of sight weapon. Interesting to note that the warhead was 500kg but considered to have a lethal range of 45 meters, when the Wasserfall with a 300 kg warhead was supposed to have an effective range of 1000 yards. Something isn't right there.
Feuerlilie25/55
Now with this they could have been in business. The 25 was a research rocket only as it was a supersonic weapon designed to pick up technical data. The 55 was to be the weapon and its development was going very well. But and its a big but, the control of the 25 was a radio control link from an aircraft clearly not applicable in a war situation. I don't know what control method would have been chosen for the F55 but I suspect this would have been the Achilles Heal of the system.
Radar Guided V2
This I hadn't heard of before I have heard of the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, but how it worked and what accuracy was achieved I simply don't know. I have seen blanket statements that 20 meters was possible but have seen no evidence to back that up. Normal V2's had an accuracy to London I believe of around 7 miles.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I'm not sure, but I don't think the HG series was even close to production, and I'n not sure on the considerations to produce it either. (more experimental)

No they were not. With no enemy jet aircraft in mass production development focused on testing improvements of the basic design rather then developing the next version. I merely used the HG to illustrate that the 262 was far from definitive as the A-1a and that a big potential in performance increase was left both in airframe and engines.

I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, ...

Maiden flight was in May that year, no way the aircraft would've been operational in significant numbers by new years eve. For comparison, check how long it took for the Spit Mk.IVX to go from 'maiden flight' to 'operational' to 'available in significant numbers'.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Glider

This I hadn't heard of before I have heard of the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, but how it worked and what accuracy was achieved I simply don't know. I have seen blanket statements that 20 meters was possible but have seen no evidence to back that up. Normal V2's had an accuracy to London I believe of around 7 miles.

Hello Glider,

Radar guided: via „beam-riding“ Radio guided: = Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, is a technique of directing a missile to its target by means of radar

Quote: particularly on batteries where Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus was installed, with V-2s sometimes landing within meters of the target

RIM-2 Terrier missile that were introduced in the 1950's were "beam riders", later variants employed semi-active radar homing to improve their effectiveness

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deploy...eitstrahl.html

(22)(webmasters note: It is generally believed that the A4/V2 was not an effective weapon because it was not accurate enough to hit an exact target. While pinpoint accuracy was not associated with the V2, it was much more accurate than generally reported. Not every batterie received or installed the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, which, was crucial to the greater accuracy of the weapon. In the later stages of the war the accuracy improved greatly, sometimes to within meters of the target.)

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deploy...perations.html

Regards
Kruska

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by red admiral

Pretty much every source on the subject. Infrared guidance wasn't developed enough to be accurate. The MCLOS system mostly used could be easily jammed as with the Fritz-X guided bombs. The other guidance system was beam riding, which didn't succesfully work until the 50s with SAMs like Terrier. There were no German radar proximity fuses either, which would massively hinder any system.

Well some sources state differently

The effectiveness of a system like Fliergerfaust is questionable considering the lack of trials with the system.

Since the Wehrmacht ordered 10,000 sets plus 4 million projectiles in March 45, they might have been more convinced then you

You've got to be kidding. V2s were not radar guided. They were simple ballistic missiles with a primitive intertial guidance system. The CEP of the prototypes was 4.5km rising to 12km with acutal firings. The very few missiles fired with radar beam guidance managed a CEP of 2km. Please note that 2000 is a larger number than 20.

So what would be your translation for “Leitstrahl”?,Well it is Beam riding (along a Radar beam), were corrections were transmitted via radio control to sensors/receivers mounted on the fins of the V2.

It was designed in 1944 not 1940.

IIRC, Galland mentioned that he remembered projectiles being used during the Poland campaign and forwarded this in regards to the – within 9 month – developed R4M, so to me that sounds like there must have been a forerunner of the R4M, which would also explain the notable short time of development.

Regards
Kruska

[Glider]

Kruska
Thanks for the posting. The ones you mention are the ones that I had seen and considered to be blanket statements. What I hadn't seen are test reports, development papers, that kind of hard evidence. Even lists of targets that the missiles were aimed at compared to the strikes would be a good start.
Its worth remembering that no valuable propaganda targets were hit in London. From what I have read about Germanys methods St Paul’s, Downing Street, Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Bank of England are the sorts of target that would have been prioritised.

The history of guided missiles is littered with claims that were never matched and I try to be cautious. The well known early history of the F4 Sidewinder/Sparrow missiles I believe supports a cautious approach and that of course is by no means the only example.

The reference to the RIM-2 Terrier missile is interesting in that my understanding was that beam riders were inaccurate at long range and largely abandoned as a practical proposition and as you say yourself the Terrier had to be developed into a semi active system. Pointing a V2 at a stationary city is very different from pointing it at a moving aircraft.

[red admiral]

Since the Wehrmacht ordered 10,000 sets plus 4 million projectiles in March 45, they might have been more convinced then you

No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.

So what would be your translation for “Leitstrahl”?

Its not beam riding as there is no radar beam to ride along given that it is a ballistic missile. The system is more similar to the Oboe blind bombing system used by the RAF. I've little doubt that some test weapons landed within metres of their target, but this isn't statisically representative. Equally the 8th AF bombing from height would drop one or two weapons next to the target with the rest spread over 5 miles around.

Rockets may have been used over Poland. I doubt that small calibre fin folding types similar to the R4M were used.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by red admiral

No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.

Because jets were developed, once Helicopters came into the picture as a threat, Stinger and others were developed, based on exactly the same idea, cheap and effective, shoulder fired - MANPADS -

Its not beam riding as there is no radar beam to ride along given that it is a ballistic missile. The system is more similar to the Oboe blind bombing system used by the RAF. I've little doubt that some test weapons landed within metres of their target, but this isn't statisically representative. Equally the 8th AF bombing from height would drop one or two weapons next to the target with the rest spread over 5 miles around.

Off course "Leitstrahl" translates into guide beam, and that is conducted by a Radar beam, not a torch light. During the take off phase up to maybe 20-30 km, the missile or V2 could be captioned by radar and as such followed up and corrections of its flightpath could be transmitted via radio signals. And exactly that is called beam riding.

Rockets may have been used over Poland. I doubt that small calibre fin folding types similar to the R4M were used.

Well I was just quoting Galland

Regards
Kruska

[red admiral]

Missiles like Stinger and Blowpipe have a much longer range and are guided. Fliegerfaust is point in the general direction and shoot. Theres a quantum leap in effectiveness between the two.

Beam riding works as in the illustration below. The missile is launched and gathered into a narrow radar beam (which needs high frequency radars that the Germans didn't have in numbers). It then flies along the radar beam to the target which is in a straight line along the beam. This obviously procludes its use for a ballistic missile or OTH use.