Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- From: Eunometic <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:57:13 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 26, 7:25 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:00�am, guy <guyswetten...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26 Nov, 07:34, Gordon <Gor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:23 pm, "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Any other choices? Post'em if you've got 'em.
The early FH series of jets were similarly underpowered and worthy of
genuine fear around the carrier at night. �"Worst" is hard to nail
down, but the He 162 has to get at least "Horrible Mention". �If we
are getting into specific models, then the Bf 110 with underwing
rockets, fitted with radar and weighed down to an impossible extent
gets the nod over the USN's version of the Buffalo. �Remember that
other operators did quite well with Buffalos, even if the variant used
by the USN was a pig. �As an entire family of fighter, you can't
consider the whole line of Buffalos as "Worst". �Another candidate
might be the Hawker Hotspur, if you can't come right out and give the
award to the Defiant?
v/r Gordon
Thinks �- what about the Blackburn Roc?
runs away and throws up...
Guy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Me-163.
Incredible technological wonder with rocket/tailless design and
incredible 16,400 fpm climb with close to 600 mph top speed... yet
combat time around 8 minutes and just a point defense interceptor with
a range of 62 miles. Attacking the bombers was difficult as the Me-163
dived on them with closing speeds above 600 mph with no time to
correct when making a firing run. The latter Mk-103s only had 60 rds
per gun. Then the completely vunerable glide back home to land on a
skid where any left-over binary fuel (especially T-Stoff) tended to
explode or dissolve the pilot. Plus, it made only a handful of kills
in its entire career despite 463 of them manufactured.
On two seperate occasions on the ground, a Me-163 explosion flattened
entire buildings and killed the ground crews which also had to wear
acid and fire proof garments when servicing the Me-163.
It was dangerous on the ground and in the air to everyone...
It had some good points such as superb handling especially in the
landing configuration or about when half the fuel had been depleted it
was stall proof and merely mushed forward.
It had been designed purely to intercept reconnaissance aircraft
before they photographed high value targets, it lacked the fire power
and to deal a death blow to a 4 engined bomber at the approach speeds
it could operate and it lacked the endurance to position itself to
execute and good attack strategy on a large formation. The landing
skid couldn't absorb the high approach speeds and impacts intrinsic to
tailless aircraft landing on grass fields. Once on the ground it was
left vulnerable and took time to recover.
Having said that the problems were recognized and the follow on Me
163C and Me 263 addressed the problems of fire power by doubling it,
endurance by adding 5 minutes of vital extra fuel and also a second
small economical sustainer chamber to the rocket motor and by adding
an undercarriage.
The pilots could and did survive without injury in an over turned
aircraft.
I consider it more of a test aircraft undergoing troop testing.
Given the desperate situation and high mortality of pilots in the
final months of the war maybe your chances in an Me 163 were good in
comparison: the Me 163 could climb faster than P-51s could dive to
meet it.
Rob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- From: deemsbill@xxxxxxx
- Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Interesting reading
- Next by Date: Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- Previous by thread: Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- Next by thread: Re: Worst fighter ever accepted for service (by any country)?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
