OK, don't look at me like you previously thought I was sane but now suddenly you think otherwise. One look at my models tells a different story.
Well, here is a "whif" idea I just thought up yesterday.
Northrop's "Mistel" consisting of an N9M atop a B-35! We know what the Germans did---they took "obsolescent" bombers, loaded them up with explosives, and put a guiding fighter atop them. They used the bomber itself as a flying bomb released by the fighter. Well, fast forward to the early '50's when we had a squadron of B-35's but they were proving too much to handle so the B-47/B-58/B-52's took over. Rather than let them rot as unwanted surplus, Northrop made "special" bombers out of them. Maybe the Israelis bought them for use in the Suez Crisis of 1956.
After last years turnout figured I would replace the Raspberry Ripple category with something else.
Now I have seen at least 3 builds this year regarding aircraft with launch vehicles under them ala Mistel.
So, maybe the best Over/Under ;D
Quote from: philp on March 28, 2009, 03:06:00 PM
So, maybe the best Over/Under ;D
Does that mean that all EE Lightnings are OK? -_-
That's cool.
Daryl J.
Agree with this category, especially the Mistels. I saw somewhere recently a thread about insane Mistels concepts that were proposed, apparenly some were serious, for the USAF. It was, I believe, something like an F-100/B-47 for the Vietnam War.
Some other ideas for various wars the US has been involved in:
P-51 or P-47/B-17 WWII
F-82/B-29 for Korea
F-89 or F-94/B-36 for mid 50s to late 60s
the aforementioned F-100/B-47
F-105B/B-52B or C for Vietnam
What a display these would make in 1/72!!
Wes W.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 28, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: philp on March 28, 2009, 03:06:00 PM
So, maybe the best Over/Under ;D
Does that mean that all EE Lightnings are OK? -_-
If the Lightning is over a Vulcan, then yes :wacko:
Think we are up to four now. Let's see.
X-15C
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg300.imageshack.us%2Fimg300%2F4416%2Fdscf9643.jpg&hash=0454772af7cf2774925c85edce57a40d511c1488)
British Spaceplane
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg256.imageshack.us%2Fimg256%2F3626%2Fdscf9645.jpg&hash=83a0d9bceb2d043eaf3e23d1aef68a31628d26ad)
and the unmanned version
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg212.imageshack.us%2Fimg212%2F4579%2Fdscf9607.jpg&hash=aba7708d446a9c1df90050d7eac512278f8a6465)
Stinger
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi117.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo73%2Fnamnoitca7%2FDSC00170.jpg&hash=0bbc83be06d18489a465de247efe744878e70997)
and the Bat-Jet
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi117.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo73%2Fnamnoitca7%2FDSC00154.jpg&hash=2d6cdbcdde207b09d670bad8609810cc83b23702)
Hmmm, I was wrong, that makes 5 and enough for a category. Wonder how many more we will see in the next 9 months.
Quote from: philp on March 28, 2009, 08:16:51 PM
<...> Wonder how many more we will see in the next 9 months.
I've got one planned as well. Whether I'll get round to it this year is another matter, though. It will involve a 1/72 Airfix D.H. Vampire and a 1/72 MPM Gloster Meteor. The idea was sparked by a GTX profile, I think - yet again. :lol:
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on March 28, 2009, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: philp on March 28, 2009, 08:16:51 PM
<...> Wonder how many more we will see in the next 9 months.
I've got one planned as well. Whether I'll get round to it this year is another matter, though. It will involve a 1/72 Airfix D.H. Vampire and a 1/72 MPM Gloster Meteor. The idea was sparked by a GTX profile, I think - yet again. :lol:
Why do I get blamed a lot? I didn't do anything...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fmelbsyd%2Fmvm.jpg&hash=089f77d12275b0846cb00dcaf6a807cefcef1505)
Oh, that's right. Never mind.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 28, 2009, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on March 28, 2009, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: philp on March 28, 2009, 08:16:51 PM
<...> Wonder how many more we will see in the next 9 months.
I've got one planned as well. Whether I'll get round to it this year is another matter, though. It will involve a 1/72 Airfix D.H. Vampire and a 1/72 MPM Gloster Meteor. The idea was sparked by a GTX profile, I think - yet again. :lol:
Why do I get blamed a lot? I didn't do anything...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fmelbsyd%2Fmvm.jpg&hash=089f77d12275b0846cb00dcaf6a807cefcef1505)
Oh, that's right. Never mind.
Regards,
Greg
Oh yes you did!, and frequently at that, thank goodness.
:cheers:
How about an older model B-47 (that was going to be scrapped anyway in the late 60s) configured as either a Mistel (with an F-100F on top) or as a complete drone bird, loaded up with a lot of TNT and flown into hardened targets in NVN? It would be in the SEA scheme.
Wes W.
Quote from: tigercat2 on March 30, 2009, 01:29:00 PM
How about an older model B-47 (that was going to be scrapped anyway in the late 60s) configured as either a Mistel (with an F-100F on top) or as a complete drone bird, loaded up with a lot of TNT and flown into hardened targets in NVN? It would be in the SEA scheme.
^ Funny you should mention that! I have a Revell 1/113(?) B-47 in SEA colours that I did a few years ago that's in for a similar treatment (painted before I got the airbrush so it's on the re-do list anyway).
It will have a F-104 (Tamiya 1/100 was the closest I could get) on the top and as an added twist it will be converted to become a B-47D turboprop variant to create the RF-104C/QB-47D "Have Cake" Mistel combo.
(Yes it's a bad pun but I quite like it!)
Another Revell B-47 I have is in a weathered NMF over orange testbed scheme with a honking big radar nose & TV/IR sensor cheek fairings
How about a Mistel Wimpy, with a Spitfire or Hurricane on top?
Vickers did their own Whiffing on it as well, making the up-sized Warwick, but for some reason that seemed to be nowhere near as successful as the Wimpy.
Someone earlier suggested a ZELL B-58. For something really insane, how about a ZELL/Mistel, with a B-58 on the bottom and an F-104 on top. Now, that would be something to see; 5 J-79s at full burner plus a big, big booster or two. That should wake up the neighborhood!!!
Wes
Quote from: tigercat2 on June 19, 2009, 08:46:31 AM
Someone earlier suggested a ZELL B-58. For something really insane, how about a ZELL/Mistel, with a B-58 on the bottom and an F-104 on top. Now, that would be something to see; 5 J-79s at full burner plus a big, big booster or two. That should wake up the neighborhood!!!
Wes
Do you have a license for that mind-reading device, sir? ;D I have an Academy Hustler slowly undergoing
conversion to a Zel-launched, concrete revetment-housed, lifting-body launching...something or other.
I was perusing the 2009 Airfix 2009 catalogue and I saw the Mistel combination of a 190 and TA 154 combination. I was really surprised, but the description was the real surprise.
The blurb described the Mistel as combination of a fighter and a war weary bomber, but the 154!!! That surely never got into its stride. I-ll ask at Secret Projects and the Airwarfare forums.
Has any one any information to the contrary OR is it just an advertising clanger?
I suppose, had the war lasted on, that enough Ta-154s would have become war weary to become Mistels. Not worth getting the kit though. It's the reboxed PM kit of the Ta-154, coupled with the Airfix Fw-190. The Ta-154 is horrible.
I've seen it described as a 'Pulk-Zerstorer' or 'formation destroyer' in Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich.
It was a plan to use the handful of airframes that were actually finished as a crude air-to-air missile. ( I may
actually be thinking of another project, though-I also remember something about a simple open cockpit near
the tail, which is not something you'd need on a Mistel. )
In any case, its unlikely the combination flew any further than the drawing board.
It was a real project and may have actually been built. You can find details on pages 182 - 186 of Robert Forsyth's "Mistel" from Classic Publications where he says that:
"some sources maintain that six Mistel combinations were actually completed for use against allied bomber formations, whereby an explosive laden Ta-154 would be flown into a group of bombers where it would be detonated by the pilot of the separated Fw-190 controlling aircraft. These aircraft were apparently test flown at Eschwege but no further details are known".
However, the explosive carrying Ta-154 would have had a warhead as shown in the picture below (from Forsyth's book) and wouldn't have flown into action unmodified as shown on the Airfix box top.
:cheers:
Hi McGrieg
Thanks for the info. I suspected that the kit artwork was suspect. I have seen mistel combinations with the warhead mostly Junkers 88/188 family members.
Cheers
Kerrill
That 154 kit is a real dog. I spent more hours on that pos than on most good projects.
Quote from: cthulhu77 on July 31, 2009, 06:38:27 AM
That 154 kit is a real dog. I spent more hours on that pos than on most good projects.
First plane I built when I got back into modelling although it was in a Matchbox package. Yes, it was a pig of a kit but LOTS of sanding got it looking reasonable and I was quite pleased with the way it turned out - Yes it was a Looooooong time ago.
I know it was an odd concept, but I had a idea on a modernized-concept Soviet Mistel. A Mig-21/Mig-29 on top of a Tu-16/Tu-95? is that possible? :o
Other combos include a F-15/B-52 Mistel with a nuclear warhead in the B-52's nose.
Heh that's a pretty wicked idea - it makes me think of a MiG-21 actually recessed into the bay of a 16/95, to reduce drag while slaved to the package, releases, dives, lights the engine, peels off from the package for delivery. I think the 16's got enough payload capacity to do it - I'd do that kind of combination up in PLANAF markings though, a Badger Mistel - pretty damn slick I think...
Think a Skyray linked to an A-6 would work for a Mistel?????? just something i wondered about!!!
http://www.modelarstwo.mdi.pl/inaczej/redstarmistel/redstar.html
Bf-109/Fw-190 + He-111 (He-111s would be nice with a bullet shaped warhead)
P-51 + B-17
P-47 + B-24
Spitfire + Lancaster
Hellcat + B-25 (think aircraft carrier capable anti-battleship bomb)
F-4 + retired B-47. The B-47 is dropped a good distance from Soviet airspace, and flies the remainder of the way on its own. The F-4 is fitted with 3 tanks, and 6 missiles to fight its way back.
Miscellaneous Mistels:
1. Over on the Anson thread I started, someone suggested making a Mistel with a Gladiator on top of an Anson full of napalm and calling it the Avro Arson...... ;D
2. How about a Meteor/Canberra combination? The B(I).8 is a natural to have it's canopy faired over.... :wacko:
3. Fairey 221 on top of a Concorde - boy would that hit hard..... :o
4. I appreciate that kits would be a problem, but how about a Swift on top of a wing-fatigued Valiant?
5. World's smallest Mistel: Bede BD-5 on top of a Gnat.... ;D
Or maybe a Gladiator over a DeHavilland Dominie (Dragon Rapide biplane transport) for a "quadraplane" mistel!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FGladiatorMistel-m.jpg&hash=1e0ce0d37b03f062a91d2b55249246f850b4e395)
Quote from: Weaver on August 25, 2009, 08:08:57 AM
5. World's smallest Mistel: Bede BD-5 on top of a Gnat.... ;D
How about the BD-5J on top of an A380? Or an A380 carrying a lot of BD-5 missiles?
Weaver,
Quote from: Weaver on August 25, 2009, 08:08:57 AM
1. Over on the Anson thread I started, someone suggested making a Mistel with a Gladiator on top of an Anson full of napalm and calling it the Avro Arson...... ;D
"Avro
Arson?"
Weaver, you do realize that men have been put to death -
JUSTLY - for less. :rolleyes:
Madoc
I'll get my asbestos coat, shall I? ;D
I found this one, it was actually proposed -----
Folks,
I just spied this one from this year's IPMS Nationals:
The Arado E-581 / E-555 Mistel
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi148.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs14%2Fmwf4nut%2FIPMS%25202009%2520Nationals%2FIMG_2559.jpg&hash=b2b93f582526e53bed217c4a7e28a39a8cbb704f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi148.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs14%2Fmwf4nut%2FIPMS%25202009%2520Nationals%2FIMG_2560.jpg&hash=e2cacd4d4b1413b86c4fd390510782f9555263dc)
of course not forgetting ...
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,25725.0/topicseen.html
i recall seeing a B.47 mistel profile in sea. camouflage scheme a few years back on here too ???
If you think about it, the Boeing 747 with Space Shuttle is a mistel device. Maybe a Black Space Shuttle (CIA/NSA) with a plain marked 747, take it to just an altitude where a Space shuttle could take off from a 747 to achieve orbit and guide the 747 crammed with explosives via satellites to target. With my lack of imagination, I would be surprised if no writer has come up with that combo.
:cheers:
Wasn't that long ago, I recall a Lufthansa 1/144 Airbus with a 'scribbled' Luftwaffe code on the side with a F-104 riding on top. Fairly certain it was in the Nationals Competition at Telford..... I'm certain Cap'n Radish had some input into that one.
Ian
OK guys, counting TSRJoe's nice build, I come up with about 7 posted this year that would qualify if I make a new category. Anyone else got something on the go that would be finished before year end? Would be nice if there were 10 or more to choose from.
Not a model (yet), but there is this one: Die Staudammbrecher (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,25725.0.html)
Regards,
Greg
Saw those Greg, nice profiles and alt history.
Maybe profiles and concept drawings, even altered pics could be voted in the same category?
Just remember, there is nothing new under the sun:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd165%2Fhws5mp%2Fnaturesmistel.jpg&hash=e0c2bf66c1acc45d0e59b205e5cfd4cdb92ee360)
;D
That bird is probably saving up his air miles!!!! :cheers: -_- <_< :lol: :lol: :lol: ;D ;D ;D
I spotted this one at the '08 Nats.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi19.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb170%2Fjason_schmus%2FIMPS%2520Nats%252008%2FDSCF4612.jpg&hash=5df4b78ff578cac82a45f604981aa70a9744ee60)
Anybody got anything they would like to post that they have done so I can add this category? (but keep sending any other inspirations you find and I love the bird hitchiker)
Hi. Here there are some pictures about a mistel-kit that i already posted to other forums some months ago.
They are the Junkers EF-131, and the DFS 346, and i named them: "1951, Soviet Mach 1...". Both planes were developed by the soviets after the end of WWII.
Regards
PACOPEPE
Philip,
That X-15A-3 riding on top of an XB-70 was sweeeeeet!
Weaver,
That was a pretty cool picture (The small bird on top of the Hawk)
Quote from: philp on November 04, 2009, 02:06:31 PM
Anybody got anything they would like to post that they have done so I can add this category? (but keep sending any other inspirations you find and I love the bird hitchiker)
These are the two that were on the joint What If/Soviet Aircraft table at Telford. However, they both date from the Pre-Whiffie Era - the Soviet He-162/Flying Bomb combination was finished in 2007 and the Fw-190/Ju-88G-10 was slightly earlier from just before I joined the Forum.
The markings on the He-162 are real world but the combination with the Arado bomb is a wiff. Similarly, the markings on the Ju-88G-10 are real world but the addition of the warhead and Fw-190 is a whiff.
:cheers:
How about upping the ante and making a multi-target Mistel, i.e. a stack of three or more identical aircraft, with the top one being the manned director and the others being the "missiles"? :wacko: ;D
McGreig,
The great thing about the Whiffies is that we look at what gets nominated during the year (in the Sway thread), not necessarily what gets finished that year. Heck, now that Radish finally figured out how to post pics, he can be in the running even though some of his builds don't even exist anymore.
I can see a couple of uses:
1. Long-range recon using flying boats became too risky---the planes had to be large enough to house all the fuel they would need, but they were clumsy and could be picked off easily, especially with radar warning. So....we pic-a-back a Myrt or something onto the back of an Emily flying boat. The Emily gets within decent range and the Myrt (still with extra fuel in drop tanks) is let loose. The high speed of the Myrt can avoid almost every interceptor, get the photos, and beat it back (now a LOOOOOONG ways, though) to base to get the film developed. The Emily (fully manned) heads back to base, too, minus the Myrt.
2. Like the Germans, use old bombers and stuff them full of explosives. The "Val" atop the "Nell" noses over and points itself at an American carrier, then releases itself. The explosive-laden "Nell" power-dives into the carrier. If late in the war, the Val pilot is "invited" to ride it down anyway, for more "oomph" on impact.
#2 I find rather interesting, Craig, though I wouldn't consider a Val - they were always underpowered especially later in the wall, though a Susie would do the job rather well, astride a Betty or a Nell - Blooming Betty anybody? Damn, now I need to get my hands on the stuff to do that, that's pretty wicked.
Something I did ages ago:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fmelbsyd%2Fjmistel.jpg&hash=e1bcff5e8f7da5ec1cfbf9bd38423d1c5fe4d317)
Regards,
Greg
>#2 I find rather interesting, Craig, though I wouldn't consider a Val - they were always underpowered especially later in the wall [war?--CB], though a Susie would do the job rather well, astride a Betty or a Nell - Blooming Betty anybody? <
First of all, Vals were definitely used as Kamikazes late in the war. And, it's only a "rider", so "underpowered" becomes irrelevant.
The Germans tried to match engines on their Mistels--Radial fighters with radial bombers, inlines with inlines. Though a good whif would be an inline-engined twin-engined bomber for the Japanese, a Judy was still "relevant" enough to try to bomb/Kamikaze on its own.
The Mistels used "tired" bombers that were not good enough to be used on their own. Thus the Nell and a Val thrown in as "expendable" aircraft (so was its pilot).
Food for thought.
PS--GTX--nice Meatball Mistel!
Well, consider that the D4Y3 and 4 had radial engines - they were switched over to radials in the later models. My concept was as an alternative to the kamikaze, so the principle of escaping reprisal by the enemy aircraft is viable. Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out. So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.
If only somebody's let them in on the potential there, it might have done something, though likely not enough in all truth. By that point, it was a total loss all together.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on November 28, 2009, 10:36:50 AM
Well, consider that the D4Y3 and 4 had radial engines - they were switched over to radials in the later models. My concept was as an alternative to the kamikaze, so the principle of escaping reprisal by the enemy aircraft is viable. Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out. So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.
If only somebody's let them in on the potential there, it might have done something, though likely not enough in all truth. By that point, it was a total loss all together.
I rather think they did much better than that against the US carriers, putting several out of commission by destroying their wooden decks. Where they failed to penetrate was primarily against the RN's fleet carriers with their armoured decks.
The worst part about the Kamikazes was that they were given insufficient training in ship recognition. The result was that they often attacked the first warship they encountered, rather than saving themselves for the carriers and other capital ships. There was a case of one US picket destroyer getting so fed up with being the first ship attacked by Kamikaze that they erected a large sign on the afterdeck which said, "Carriers that way!" With a huge arrow, pointing towards the main task force! This is why a disproportionate number of smaller ships ended up being attacked.
They did do more against the American CV's with the lack of armored flight decks, but still, they weren't exactly a spectacular, devastating weapon - ok, you send one carrier back for repairs, you've just given people some jobs, and tied up one out of... how many carriers? They needed to focus a little more on a Russian style strategy - screw the Mission Kill, All or Nothing. Mistels would have been a good step in the right direction, as they would have been much more towards the point of Hard Kill instead of Mission Kill. Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside. Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on November 28, 2009, 07:41:41 PM
They did do more against the American CV's with the lack of armored flight decks, but still, they weren't exactly a spectacular, devastating weapon - ok, you send one carrier back for repairs, you've just given people some jobs, and tied up one out of... how many carriers? They needed to focus a little more on a Russian style strategy - screw the Mission Kill, All or Nothing. Mistels would have been a good step in the right direction, as they would have been much more towards the point of Hard Kill instead of Mission Kill. Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside. Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.
No, I think you'll find that the Mistels would have been just like the Ohkas carrying Bettys. Slow, unwieldy, easy meat for the defending CAPs. It would be even worse with using clapped out, old bombers with time expired engines and/or airframes.
>Let's face it, the Kamikaze plan was rather moot - they didn't have enough of kinetic force to cause any damage to carrier decks or much of anything else they hit, just frag and fires, which the enemy had gotten the hang of putting out. So if they'd decided to pack old and tired bombers to the tits with fuel and explosives and run those into the enemy fleet instead, that might have done a little more.<
Au Contraire. The Kamikaze that hit the USS Enterprise, and produced that spectacle of the #1 elevator atop a 400-ft plume of smoke, had its engine bury itself several decks below the hangar deck. There was plenty of kinetic energy to penetrate the wooden flight decks of the American carriers and start hangar fires. They also AIMED at the elevators, which could put the carrier out of action. Like the Bunker Hill, Franklin, Independence, and others, fires fueled by bombs and fuel-laden aircraft often made ships unusable.
>Of course, G5N and up bombers would have had their own sadistic punch, to the tune of if the Japanese had started deploying high-altitude bombers against enemy fleets, and delivered things such as Grand Slam - I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more effect when a 20,000 pound bomb goes right through the unarmored flight deck of an Essex, and blows up somewhere on the inside. Your carrier is now going to have a bit of a problem.<
Ooh pul-leeze! You know that high-altitude bombing was TOTALLY USELESS against moving ships--doesn't matter how big the bang (unless we're talking nukes). The problem is GUIDANCE so the target can be actually hit. Even the Germans, with their wire-guided Fritz-X bombs, were successful only when aerial opposition (and AA) was nil, as in the case of the fleeing Italian fleet when the battleship Roma was dispatched.
>No, I think you'll find that the Mistels would have been just like the Ohkas carrying Bettys. Slow, unwieldy, easy meat for the defending CAPs. It would be even worse with using clapped out, old bombers with time expired engines and/or airframes.<
I would certainly agree, but that doesn't mean that the Japanese would not have tried it if they had them. I envision such Mistels being used against the radar picket destroyers (like the Ohkas eventually did) to open up a "gap" in radar coverage to allow follow-on attack aircraft to slip through to get to the carriers.
Re: GUIDANCE: The Japanese had the right idea with the human-guided Ohkas, but they were not big enough, nor long-legged enough. The next thing to do is to have some long-range, oversized super-Ohkas that could be launched far from the fleet's air defense and pack a LARGE punch.
Of course I have envisioned such a whif along those lines--my "Doshaburi" (Cloudburst). Powered by a ramjet, it would look, in 1/72 scale, VERY MUCH like an upside-down 1/48 German V-1 (wink, wink) and have a glass nose with a prone pilot. The pilot's compartment is a simple add-on to the "Tallboy"-like warhead directly behind him. The ramjet is for cruising quickly to the fleet, but there are three rocket motors in the truncated rear (looking, again VERY MUCH like the rear end of a 1/48 Ohka--wink, wink) to assist in the final plunge. There is a big "X" painted on the glass for an aiming mark. A simple "joystick" can crudely maneuver the craft. The only instrumentation is a simple compass (to get the direction right), altimeter, and fuel gauge. There is a small loudspeaker in the craft through which the mother plane barks out the proper direction of the enemy fleet just before jettisoning. It's up to the pilot to point his craft toward the fleet and resolve to hit SOMETHING.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on November 29, 2009, 09:34:02 AM
Ooh pul-leeze! You know that high-altitude bombing was TOTALLY USELESS against moving ships--doesn't matter how big the bang (unless we're talking nukes). The problem is GUIDANCE so the target can be actually hit. Even the Germans, with their wire-guided Fritz-X bombs, were successful only when aerial opposition (and AA) was nil, as in the case of the fleeing Italian fleet when the battleship Roma was dispatched.
I am sure that the Captain and Bridge-crew of HMS Gloucester will be so glad to know that it was impossible for the bomb that killed them to have hit their ship from high altitude by an Italian bomber on 8 July 1940. :rolleyes:
>I am sure that the Captain and Bridge-crew of HMS Gloucester will be so glad to know that it was impossible for the bomb that killed them to have hit their ship from high altitude by an Italian bomber on 8 July 1940.<
I deliberately did NOT use the word "impossible". I am aware of that hit. Was it moving or stationery? Was it taking evasive action or just plodding along on a set course? There have been a VERY FEW instances where stationery, or very-slowly moving ships were hit by high-altitude bombers. My recollection fails me here if the ship was moving (assisting with rescue or other slow-motion work?) or taking evasive action. Though I have not been able to find specifics of this incident, Sir Andrew Cunningham (A Sailor's Odyssey) states (talking about Calabria--July, 1940) that normally the Italian bombers arrive around 12,000 feet. I would agree that is "high altitude" for our purposes, and if it was moving at fleet speed, then you "score" a point. But....
In war, NOTHING is absolutely impossible. But, for the number of attempts, bombs released, etc., throughout the war, high-altitude bombing of MOVING ships at sea is the LEAST efficient means of damage. In July of 1940 the war at sea was "new" and many things were being tried out. Attempts at high-altitude bombing of moving ships at sea was recognized as next to futile pretty early on (didn't stop the bone-headed US Army Air Corps from trying it later with B-17's either, but similar results=nil). The results just didn't justify the peril to the aircrews and the expense of the mission.
Do you recall ANY other such successes for the entire war?
Guys,
Interesting conversation but if you want to talk about how effective high altitude bombing against ships was, can you start another thread.
I really want to see pictures of Mistel like models here although Mistel discussion is fine.
I also made the wrong implications in my statements of high-altitude bombers - I was meaning the ones that can fly high, evading most of the far-out CAP - I did Not mean a high-altitude release, as it is rather hard to drop a rock on a target that isn't either standing still or taking a predictable path, even if it is large like a Carrier. Unfortunately, the 9.8m/s^2 that is gravity doesn't accelerate the bomb fast enough to close the gap before quite likely any juicy part of the boat is moved somewhere.
And yes, I will admit, there were a few good strikes with regards to the Kamikaze attacks, but as Rick pointed out - they weren't quite trained very well in what was a worthy target. Additionally, as things went on, the Allies started deploying more of the weapons that were effective in cutting down those planes with brutal efficiency, which led to further decreased chances of success, like the 14-40 layout Fletchers. But, something as big as a Betty? I Don't think there would have been many AAW weapons that would have had as much effect at taking a medium bomber coming at the target.
The Okha was IIRC a pulsejet powered unit as well, which would have had two problems - speed and sound. Can't exactly sneak up on somebody with a pulsejet. Some kind of air-breathing rocket might have been perhaps better, considering their rather short flight range compared to the requirement for the V-1.
>The Okha was IIRC a pulsejet powered unit as well<
No. The Ohka as we know it had solid-fuel rockets. There was a PROPOSED pulsejet-powered "manned bomb", and proposed jet-powered versions of the Ohka that never became operational.
> [re: pulsejets]....which would have had two problems - speed and sound. Can't exactly sneak up on somebody with a pulsejet.<
What speed and what sound? "Sneaking up" quietly is not relevant--a noisy ship at sea in a wind drowns out all sound. Speed with ramjets would be fighter-fast, but not totally un-intercept-able. Add on the rockets of my "Doshaburi" for the final approach and plunge, and then it becomes un-intercept-able.
>Some kind of air-breathing rocket might have been perhaps better, considering their rather short flight range compared to the requirement for the V-1.<
Rockets don't breathe air. If they did they would be called JETS! :mellow: Also, the farther away from your target you are when you start your high-speed run-in the better. The problem with the Ohkas was that the mother ship was taken out by the fighter defense before the Ohkas were in range. Increase the range of the Ohkas and you decrease chances of interception.
philip: "mistels" are two-part attackers with something that is released and starts down and explodes, and something else that flys away. It is a weapon to be used on targets on the ground/sea. If the weapon is practially worthless, it affects the whif. The thread is "mistels, real and imagined". All the discourse is relevant to the issue of mistels. The more you know about them the better your model whifs will be.
I thought the Okha was Pulsejet like the V-1... a solid fuel rocket would have been more efficient if laid out properly for the task, and cheaper than a ramjet in concept because of a non-presence of mechanical parts in the engine assembly in most case.
Pulsejets were notoriously not exactly fast - Interception rates for the V-1 was rather unfavourable. And they did have that rather notorious sound of them. The wind might cover it, but they were rather loud so it's a dicey situation whether you'd hear it or not. V-1's didn't get their name for nothing, considering they could be heard from ground level.
Not quite, Craig - there have been discussion and concepts drawn for air-breathing rockets. In essence, they have the intakes to increase the burn efficiency of the fuel, and have been shown to produce thrust. A Jet by comparison is a different breed all together, as there is more to the term of moving parts and fuel flow controls and the like. It's a rocket augmented with airflow, not a jet engine.
it does beg the thought of a rocket-augmented Mistel though - standard prop engines to get into a moderate attack range, and then the rockets kick in on the heavy payload to accellerate it further into the terminal stage, shortening response times for defenders, increasing kinetic force, and adding an additional measure to the situation.
It does present some rather interesting concepts all together, and leaves a number of other thoughts in mind.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on November 30, 2009, 05:22:11 PM
philip: "mistels" are two-part attackers with something that is released and starts down and explodes, and something else that flys away. It is a weapon to be used on targets on the ground/sea. If the weapon is practially worthless, it affects the whif. The thread is "mistels, real and imagined". All the discourse is relevant to the issue of mistels. The more you know about them the better your model whifs will be.
Ohkas are fine, high altitude bombers are not. Not sure a He-111 carrying a V-1 or Do-217 with a Fritz would meet the idea of the thread either.
How do they effectively aim the Mistels though?
Japan has quite a number of Mistel materials- there have been kamikaze variants of twin-engined light/medium bombers- but if at the end of the day the one reliable guidance method available to Japan is to put kamikaze crew in them......
Hey Guys, Think a Mistel would work Using a Combo of a TU-22 with a TU-95????? just something i've always wondered about. Hope this is Closer to what the Thread is about. Dan
Phil, don't get mad at Craig - I started the High-Alt Bombers thing, sort of a divergent conversational point on the whole "avoiding Kamikaze" thing. Though a G10N or similar, carrying an upgraded Okha or V-1 would have been an interesting concept equally... though I digress again. I still think a Zero driving a Betty into the broadside of an Essex would be... grimly beautiful.
As to guidance, so long as the Betty is laid out to sustain its flight on release from the Zero by any means of a jury-rigged autopilot layout, should be rather mildly effective - more so if the craft is accellerated by means of a rocket booster or similar in its post-release stage, shortening the ammount of time required to rely on that autopilot. If it's little more than a glide-bomb with an engine, so be it, though at that size it would be Quite the glide-bomb I would think.
I think the Backfire/Bear Mistel would be perhaps too big... though I wonder about an Egyptian MiG-21 on a Badger...
A Betty Mistel would have had a low probability of hitting any target, particularly if unguided as an autopilot of any sort would be useless
during the terminal run.
One of the main problems is that the attackers had to fly through a wall of AA fire, the larger airframe would have been a better target.
Never mind that the combination would have been slow and easy meat for fighters.
http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.html#II
Anyhow, the German's never got the Mistel concept to work worth a damn against stationary targets, effectiveness against moving ships
is even less likely.
On the subject of "air-breathing rockets", it's sloppy terminology that I don't like either, but it HAS been used to describe a solid-fuel ramjet, i.e. a tube with an intake at the front, a nozzle at the rear and a solid rocket grain with a star-shaped hole through it in the middle. Presumably the rocket grain has just enough oxidant to get it to burn stably, which generates hot, fuel-rich gas which then burns in the airflow.