Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

They were mentioned earlier.

The Natter never saw service and the only major strike using Ohkas was intercepted by Hellcats, most of the Betty mother ships jettisoned their loads to evade destruction.

If I remember there were at least 2 successful Ohka attacks, one of them sank a USN destroyer - the Ohka cut it in half!

The Natter saw no service and only one manned flight (in a Ba-349 M-23) which killed the test pilot Lothar Sieber on 1st March 1945 and it was removed from the test program after the 20th of March.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

By the way here is a picture of the remains of a Natter at the Sinsheim Museum about 2 hours from where I live. I went there for like the 100th time a few months ago when I too this picture.

[Civettone]

IMO the Ohka (especially the prjected K43B with RATO and folding wings) and the Natter could well have been two of the most formidable weapons of WW2 had the war lasted longer. Especially the Natter was exactly what Germany needed in 1945.

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think the Wasserfall or the Enzian would have been more successful than the Natter if they had become operational. They would have rendered the Natter useless.

[Civettone]

Yep, I agree. But I'm assuming here that the Natter would have been operational before those. Neither were ready when the war ended but at least the Natter engineers didn't have to worry about getting the guidance system ready. Plus, there's the concern that the allies would probably be capable of jamming that guidance system shortly after the first guided missiles were encountered...

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is probably a very likely scenerio in this never happened story.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Yep, I agree. But I'm assuming here that the Natter would have been operational before those. Neither were ready when the war ended

Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.

[bigZ]

Seeing this post is worst AIRCRAFT. I am going to settle for the Rotabuggy. Ok it didn't get past prototype.


Unreal Aircraft - Roadable Aircraft - Hafner Rotabuggy Flying Jeep

Perhaps the Wassarfall or Enzian would have became a reality if they hadn't of wasted time and resources on the V2?

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Are you including the Ohka? It was operational in WW2.

Nope, was referring to the Natter ànd SAM.

Kris

[Wespe]

Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum

Let me say, the Natter wasn't a plane, and I would agree to a very early statement on this thread, that the worst plane was the Me-163B.

More pilots killed then planes destroyed, too fast to hit anything, 3 seconds time to fire on target, 3-4 min flight endurance, and not to mention the resources spend for nothing.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Wespe

Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this Forum

Let me say, the Natter wasn't a plane, and I would agree to a very early statement on this thread, that the worst plane was the Me-163B.

More pilots killed then planes destroyed, too fast to hit anything, 3 seconds time to fire on target, 3-4 min flight endurance, and not to mention the resources spend for nothing.

The best thing about the Natter was that it wasn't a plane because it didn't need trained pilots!!

The things you say on the Me 163 are either wrong or exaggerated. Not more pilots killed than planes destroyed. What's more, 1 B-17 is equal to about 10 Me 163s.
It wasn't much faster than your beloved Me 262.
3 seconds fire means 60 MK 108 shells fired.
It had 7 minutes endurance but could float back down for an additional 15 minutes and pick out any field where a glider could land on.
And what resources were used for this? It was a sideshow and never got the resources the Me 262 got. I think the problem was that it didn't get enough support, not from the RLM, not from the Luftwaffe and not from Messerschmitt who was opposed to anything coming from the Lippisch section.

Kris

[Wespe]

Thank god they didn’t put further recourses into this fly. Well I never flew one, but from what I read it had 2.5 min of rest fuel after reaching its altitude target giving the pilot 3 sec. to shot (doesn’t mean he fired for 3 sec.) and after that gliding home making itself a sitting duck for any allied aircraft. Only the 163C hat a propulsion/flying time of 7 – 15 min and never made it to the Lw.
Out of 364 Me163’s all they performed was 11 successful attacks. If the recourses spend on the egg had been put into the GO 229, yep that would have been it.
So the worst airplane of the Lw in WWII – undisputable the Me-163B

Long live the Me-262

Wespe

[Civettone]

Fine that you think so but it would be nice if you would base it on correct information. Optimum altitude could be reached in less than 3 minutes which means 4 to 5 minutes of operational flight which is sufficient if you use the Me 163 as a point defence fighter.
The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?
You got a point on the dangers of gliding back but this also could be countered to a certain degree. While without fuel the Me 163 was the most manoeuvrable fighter aircraft in existence. But again, you need a good pilot to get the most out of it.
You also state that 364 Komets were build. Though there is discussion about the number of Komets built, it's clear that very few became operational.
And to state that the Go 229 was a better alternative shows that you put down a good design as a failure for trading a bad design as a future succes. Recent computer simulations have shown that the Go 229 would have had unsurmountable aerodynamic problems. These problems could have been solved but would have required a lot of time. There is not a chance that the Go 229 could have been fully operational before 1947. But the comparison is moot because they cannot be compared, the Go 229 is a heavy jet fighter (bomber) while the Me 163/263 was a simple/easy to produce design without aerodynamical problems.

I also used to be critical of the Komet but then I read the interview with Rudi Opitz and I noticed that most criticism was based on tales in the same league as Bf 109 narrow undercarriages and Ju 290s flying to Manchuria...
Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?

you are very correct..
The MiG-15 had no problem targeting B-29s at higher speeds. By the time the Korean War started tactics and firing solutions were well worked out on both sides....

[Wespe]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Fine that you think so but it would be nice if you would base it on correct information. Optimum altitude could be reached in less than 3 minutes which means 4 to 5 minutes of operational flight which is sufficient if you use the Me 163 as a point defence fighter.
The short firing time is overrated and is only a problem for pilots who are not used to it. Or did the MiG-15 have much problems with it while attacking the B-29s?
You got a point on the dangers of gliding back but this also could be countered to a certain degree. While without fuel the Me 163 was the most manoeuvrable fighter aircraft in existence. But again, you need a good pilot to get the most out of it.
You also state that 364 Komets were build. Though there is discussion about the number of Komets built, it's clear that very few became operational.
And to state that the Go 229 was a better alternative shows that you put down a good design as a failure for trading a bad design as a future succes. Recent computer simulations have shown that the Go 229 would have had unsurmountable aerodynamic problems. These problems could have been solved but would have required a lot of time. There is not a chance that the Go 229 could have been fully operational before 1947. But the comparison is moot because they cannot be compared, the Go 229 is a heavy jet fighter (bomber) while the Me 163/263 was a simple/easy to produce design without aerodynamical problems.

I also used to be critical of the Komet but then I read the interview with Rudi Opitz and I noticed that most criticism was based on tales in the same league as Bf 109 narrow undercarriages and Ju 290s flying to Manchuria...
Kris

Off course the Go 229 would have taken years to be worked out, as any other plane, but the potential due to its jet engine was given, whilst a rocket propelled projectile would never have been successful. And that about 300 163's only can show for 11 attacks is no tale. Until today besides props. all aircrafts are jet propelled and the Americans and Russians abandoned all their rocket propelled projects (for combat planes). As I mentioned earlier I have never flown a jet or rocket propelled plane, but I could imagine that regulating the speed is the main issue which led to a focusing towards the jet turbines. (I am sure Erich, or Adler know a lot more then me about this). And shooting down Mig’s in Korea was 8 years later regarding the targeting instrumentation, (or Grabewskis? chewing gum targeting device) You mentioned “experienced” pilots, of which the Lw didn’t have much in 43 onwards, so it is a waste to me to divert these experienced pilots to the Me-163 project. If the Germans had focused on the Me-262 and Fw D series from the start, then there would have been no need for all these “ridiculous” wonder weapons such as Me-163, Natter, Volksjaeger, the later designed to be flown by HJ boys. (But maybe that is just my opinion).

Junkers in Manchuria ? never heard, what was that about ? Something like the New York flight?

Have fun
Wespe