PDA

View Full Version : V1 campaign - but launched against Germany June44



mynameisroland
02-13-2008, 05:18 PM
How would the Germans have coped with a V1 campaign as per the one they launched against Britain/Occupied Europe?

Of the available interceptor types apart from the few Me 262's available what other types could reach around 400mph at low altitude to counter the V1 flying bombs which I believe flew on average around 380/400 mph between 1000 - 3000 ft.

There are a few key factors the RAF had that the Luftwaffe didnt have for example 150 octane fuel, high performance low altitude types, spare planes and pilots, proximity fused AAA network, and night fighters fast enough to down them.

The 262 has the considerable problem of short ranged low velocity cannon. It would be tough to hit a V1 at long range with Mk 108s imo. At night the Bf 110 stood no chance in catching V1s so WildSau like units would have to be formed to try and counter but obviously without on board detection devices and long on station time ect.

biggs222
02-13-2008, 05:29 PM
i dont think the germans would be too happy with the luftwaffe bombing their own people... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

mynameisroland
02-13-2008, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
i dont think the germans would be too happy with the luftwaffe bombing their own people... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Ya think?

biggs222
02-13-2008, 05:56 PM
... cmon you didnt say it was the british sending V1s over the channel did you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but anyway, ill bite.

i feel like the luftwaffe would have had plenty of planes / weapons at their disposal to deal with the V1s. the 190D for one would have been able to tackle the low altitude pursuits. the later 109G's would have been able to dive on the V1's much like the mkIXs did.

the 88' flak batteries would have done a nice job of shooting them down to.

so basically i dont even think 262s would have been necessary to down them... although it certainly would have been the "easy button" if you will.

jarink
02-13-2008, 07:56 PM
It would have been lost in the background from the RAF's and USAAF's bombing campaigns.

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by biggs222:
... cmon you didnt say it was the british sending V1s over the channel did you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but anyway, ill bite.

i feel like the luftwaffe would have had plenty of planes / weapons at their disposal to deal with the V1s. the 190D for one would have been able to tackle the low altitude pursuits. the later 109G's would have been able to dive on the V1's much like the mkIXs did.

the 88' flak batteries would have done a nice job of shooting them down to.

so basically i dont even think 262s would have been necessary to down them... although it certainly would have been the "easy button" if you will.

The Fw 190 D9 had not entered service yet, the Bf 109 G series like the Spitfire IX were not fast enough to guarantee interception and the Germans did not have proximity fuses for their AAA.

As I said in my 1st post I dont think shooting at a very small hard to hit highly explosive target with short ranged mortars is a good idea. the 262 would be very 'blast' sensitive imo, although it would definitely be the best aircraft they had for the job - but how many did they have in June 44?

The biggest problem would be shooting them down at night. The Bf 110 stood no chance at all.

badatflyski
02-14-2008, 10:29 AM
a 190A with a 801D2 1.85ata low level boosted(like the F versions), armor,nose MG and Wing MG151 removed and a MW50kit would be enough ...maybe?...but at night????How did the english for the night interception? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

berg417448
02-14-2008, 10:39 AM
...but at night????How did the english for the night interception? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


They used Mosquitos. The Mosquitos would fly at higher altitude and dive down to gain enough speed to intercept the V-1. The flame from the V-1 could be seen for many miles so the interception could be done visually. There is a good description of this in the book "Night Fighter" by C F Rawnsley.

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 10:52 AM
I think Mosquito night fighters were particularly fast remember that they were given increased boost rating like the other types used to counter the V1s and they were fast even before this upgrade. One Mosquito pilot shot down 9 V1s in a single Sortie iirc so the aircraft would have needed some margin of speed superiority to achieve this imo.

After the Tempest the Mosquito was the next most successful type with (428) destroyed

Infact if you look at all the types involved only the high performance fighters prospered.

Tempest V 638 Kills
Mosquito 428 Kills
Spitfire XIV 303 Kills
Mustang 232 Kills

all other types combined 158 Kills

Question: What HP would a Merlin 25 engined variant achieve when running at 21lb or 25lb ? And how fast would this have made a VI at low altitudes?


a 190A with a 801D2 1.85ata low level boosted(like the F versions), armor,nose MG and Wing MG151 removed and a MW50kit would be enough ...maybe?...but at night????How did the english for the night interception? Blink



i dont know if an A series Fw 190 would be fast enough to overtake a V1 in level flight, it would be fast enough to dive down on one obviously but in terms of speed I think even a hotrodded Fw 190 A8 would be slower than a D9, a Tempest or a Mustang III. ps I dont think any Fw 190's powered by BMW 801 ever got MW 50?

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

There are a few key factors the RAF had that the Luftwaffe didnt have for example 150 octane fuel,

The Luftwaffe had 150 octane fuel 1.5 years before the RAF, and on industrial scale. It`s the C-3.

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

There are a few key factors the RAF had that the Luftwaffe didnt have for example 150 octane fuel,

The Luftwaffe had 150 octane fuel 1.5 years before the RAF, and on industrial scale. It`s the C-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and how fast was a June 44 Bf 109 at 3000ft using this fuel ? Oh I forgot they used B4 87/100 Octane didnt they>

Patriot_Act
02-14-2008, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

There are a few key factors the RAF had that the Luftwaffe didnt have for example 150 octane fuel,

The Luftwaffe had 150 octane fuel 1.5 years before the RAF, and on industrial scale. It`s the C-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fantasy.

P.A.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

There are a few key factors the RAF had that the Luftwaffe didnt have for example 150 octane fuel,

The Luftwaffe had 150 octane fuel 1.5 years before the RAF, and on industrial scale. It`s the C-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and how fast was a June 44 Bf 109 at 3000ft using this fuel ? Oh I forgot they used B4 87/100 Octane didnt they> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Initially the boosted 109G used C-3 + MW 50 to obtain higher boost. Later they were cleared for the same boosts with B-4 + MW 50. Much like the Tempest V.

C-3 was equivalent of 150 grade fuel, production rate was. apprx. 100 000 tons/month were produced in the first half 1944.

370 mph from flight tests at 3000 feet, May 1944. http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...CE-may44_trials.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html)

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 11:59 AM
So not really fast enough then. 370 mph at 3000 ft and 350 mph at sea level is quite a bit slower than the Mustang, Tempest and Mosquito and V1 although not that much slower than a Spitire XIV I suppose. How fast was a XIV at low altitude? (did the use 21lb boost?)

The TempestV never used any form of MW 50 injection system although differing fuel octanes were used. After the V1 campaign had finished Tempests generally were upgraded/produced with the Sabre IIB engine which achieved similar/more performance with lower fuel quality.

I think Beaumont said he intercepted one (a V1) going at over 400mph at 1000 ft. There was a spectrum of speeds and altitudes at which they were encountered. Its a shame that IL2 does not reflect the true speed of the V1 and that we cant get realistic interception scenarios.

Bremspropeller
02-14-2008, 12:33 PM
Take an A-6, strip it of unneccessary R/T stuff, strip it of the cowl guns, armor and outer wing-guns.

Overboost the engine. Scrap off the paint. Polish the airframe. Fit a new high-speed prop.


Problem solved.



Twin-MG42 batteries are gonna finish off the low-flyers that come through. V-1s were not armored, so even a few 7.92mm rounds are gonna hit hard enough to turn the V-1 in...
http://freenet-homepage.de/PanzerkommandantSW/MG-3.jpg
These are two MG3s, but you get the idea...

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 01:04 PM
I guess similiar polishing, refinement of the airframe and getting rid of drag items could be employed as was in the case of the V-1 interceptors, or simply, dive onto the target. The FW 190 and Me 262 would be surely more suited for the task.

badatflyski
02-14-2008, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
i dont know if an A series Fw 190 would be fast enough to overtake a V1 in level flight, it would be fast enough to dive down on one obviously but in terms of speed I think even a hotrodded Fw 190 A8 would be slower than a D9, a Tempest or a Mustang III. ps I dont think any Fw 190's powered by BMW 801 ever got MW 50?

I Assume, it would,could be, just like brempropeller rephrased my thoughts i wrote earlier. Strip the plane from all unnecessary stuff, boost the lowlevel capacities of the engine and you got a real fast plane (we're talking about something like a half tonne(kg) gone an airplane here!
About your MW50 question: nope, it wasn't used ,but was actually planned for the A4, production pb's of those kits didn't allow the use of them on the A4, but the A4 was built with this idea in mind. The C3 injection seemed to have the wanted effect but without having to put 150kg more in the plane...but using much more fuel instead. it was a compromis made by FW.

And for our friend patriot act:

The C3 was the only fuel used on the 190 from the A3 version. the BMW801D2 was built for this fuel and not the B4 like the BMW C1, so what men can say is: from august41 LW used the C3 on a large scale.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Fantasy???

Now Taggart style...[SAVY?]...
sorry,i couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

biggs222
02-14-2008, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
So not really fast enough then. 370 mph at 3000 ft and 350 mph at sea level is quite a bit slower than the Mustang, Tempest and Mosquito and V1 although not that much slower than a Spitire XIV I suppose. How fast was a XIV at low altitude? (did the use 21lb boost?)



i have here that they gave the mkXIV the 150 octane fuel specifically for hunting the V1s. it says that the 150oct fuel gave the mkXIV +25lb boost which added 30mph to its top speed allowing to to reach 400mph at 2000ft.

i also read that there was so much lead in the 150 octane fuel that it accumulated around the exhaust stacks and had to be frequently removed!

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
i have here that they gave the mkXIV the 150 octane fuel specifically for hunting the V1s. it says that the 150oct fuel gave the mkXIV +25lb boost which added 30mph to its top speed allowing to to reach 400mph at 2000ft.

Test done in the summer resulted in only an engine that seized almost immidiately when running at +25 lbs... all the 400 mph curves you see for the XIV/+25 are extrapolations/calculations, they simply couldnt finish the test because of the reason mentinoed above.


Originally posted by badatflyski
The C3 was the only fuel used on the 190 from the A3 version. the BMW801D2 was built for this fuel and not the B4 like the BMW C1, so what men can say is: from august41 LW used the C3 on a large scale.... Happy
Fantasy???

C-3 was around before the war started, and early Bf 109E/F types (and some LW bombers) that used the DB 601N used it, but it was from about late 1942 was the composition changed and resulted in what the Allies would refer as 150 grade fuel. Before that it was 100/130 grade equivalent.

CUJO_1970
02-14-2008, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
And for our friend patriot act:

The C3 was the only fuel used on the 190 from the A3 version. the BMW801D2 was built for this fuel and not the B4 like the BMW C1, so what men can say is: from august41 LW used the C3 on a large scale.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Fantasy???

Now Taggart style...[SAVY?]...
sorry,i couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Oh please...don't let facts get in the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 01:45 PM
Kufurst what period of WW2 would this :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...ls/109G6_DB605A.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G6_DB605A.html)

Bf 109's performance represent? After 43 would it have increased or would it have been supplemented by Rutzestat MW 50/GM1 kits (is that the right word?) Anyone got any figures for the amount of MW/50 kits circulated and installed in the field?

biggs222
02-14-2008, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Test done in the summer resulted in only an engine that seized almost immidiately when running at +25 lbs... all the 400 mph curves you see for the XIV/+25 are extrapolations/calculations, they simply couldnt finish the test because of the reason mentinoed above.


ok well i guess ill just go and burn all my spitfire book then. seeing as all the facts stated are pure and utter rubbish.

Alfred Pierce talks a lot of tosh doenst he?

Ian Ponsford who was credited with 7 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probable and three damaged whilst flying Spitfire XIV's with 130 Squadron recalled:

"The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the FW 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it staight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine. One big advantage that we had over the Germans was that we ran our aircraft on advanced fuels which gave us more power. The 150 octane fuel that we used was strange looking stuff as it was bright green and had an awful smell - it had to be heavily leaded to cope with the extra compression of the engine. "

what a liar he is huh^

JtD
02-14-2008, 02:20 PM
I see no point in launching V1 from England toward the continent as they'd hardly get to German soil. Also Germany is a much larger with much more dispersed targets than the city of London. Also the bombing was a much larger concern than V1 attacks at a moderate to large scale could ever be. Now assuming this all wouldn't matter and the Germans were desperate to intercept V1, they'd be a bit short of suitable planes right away. However, there wouldn't be much difficulty with boosting engines for low alt in particular in order to gain the few extra kph needed or stripping some planes of some equipment and make them dedicated V1 pursuers. Much like the P-47M. You tidy up and lighten the normal 190A-8 somewhat and it hits 600 km/h on the deck. Good enough to kill V1s.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Kufurst what period of WW2 would this :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...ls/109G6_DB605A.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G6_DB605A.html)

Bf 109's performance represent? After 43 would it have increased or would it have been supplemented by Rutzestat MW 50/GM1 kits (is that the right word?) Anyone got any figures for the amount of MW/50 kits circulated and installed in the field?

The 1,3ata is representative one from Feb-October 1943, 1,42ata was introduced in October 1943 (altough my research indicates it was used late 42/early 43, and summer 1943, too, but probably recalled both times).
I only have this page, no date, but appears to be from a series from mid 1944 (and probably repeats an 1943 test by Rechlin, its the exact same - odd - shape without the hydraulic supercharger shape present, as in Rechlin test. I presume they run seperate speed tests in low and high gear.)

The exact date of MW 50 introduction is a bit of mystery, it can be bracketed into the spring of 1944, Knoke is the first to mention it, in the April 1944 in his G-5/AS aircraft. To quote butch from an older thread 'First use by unit in October 43 when some testing Gustavs were delivered to operational units, real deploiement in April 1944.' and Erich : 'Used in the spring of 1944 in II./JG 11 and I./JG 3, later in JG 1 and JG 300 as well as the NJG units NJGr 10 and NJG 11 until the G-14/AS and finally the G-10 were available.' Butch says 250 conversion kits were ordered in May. First G-5 and G-6/U2 (GM-1) aircraft were modified, which would be very simple since the tank and piping for GM-1 was present inthem and could be used. G-14s had this as serial standard, from June-July 1944.

The first six months of 1944 and MW 50 is pretty much a gray zone as per now. Hopefully we will know more in time, its must be surely documented somewhere...

Kurfurst__
02-14-2008, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Test done in the summer resulted in only an engine that seized almost immidiately when running at +25 lbs... all the 400 mph curves you see for the XIV/+25 are extrapolations/calculations, they simply couldnt finish the test because of the reason mentinoed above.


ok well i guess ill just go and burn all my spitfire book then. seeing as all the facts stated are pure and utter rubbish.

Alfred Pierce talks a lot of tosh doenst he? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501-fig8.jpg

The engine was then modified to give +25 lb./sq.in. boost and one flight was made. Only two level speed measurements were obtained, as the engine became suddenly rough after about two minutes of the high boost on each level. Subsequent inspection showed that a blow back had occurred, damaging the air intake. The reduction gear was also found to be cracked and no further tests could be made with this engine.

...


Due to engine trouble, only two points were obtained at +25 lb./sq.in., 2,750 r.p.m. These indicate an increase in speed of 28 m.p.h. which is slightly higher than the predicted value as shown by the dotted curve (fig.6).


Originally posted by biggs222:
Ian Ponsford who was credited with 7 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probable and three damaged whilst flying Spitfire XIV's with 130 Squadron recalled:

"The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the FW 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it staight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine. One big advantage that we had over the Germans was that we ran our aircraft on advanced fuels which gave us more power. The 150 octane fuel that we used was strange looking stuff as it was bright green and had an awful smell - it had to be heavily leaded to cope with the extra compression of the engine. "

what a liar he is huh^

That`s from Mike Williams site, and, while all the other pilot quotes are referenced, this one isn`t.
Curious isn`t it?

It just reminds me when Mike had on his site this graph below (still has) picked from the above report, presented in his XIV section as follows :



ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT, FARNBOROUGH
August 1944

Spitfire XIV RB.176
(Griffon 65)

Top level speed at +25 lbs/sq.in. Boost

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501-fig8.jpg

And thats about all he tells about it.

Of course the rest of the report, which appeared years later (appearantly Mike didn`t consider it important to note the engine failed in these test and that the graphs 'Spitfire XIV is represented by R.B.176 in its final condition, using the points obtained at +25 lb./sq.in. boost and 2750 r.p.m. Allowances have been added for the removal of the rear view mirror and for clipping the wing tips.'

So it`s a curious quote, I am just not sure where it comes from. Is it from Mike, who`s been desperately striving - without much success, I might add - to present 'evidence' for years that his pet XIVs were using +21 boost with the 2nd TAF, and even +25, or from Ian..? And, I am also not sure, if its from indeed from Ian that what period this quote refers to, nor that what would Ian really know about the aviation fuels the Germans were using on the other side of the Channel.

biggs222
02-14-2008, 03:16 PM
your speculation about Ian's quote is just that, speculation. you cant say its a false quote just because you think it might be...

and it did day in alfred's writing that mkXIV's that used the 150 fuel were "modified" I suppose hat meant that they were altered so that they wouldn't seize up.

mynameisroland
02-14-2008, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I see no point in launching V1 from England toward the continent as they'd hardly get to German soil. Also Germany is a much larger with much more dispersed targets than the city of London. Also the bombing was a much larger concern than V1 attacks at a moderate to large scale could ever be. Now assuming this all wouldn't matter and the Germans were desperate to intercept V1, they'd be a bit short of suitable planes right away. However, there wouldn't be much difficulty with boosting engines for low alt in particular in order to gain the few extra kph needed or stripping some planes of some equipment and make them dedicated V1 pursuers. Much like the P-47M. You tidy up and lighten the normal 190A-8 somewhat and it hits 600 km/h on the deck. Good enough to kill V1s.

I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.

Also the V1 campaign was pretty effective, it tied down large resources,and got as many tonnes of bombs on London as the Blitz did but at a far lower cost in materiel. The V1 campaign always gets knocked but from a technical standpoint it was pretty impressive - the V1 itself was copied by most powers after WW2.

I think had the V1 campaign been launched against the UK in June 43 it would have caused a major headache. Hence the question how would it have affected Germany.

Skoshi Tiger
02-14-2008, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Take an A-6, strip it of unneccessary R/T stuff, strip it of the cowl guns, armor and outer wing-guns.

Overboost the engine. Scrap off the paint. Polish the airframe. Fit a new high-speed prop.


Problem solved.



Twin-MG42 batteries are gonna finish off the low-flyers that come through. V-1s were not armored, so even a few 7.92mm rounds are gonna hit hard enough to turn the V-1 in...

From all accounts the V1's were extreamly tuff little customers. They had next to no moving parts (not even ailerons) and carried a ton of explosives.

If you were close enough to do serious damage with rifle caliber bullets you were in serious danger yourself.

The auto pilot although fairly crude was fairly effect. I read one account (I'll try to find out where) where one was intercepted and flipped!, the pilot looked back and the V1 was happly going on its merry way upside down.

One of the big problems with the V1 was intercepting them early enough. As they had no specific target, as long as they landed on a populated area they had done their job. This meant that they tied up valuable resorces, like planes on patrol, AAA etc, just on the posiblility that they would be fired.

Just looking a Wikipedia, they said that there was 30,000 built, and only 10,000 fired! What happend to the other 20,000?

badatflyski
02-14-2008, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.
.

Boemher, the 2mg151+2MG131+amunnition(and the rest of the weapon installation)+armor = +/-450kg.
They even could remove one of the tanks, the autonomie of the plane would be still bigger than the spit.And in this case, i'm not talking about the heavy ,with a additional rear fuel-tank,armored A8. but rather a light version of the A6 simply boosted for low alt.
No need for the long nose, tha A series were not so much draggier than the D...the power excess and the additional thrust would be sufficient for that role.

Bremspropeller
02-14-2008, 07:44 PM
From all accounts the V1's were extreamly tuff little customers. They had next to no moving parts (not even ailerons) and carried a ton of explosives.


I know, I've seen F1-103s a couple of times.

You could rip it's wings apart in no time. the crude auto-pilot is not going to recover from battle-damage resulting changes of trajectory.

A well placed MG salvo will bring an end to this bugger.

JtD
02-14-2008, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.

I'm only saying 600 km/h, not 400 mph. This is what the P-47M did, too. It's a gain of about 20 km/h, it's easy.


Also the V1 campaign was pretty effective, it tied down large resources,and got as many tonnes of bombs on London as the Blitz did but at a far lower cost in materiel. The V1 campaign always gets knocked but from a technical standpoint it was pretty impressive - the V1 itself was copied by most powers after WW2.

I'm not knocking the V1 campaign. I'm saying it couldn't be used against Germany the way it was used against the UK. The main point would be that the range was sufficient to make the V1 plunge into the sea just short of the Dutch coast if the were getting launched from the UK towards Germany.

Kurfurst__
02-15-2008, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by biggs222:
your speculation about Ian's quote is just that, speculation. you cant say its a false quote just because you think it might be...

You are right. I just learned to be sceptical about things coming from there, that is all. It might as well be true.


Originally posted by biggs222:
and it did day in alfred's writing that mkXIV's that used the 150 fuel were "modified" I suppose hat meant that they were altered so that they wouldn't seize up.

They certainly used and modified for it, in the summer against the V-1s, just not at +25 but +21 lbs (so were a couple of Tempest, Mustang and IX Squadrons particupating in the defense).

stathem
02-15-2008, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think Beaumont said he intercepted one (a V1) going at over 400mph at 1000 ft. There was a spectrum of speeds and altitudes at which they were encountered. Its a shame that IL2 does not reflect the true speed of the V1 and that we cant get realistic interception scenarios.

That's very true, and I think it comes from a confusion over feet and metres. I spent quite a bit of time setting up V-1 and Okha interceptions in the FMB.

Approximatley, because I can't look up or remember the figures exactly; the V-1s used to come in between 1000 and 3000 feet. The Il2 version seems to come in between about 1000 and 3000 metres. Something like that. Seems a shame, but probably too late to fix now.

stathem
02-15-2008, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think Mosquito night fighters were particularly fast remember that they were given increased boost rating like the other types used to counter the V1s and they were fast even before this upgrade. One Mosquito pilot shot down 9 V1s in a single Sortie iirc so the aircraft would have needed some margin of speed superiority to achieve this imo.

After the Tempest the Mosquito was the next most successful type with (428) destroyed

Infact if you look at all the types involved only the high performance fighters prospered.

Tempest V 638 Kills
Mosquito 428 Kills
Spitfire XIV 303 Kills
Mustang 232 Kills

all other types combined 158 Kills

Question: What HP would a Merlin 25 engined variant achieve when running at 21lb or 25lb ? And how fast would this have made a VI at low altitudes?



Probably fast enough that it would break up in level flight in Il2.

Seems crazy that Mossies used to intercept V-1s but here in this game they start to fall apart about 410mph indicated. The night fighter versions used for intercept did get a strengthened radome, but still...

Btw, the night fighters used to use their radars for range info when intercepting. It was apparantly difficult to judge the range when intercepting at night (and during the day as well I think).

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.

I'm only saying 600 km/h, not 400 mph. This is what the P-47M did, too. It's a gain of about 20 km/h, it's easy.


Also the V1 campaign was pretty effective, it tied down large resources,and got as many tonnes of bombs on London as the Blitz did but at a far lower cost in materiel. The V1 campaign always gets knocked but from a technical standpoint it was pretty impressive - the V1 itself was copied by most powers after WW2.

I'm not knocking the V1 campaign. I'm saying it couldn't be used against Germany the way it was used against the UK. The main point would be that the range was sufficient to make the V1 plunge into the sea just short of the Dutch coast if the were getting launched from the UK towards Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted some figures on different interceptor types V1 kill claims. P47, Spitfire IX, Typhoon ect all scored a negligible amount of kills. The main claimants all were capable or just about capable of catching a V1 in level flight. If a V1 could reach say 640 km/h continous at 3000ft intercepting one would be very difficult if your maximum speed was lower than that. Ofcourse it would not be impossible, a Hurricane could dive on one if spotted with enough height and accuracy.

The V1s did not have the range to reach Germany from England but if you want to go down that avenue then I shall counter by saying the RAF had hundereds if not thousands of twins and heavies like the Stirling and Wellington which could quite easily launch them at Germany flying over the North Sea with little or no detrimental effect to the main Bomber Command effort.

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.
.

Boemher, the 2mg151+2MG131+amunnition(and the rest of the weapon installation)+armor = +/-450kg.
They even could remove one of the tanks, the autonomie of the plane would be still bigger than the spit.And in this case, i'm not talking about the heavy ,with a additional rear fuel-tank,armored A8. but rather a light version of the A6 simply boosted for low alt.
No need for the long nose, tha A series were not so much draggier than the D...the power excess and the additional thrust would be sufficient for that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lightening an aircraft does not necessarily result in an increase in speed. The P51 and P63 are great examples of this, heavy and fast. The Spitfire also dismisses the logic that light plane + lots of horsepower = very fast. Good aerodynamics, low drag co. efficeint, and low altitude supercharger ratings are whats needed to break the 400mph barrier at low altitude.

The kind of modification you describe to an A8 ends up in it being kind of like an F8 or a G5 after it has dropped its bombs. It might result in a better climbing and faster accelerating Fw 190 but I doubt whether the top speed would increase by much. What was required was about a 630/650 Km/h top speed at low altitude with a high max sustainable cruising speed. To put in to context this is as fast if not faster than a Fw 190 A4 or Spitfire IX at their optimum altitudes.

Wepps
02-15-2008, 06:23 AM
I think the first thing the Allies would have to do is move England a lot closer to Germany.

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2008, 06:26 AM
these cruise missiles would have been launched from the RNs armoured carriers out of the Deutsche Bucht http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cawimmer430
02-15-2008, 06:37 AM
What about lightened Heinkel He-219's? I read something about some He-219's being lightened to enable them to catch Mosquito's at higher altitudes so I assume this meant they could perhaps stand a chance of intercepting V1's at lower to mid altitudes. Just an assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
What about lightened Heinkel He-219's? I read something about some He-219's being lightened to enable them to catch Mosquito's at higher altitudes so I assume this meant they could perhaps stand a chance of intercepting V1's at lower to mid altitudes. Just an assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

He 219 was pretty good but from what i have read here in this thread I think its reputation is overblown:

http://www.mossie.org/forum/read.php?1,2967

IIRC it could make 385mph at its best operating altitude in nightfight configuration or 400mph when lightened, again up high.

Ratsack
02-15-2008, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont know if that would be the case JtD, I dont think the Fw 190 A8 could have easily been boosted to reach say 400 mph at 3000 ft. Yes a few km/h here and there but not 40 or 50 km/h. Reducing armament is one thing but basically the airframe would need a large makeover in general or a new profile like the D9.
.

Boemher, the 2mg151+2MG131+amunnition(and the rest of the weapon installation)+armor = +/-450kg.
They even could remove one of the tanks, the autonomie of the plane would be still bigger than the spit.And in this case, i'm not talking about the heavy ,with a additional rear fuel-tank,armored A8. but rather a light version of the A6 simply boosted for low alt.
No need for the long nose, tha A series were not so much draggier than the D...the power excess and the additional thrust would be sufficient for that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lightening an aircraft does not necessarily result in an increase in speed. The P51 and P63 are great examples of this, heavy and fast. The Spitfire also dismisses the logic that light plane + lots of horsepower = very fast. Good aerodynamics, low drag co. efficeint, and low altitude supercharger ratings are whats needed to break the 400mph barrier at low altitude.

The kind of modification you describe to an A8 ends up in it being kind of like an F8 or a G5 after it has dropped its bombs. It might result in a better climbing and faster accelerating Fw 190 but I doubt whether the top speed would increase by much. What was required was about a 630/650 Km/h top speed at low altitude with a high max sustainable cruising speed. To put in to context this is as fast if not faster than a Fw 190 A4 or Spitfire IX at their optimum altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they could have seriously improved the low alt performance of the Fw 190 A, if the need had arisen. They were already using a fuel-injection system to cool the charge on the fighter bomber version, and they introduced the erhoerte notleistung system some time in early mid 44, so there was room for increasing the boost. Remember that EH was still a C3 fuel injection system, not another anti-knocking fluid like MW50. There was quite a bit of extra power available for a low-alt optimised BMW 801, particularly with a new prop. The A-9 was proof of this, and it wasn't a low-alt variant.

The cleaning up of the airframe would include the removal of the ETC rack if it was fitted. That would have to be worth a few km/h alone. Then there is the question of weight reductions by removing stuff. I don't know how much extra they might have got that way. My view is that the aerodynamic 'cleanliness' and the powerplant are the two areas that would've yielded good results.

I don't the A-6 or A-8 would ever match a Tempest down low, but I reckon a suitably hot-rodded version would match a Spit LFIX at 25lb.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2008, 07:44 AM
and i realy thought that the main aim, at least of the LW (!), on the westernfront/Homedefence was to get faster at altitude..........
i doubt that the big proplem in 1944/45 was the speed down low. Or what do you think ?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
02-15-2008, 07:46 AM
Lightening an aircraft does not necessarily result in an increase in speed.

It does, as your reqd' AoA is lower, therefore you create less drag.
And were talking about a weight-loss of roundabout half a ton.
Thats almost 20% of the a/c's original weight.

Any plane will travel faster if you strip it of unneccessary weigt.
The P-51 and P-47 were fast by design - strip them and they'd get faster.


The kind of modification you describe to an A8 ends up in it being kind of like an F8 or a G5 after it has dropped its bombs.

Not really, as the F and G were quite packed with extra-armor.

A plain-vanilla A-9 is ~almost~ as fast on the deck as a D-9.
And remember, the A-9 was designed for medium-alt improvements in speed and climb, not for low-alt racing/ pursuit.

There was still plenty of potential for the Anton.

JtD
02-15-2008, 09:20 AM
V1 wasn't that fast. Some sources even say less than 600.

The Fw lost about 20 km/h with the weight that was added between A-4 and A-8. Assume a A-4 out of the box but with 2000hp, and you go 600+ on the deck.

In 1937, the Germans modded a 109 and it went 611 km/h. If they had failed with all the improved technology of 5 years later, they may just have gone back to that plane.

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 09:36 AM
Why didnt the RAF just use the Schneider Trophy winning seaplanes ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
02-15-2008, 09:39 AM
B/C they where looking too ghey.

JtD
02-15-2008, 10:00 AM
They weren't that fast down low, were they?

cawimmer430
02-15-2008, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
What about lightened Heinkel He-219's? I read something about some He-219's being lightened to enable them to catch Mosquito's at higher altitudes so I assume this meant they could perhaps stand a chance of intercepting V1's at lower to mid altitudes. Just an assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

He 219 was pretty good but from what i have read here in this thread I think its reputation is overblown:

http://www.mossie.org/forum/read.php?1,2967

IIRC it could make 385mph at its best operating altitude in nightfight configuration or 400mph when lightened, again up high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not expert on the subject, but I don't know if you might find this interesting. Not sure how good a source COLLINS-JANE Aircraft of WW2 is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4742/38891429yx8.jpg

hop2002
02-15-2008, 11:08 AM
Question: What HP would a Merlin 25 engined variant achieve when running at 21lb or 25lb ? And how fast would this have made a VI at low altitudes?

The Merlin 25 gained 200 - 400 hp at low altitudes when running at 25 lbs boost.

As to speed, I have part of an RAF report on increasing the speed of Mosquito XIX night fighters. They note speed of 377 mph at 2,000 ft, falling to 375 mph at 5,000 ft. However, when N2O was injected, power increased by 250 bhp, speed went up to 394 mph at 2,000 ft, 393 at 5,000 ft.

The N2O installation weighed 475 lbs and was good for 7.75 minutes use. According to the report "nitrous oxide has been used very successfully on night fighter Mosquito aircraft to give an extra 30 mph speed above 18,000 ft"


As to what the Germans would do to intercept V-1s fired at them, I suspect nothing. By the summer of 1944 the Luftwaffe was having to choose which raids to intercept and which to ignore, and was incapable of providing adequate air cover for the front line troops.

The RAF and USAAF were dropping 100,000 tons of bombs a month.

With tasks like that facing them, defence against V-1s would come far down the German list of priorities.

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
They weren't that fast down low, were they?

Over 400 mph with floats on

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 11:13 AM
He 219 was the best nightfighter the Luftwaffe had to offer but it only shot down around 12 Mosquitos so thats why I take its max top speed listed in most books with a pinch of salt.

JtD
02-15-2008, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
They weren't that fast down low, were they?

Over 400 mph with floats on </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At sea level?

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
They weren't that fast down low, were they?

Over 400 mph with floats on </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At sea level? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifications (S.6B)

Data from Supermarine Aircraft since 1914[1]

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 28 ft 10 in (8.79 m)
* Wingspan: 30 ft 0 in (9.14 m)
* Height: 12 ft 3 in (3.73 m)
* Wing area: 145 ft² (13.5 m²)
* Empty weight: 4,590 lb (2,082 kg)
* Loaded weight: 6,086 lb (2,760 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce R , 2,350 hp (1753 kW)

Performance
* Maximum speed: 354 knots (407.5 mph, 655.8 km/h) (world speed record)
* Wing loading: 42lb/ft² (205 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.386 hp/lb (0.635 kW/kg)

Im not that familiar with the Schneider Races but from what little I have read it seems that they were mostly at sea level.