Ideal Kamikaze aircraft of WWII

[istvan47]

MK1 i'm afraid to say , the real reason to have so slow kamikaze was not the precision, but hte avaibilty of planes and even fuel. Expecially if you need also escort fighters, that cannot be slow.

 

But wait a moment, since we talk about the mighty Okha, i have to say, that even when they MISSED the target, the shock damage of their powerful warhead was so great, to damage neverthless many of the ships targeted. So, this answers atleast partially to the imprecision of the pilots in attack: if an Okha managed to dive on a ship, it is quite sure that then the ship wasn't still operative, whetever the kamikaze was exploded...

[Argus]

Who needs power? All those jets and rockets are pure waste, same with wings.

 

A kamakazi is at last resort a manned BOMB, so make it a bomb. Use all the flash resources to modify an available medium bomber for max altitude to over top the CAP, and carry a single bomb.

 

Think Paveway with a prone cockpit. The pilot has limited control, but not the range of movement to harm himself (odd thought really) through his lack of skill.

 

Because the attack profile is more to the verticle than the wave skipping aircraft, the natural targets are flat tops, they offer the biggest area. So the best target is the easiest one to hit.

 

I'd expect all the pilot - bombadier? - would need is a ring a bead sight, no compass, or other instruments, just a simple joystic for pitch and yaw, make it aerodynamicly stable in roll.

 

If we can spare the effort to get fancy, this bomb is going to need a diameter of about two feet or so, hollow charge of the period was good for about <1 diameter of RHA penertration wasn't it? Well the cockpit provides all the stand off needed, so a 24" 100-300lb HEAT charge behind the cockpit, and a normal 2000lb bomb with a delay fuse behind that. Its a big 'follow through grenade.'

 

Other wise the only extra's I spend any money on, would be a bit of padding for the pilot, there's no need for him to be uncomfortable, a small gramaphone with a single recording of 'When Johney Comes Marching Home' and a some english language tuition so they could get Slim Picken's accent right.

 

Oh and a ventilation system to insure the canopy doesn't fog up, wouldn't that be a 'mission kill.'

 

The obvious problem is the carrier aircraft, and I realy don't know enough about Japanese aircraft of the period to make any contribution. All I might suggest is pulse jets under the wings as boosters. In dream mode they could be a self contained pod with extra fuel and a recovery parachute to be dumped after take off - climb, but I doin't think its too practical. The good news is from 40k or so, the bombadier has a bit of slant range to play with, so it wouldn't need to over fly the target directly.

 

 

shane

 

PS I forgot the two big benifits.

 

Pilot Training - none needed. The Bombardiers could be trained with mechanical simulators, and a few hours class room work, probably concentrating on ship recognition. I've been thinking about the simmulator and it wouldn't be hard to get most effects mirrored including drift, cross winds and target changed in course.

 

Actually the problem would be the temptation to make the training too realistic, avoiding the target rushing towards the trainee, while still makeing it effective.

 

Fuel - the fuel saved from pilot traiing has so many other uses in the Japanese war effort, even just for giveing it to the pilots thay are training more flight hours.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Argus

[Bob B]

Part of the problem with this concept is that the Japanese would be able to build plants to produce these aircraft. In 1945 they were having problems just producing conventional aircraft with the factories being bombed by B-29s. Engine production was really effected by this. Also, as someone else mentioned training pilots was getting to be a problem.

 

Instead of using many of the obsolete types for special attacks, which included such types as the A5M (Claude), D3A (Val), and even training aircraft, the allies were fortunate that they didn't start using more of their advanced conventional types N1K2-J Shiden Kai (George) or the Ki-84 Hayate (Frank). These would have stood a much better chance of breaking through CAPs to perform their attacks. That is if the pilots were up to the task.

 

Here is what they seemed to have settled on:

 

http://www.geocities.com/~scottvanaken/closeups/115cu.html

 

It is a simple low tech aircraft designed to be powered by whatever refurbished engine was available, with whatever payloads were available. Keep in mind that the designers assumed that the remaining conventional combat types might not be available in the quantities required. FWIW, at least one seems to have survived.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Bob B

[istvan47]

just to continue the discussion, i have checked teh caracteristics of the Fi 103 guided.

 

effectively, like Tony Williams said, it could been the ideal kamikaze weapon.

Speed around 640 kmh at low levels, range 320 km, warhead 800 and more Kg.

 

If eventaully fitted with better navigation aids like compass and eventually radio goniometer ( and even if not) this weapon-aircraft could had been very scaring.

 

Germans had it for use already in late 1944, there was tehorically enough time to start the production in Japan, and this is weird if we consider that also the Okha was developed in the same time from nothing and was produced in hundreds, neverthless. If japanises copied the Fi 103, insthead, the results could had been well different.

 

the flight profile of the G4M was around 9000 mt ( wonder that a plane with such payload could climb until this levels!) and closing until 30-40 km to the target.

 

Insthead, the flight profile with the Fi 103 could had been something like 30-100 mts, and a pratical distance of 200-250 km: even the harpoon is not able to be launched from this distances (!).

Expecially seen what happened with the combo S.Etendard-Exocet in 1982, i am pretty sure that , if the G 4M were equipped like their "brothers" He 111s, with the piloted V 1, the possibility of intercept or even detect the Bettys, even with forward- deployed fighters and DDs, were really slim, to say the best, the possibilties to shot down Fi 103 by fighters and even AA were small, and the effect of the V 1 warhead on the US deck carrier should had been "very impressive".

 

I'd go even for a jet powered V 1, eventually an hibrid with a BMW 003 or similar engine of 500-800 kgt. Atleast, it was the possibilty to launch it from the ground of the isles near Okinawa or, from aircrafts, almost on the vertical of Japan (over 400 km from the targets, something like an AS-4 attack).

 

One thing that i don't know, however: the Coursair was faster than the Hellcat, but what at low level, where the Hellcat could go at 530 Kmh? What for the coursair at low level? 600? This could be very interesting, because the Hellcat cannot fullow the Fi- 103 for sure.

[Bob B]

It looks like they were working on a similar design to the piloted Fi 103.

 

Check out Hikoki: 1946:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/

 

Lots of cool looking stuff.

[istvan47]

just another thing about jet-aircrafts: Hotsuyuka has said taht the HE 162 range was around 600 Km. Neverthless, in a rapid check around the datas available, the 600 range is not KM.. but miles: the range on Km is so, over 950 Km! This could explain how an He 162 was eventually able, expecially if with removed guns, to reach Okinawa starting by Japan mainland. with how heavy payload, i don't know: but probably atleast 250-300 Kg. maybe 500, expecially if for the last flight the He 162 was fitted with droppable landing gears.

 

The flight caracteristics of the He 162 weren't satisfactory, however, despite the cool design-among the nicest jet ever built-, but this is another matter. Interstling the speed was even higher than the Me 262.

 

The engine was 800 Kgt, and the fuel almost 1000lt, so this can help to value the fuel cons. of those earlier jets.

[hojutsuka]

just another thing about jet-aircrafts: Hotsuyuka has said taht the HE 162 range was around 600 Km. Neverthless, in a rapid check around the datas available, the 600 range is not KM.. but miles: the range on Km is so, over 950 Km! This could explain how an He 162 was eventually able, expecially if with removed guns, to reach Okinawa starting by Japan mainland. with how heavy payload, i don't know: but probably atleast 250-300 Kg. maybe 500, expecially if for the last flight the He 162 was fitted with droppable landing gears.

172066[/snapback]

istvan47, I know that you can't spell, but can you at least get my handle right? It's "Hojutsuka".

 

The range figure of 385 miles at 6000 meters (19690 feet) is from William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich". Jet aircraft ranges depend a lot on altitude; at 36090 feet, the He 162 has maximum range of 606 miles. But if you are loading the He 162 with 600kg of explosives as you were proposing, there is no way it could cruise at 36090 feet. You would be lucky to cruise at 19690 feet, given the high wing-loading of the He 162 even without your explosive load.

 

Hojutsuka

[istvan47]

OK O............a or whatever. apolozige for the erratic name.

 

 

Range of the HE 162:

This is very interesting, but i would know better how the range of the HE 162 is rated in a so high level. Let me say that i found it a bit strange.

 

Apart this, what do you think about auxiliary tanks?

[istvan47]

Just another thing, one of the more interesting point was teh propulsion system used by Japanise on the Okha; before a rocket, then a motor-jet, then a (planned) jet-turbine engine.

If the Okha designers didn't used this silly system ( the Okha was more a winged bomb than a airplane ), they should go for the pulse-jet. The V 1 was already known in 1944, so why not the pulse-jet? It could have been the best system for kamikaze aircraft. with a range of 300 Km, a speed of 400 miles and 800kg payload, the Fi 103R could have been almost ideal (even more if the pulse jet is exchanged with a turbine).

 

Incidentally, the germans had developed and produced almost 200 Fi 103R before the Japs started with the Okha project.

But , while having the tecnology and the industry good enough, the germans hadn't the willing (and the need) to do so.

The japs, on the contrary, had the need and the will, but not the tecnology.

 

If they projected the pulse jet on their okhas , the Okinawa invasion should had been much troubled than it was already. What if the "okha-reichemberg" strokes on april two or tree Essex and two or tre battleships? How it could easier the rest of the kamikaze planes to strike the US fleet?

I mean, launching 200-300 Fi103R-alike for month if not week, could have so worsened the situation, that i don't be surprised if the US Navy should have taken the decision to break from Okinawa invasion. In fact, there is a clear difference if are hitten 10 DDs or 4 CVs , 4 BBs and 2 HC, even if the fleet is still 1000+ ships.

 

So the nono consideration of hte pulse jet as propulsion of hte Okha isone of the strangest things of the late WWII, and one of hte most weirdly important too. The difference between a overall failure and a tremendous success ( that cannot changed the overall Japs situation , wit hthe inesorable defeat incoming).

[Mk 1]

It seems odd to me that we condinue to ignore the difficulties of piloting a Kamikaze craft. We are SO focused on the Kamikaze craft that we forget the Kamikaze warrior.

 

How is a fellow who has NEVER PILOTED A PLANE BEFORE IN HIS LIFE really expected to fly a 400mph+ craft AND navigate over 300 or 350 miles of trackless ocean while spotting for, distinguishing, and successfully attacking his target? And some suggest flying at low atitude as well, so that he will have a very limited horizon over which to spot targets, and a much shorter reaction window if he DOES somehow spot one.

 

I would predict that out of about a hundred launches, maybe three to five craft would ever come within sight of a fleet unit, at which time they would: 1) do a flyby and continue on (having never noticed the ship), or 2) spin into the ocean when the pilot tries his first-ever maneuver in a 400mph aircraft, or 3) overfly it and splash into the ocean due to the lift the wings generate when he points the nose at the target. The rest, of course, would simply fly off into the sunrise and ... hmmm ... if a Kamikaze crashes into the ocean, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a boom?

 

I think a guided bomb would have been the best bet. Drop from high, with control surfaces but MINIMAL wing. Just enough wing lift to give you the range from the outer pickets to the center of the task force from your drop altitude.

 

-Mark 1

[istvan47]

"

 

 

Just another thing, one of the more interesting point was teh propulsion system used by Japanise on the Okha; before a rocket, then a motor-jet, then a (planned) jet-turbine engine.

If the Okha designers didn't used this silly system ( the Okha was more a winged bomb than a airplane ), they should go for the pulse-jet. The V 1 was already known in 1944, so why not the pulse-jet? It could have been the best system for kamikaze aircraft. with a range of 300 Km, a speed of 400 miles and 800kg payload, the Fi 103R could have been almost ideal (even more if the pulse jet is exchanged with a turbine).

 

Incidentally, the germans had developed and produced almost 200 Fi 103R before the Japs started with the Okha project.

But , while having the tecnology and the industry good enough, the germans hadn't the willing (and the need) to do so.

The japs, on the contrary, had the need and the will, but not the tecnology.

 

If they projected the pulse jet on their okhas , the Okinawa invasion should had been much troubled than it was already. What if the "okha-reichemberg" strokes on april two or tree Essex and two or tre battleships? How it could easier the rest of the kamikaze planes to strike the US fleet?

I mean, launching 200-300 Fi103R-alike for month if not week, could have so worsened the situation, that i don't be surprised if the US Navy should have taken the decision to break from Okinawa invasion. In fact, there is a clear difference if are hitten 10 DDs or 4 CVs , 4 BBs and 2 HC, even if the fleet is still 1000+ ships.

 

So the non consideration of the pulse jet as propulsion of hte Okha is one of the strangest things of the late WWII, and one of hte most weirdly important too. The difference between a overall failure and a tremendous success ( that cannot changed the overall Japs situation , with the inesorable defeat incoming). "

 

 

It seems odd to me that we condinue to ignore the difficulties of piloting a Kamikaze craft. We are SO focused on the Kamikaze craft that we forget the Kamikaze warrior.

 

How is a fellow who has NEVER PILOTED A PLANE BEFORE IN HIS LIFE really expected to fly a 400mph+ craft AND navigate over 300 or 350 miles of trackless ocean while spotting for, distinguishing, and successfully attacking his target? And some suggest flying at low atitude as well, so that he will have a very limited horizon over which to spot targets, and a much shorter reaction window if he DOES somehow spot one.

 

I would predict that out of about a hundred launches, maybe three to five craft would ever come within sight of a fleet unit, at which time they would: 1) do a flyby and continue on (having never noticed the ship), or 2) spin into the ocean when the pilot tries his first-ever maneuver in a 400mph aircraft, or 3) overfly it and splash into the ocean due to the lift the wings generate when he points the nose at the target. The rest, of course, would simply fly off into the sunrise and ... hmmm ... if a Kamikaze crashes into the ocean, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a boom?

 

I think a guided bomb would have been the best bet. Drop from high, with control surfaces but MINIMAL wing. Just enough wing lift to give you the range from the outer pickets to the center of the task force from your drop altitude.

 

-Mark 1

 

 

 

Mk1,

nobody would takes too easy the manning of such extreme aircrafts,

however i though that you underrate a lot this stuff. Do you are aware that there was a pilot course ( and even a training version) for both the Okhas and the Fi 103R? Do you are SURE that every Kamikaze pilot wasn't experienced at all?

 

In every case. i think that you wouldn't rate the "original Okha" better than the "pulse-jet" model.

 

The concept that you are sayng, however, seems irresestibly to the Fritz-x concept ( maybe with an human inside?), but , surprise, in a certain sense the original Okhas was almost exactly the thing that you describe as the "best" idea.

e all we know how the things went. The G 4M were able even to reach 9,000 mt level with the Okha, then drop it from there. But it was not functioned, because the US Navy intercepted even at those levels teh G 4Ms.

So, if even you have on that G 4M a Paveway or Walleye bomb, yuor Betty will be downed before the launch as well.

To archieve your idea ( but wait, how is easy to control a diving bomb for an untrained guy?mh ...) there was needed a plane capable to fly high as the B 29 or even higher, like the He 277-274 or even an old Ju 86R), nothing less than 10,000 mts and more, with the payload. Nothing that japanises had.

 

So i think this wasn't a viable system for the available tecnologies, and i don't see any real unsuperable problem to fly a v 1 trough a ship.

[p620346]

"- the kamikazes were being tought to attack the wrong targets - cruisers and destroyers would have been more worthwhile"

 

Most kamakazes attacked destroyers. They tended to attack the first ship that they saw which at Okinawa & Iwo ima was generally one of the radar picket destroyers

[Mk 1]

Mk1,

nobody would takes too easy the manning of such extreme aircrafts,

however  i though that you underrate a lot this stuff.   Do you are aware that there was a pilot course ( and even a training version) for both the Okhas and the Fi 103R? Do you are SURE that every Kamikaze pilot wasn't  experienced at all?

 

There were very few experienced Kamikaze pilots. On some occasions units of qualified pilots, or some individual qualified pilots, volunteered and were accepted for "special attack" duties. But experienced pilots were rare in the Japanese Army or Navy by that time, and were very valuable even as escorts for the Kamikazes. And none of the purpose-trained pilots came back from their first Kamikaze attack missions to report the shortcomings of their training.

 

Most Kamikaze pilots trained on a "simulator", which consisted of a seat mounted on a multi-axis swivel, with a joy stick. Using this, they trained in the motor skills of banking left and right, and pitching the nose down or up.

 

Then they got familiarity briefings on the cockpit of their aircraft. Some of them even got to sit in the aircraft and touch/feel the different dials and nobs.

 

In the best cases they also received lectures on attack tactics.

 

But by the time the Kamikaze were in action in any numbers, it was not possible to take the prospective Kamikaze warriors up for flight training or even familiarization flights. US forces had complete aerial supremacy over their bases, and fuel and airworthy planes were too precious and rare to waste on one-flight pilots. And so in many cases the first time they EVER flew in a plane was when they TOOK OFF for their mission.

 

One can only imagine how much courage and determination it took. But of greater import, I imagine, was just how difficult it was to do anything useful on a first-ever flight.

 

Many of us have flown in small planes. And most of us have played flight sims of some form or another. So it is easy to forget just how alien the piloting experience is the first time.

 

The flight "simulators" did not give any lessons in situational awareness, even of aircraft status, nevermind aerial combat.

The flight "simulators" did not give a feeling for G forces, positive or negative, when the nose was pitched up or down.

The flight "simulators" did not loose altitude when banking. They did not have engines that could overheat. They did not need to be "trimmed". Their CG did not move over time as fuel was consumed.

The flight "simulators" did not give any idea how hard it was to identify different ship types from altitude.

The flight "simulators" did not loop or role. Nor did they stall and spin if you wandered out of your flight envelope.

 

A terrorist pilot who was a licensed pilot, who TRAINED for MONTHS to fly a 767 in a professional school, with modern computer simulators, and who on his "kamikaze" run had no one shooting at him, no fighters and no flak, managed to plow into a field SHORT of his target and almost missed the frikkin' PENTAGON, the largest building in the world!

 

It isn't easy to make a plane hit a target. The faster you are going, the harder it is.

 

If you are any distance from your target, and you point the nose down at it under power at almost any reasonable speed, you are stone-cold guaranteed to miss it. If you try to nose-down more to compensate for the lift your wings are generating, you will accelerate even more, generate even more lift, and as you progressively nose-down more and more to compensate you are likely to red-out as your plane describes the curve of an outside loop.

 

Why do you think dive-bombing profiles almost always involve rolling-in onto the target?

 

The only reasonable way to hit a target would be by 1) aiming in front of it just the right amount, so the lift carries you into the target, or 2) to aim far past it in a nose-up approach, and slow to a point where you glide down onto the target (or get real close on a glide plane, and THEN dive into it.

 

Do this with an absolute rookie and the results are quite predictable. Lift is not a phenominon that we experience in our every day lives, and so it is not something that we can intuitively compensate for. Lift has to be "learned". And a one-and-only solo suicide flight makes a really poor learning environment.

 

The advantage of a "bomb" is that you don't need lift surfaces like a plane. You only need control surfaces. So you can actually design a bomb to hit what it is pointed at. But then you have the problems of the CAP.

 

It ain't easy, but faster Kamikazes seem to me a sure-fire way to ensure nothing gets hit.

[Ol Paint]

Well said, Mk1. Also, its tough to hit a moving ship since, if you aim right at it, it won't be there when your airplane/missile arrives. Accounts of Kamikaze attacks are rife with comments about how pilots inexplicably (to the sailors) misjudged their attacks. It was also noted that the Baka attacks seemed to have more trouble hitting than the other aircraft and speculation was that the pilots were "behind" the airplane in terms of decision making.

 

Douglas

[hojutsuka]

Range of the HE 162:

This is very interesting, but i would know better how the range of the HE 162 is rated in a so high level. Let me say that i found it a bit strange.

172585[/snapback]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

Apart this, what do you think about  auxiliary tanks?

172585[/snapback]

And where are you going to put this auxiliary tank? The fuselage is small, and you already have to fit the (say 600kg) explosive charge into it. As for external tanks, apart from the increased drag, where are you going to mount it? The landing gear is too short to fit it under the fuselage. The wing is not only not plumbed for fuel, but well-known for sometimes coming off in flight due to shortcomings in manufacture. And you want to hang heavy drop tanks on this wing?

 

Hojutsuka

[istvan47]

Given the already mentioned of unfeasibility of jet-kamikazes, given the already mentioned of insufficient range of a jet kamikaze, given the already mentioned impossibilty to built something more modern than a Zero, now

we should talk about the lack of effectiveness of the kamikaze training here?

 

OK, at Okinawa around 200 US ships were hitten by Kamikaze's attacks. in some manner it had been happened, i think.

I don't say was easy, but i don't see any problem to have a reasonably PK with a Fi 103R. Nobody can demostrate it cleary, nor denied. if you have ever had seen the cockpit of a F.1 car, you surely would doubt that someone could fit inside, not to talk about win a run.

Not only this, if we talk about the final speed, we should mention that the V 1 manned were diving at around 800 kmh, not 930 like the Okhas. This could had sent easier the job of the pilot, and still be difficult for teh flak of the ships. the fact that some Okhas were used successfully should mean something, and i don't see any problem to do atleast more than that with "pulse-jet" or jet Okhas.

 

Apart this, there is more. Imagine the stress of one pilot that try to fly low and fast as i can do for more than an hour or two with his slow zeke or oscar, if not kate. The fear to be downed by an incoming Hellcat, or the barrage of teh ship's flak and so on. then, the final diving on the target that manouvers and erupt an hell of AA fire.

 

Now the pilot on his Okha-Fi 103R. He goes for 300 km in a flyng bullet, almost nobody can touch him, then dive slowly on the target so fast that it cannot be aimed with almost nobody that can aim in time to shot down him.

Sure that this pilot was disavantaged compared to the first?

 

I would add, if it worth, that seen the speed of the V1, the rude diving on the target wasn't necessary like happened with the zero or the Okha as well.

So, even go orizontal after a short dive and aim to the ship's flanks (expecially wiht the carriers) it could had worked quite well. the speed compared to the zero is atleast 50% more, comparable with a convenctional fighter in a dive. So the "exocet attack" could be obtained insthead of teh "harpoon attack" style.

This could give more than a possibility for the attacking airplane, something not so frequent with other kind of aircrafts.

 

At the end, i wuldn't call "fair" the 11/9 comparation. Someone could be feel offensed by that. Apart this, however, i don't see how that task (fly monsters like the 767 by inexperieced pilots) was not archivied.

 

Hojutsuka,

 

"I'm not sure what you mean by this."

 

i mean that this is the first time that i heard that a ferry range is calculate at MAXIMUM operative level of an aircraft.

 

 

"And where are you going to put this auxiliary tank? The fuselage is small, and you already have to fit the (say 600kg) explosive charge into it. As for external tanks, apart from the increased drag, where are you going to mount it? The landing gear is too short to fit it under the fuselage. The wing is not only not plumbed for fuel, but well-known for sometimes coming off in flight due to shortcomings in manufacture. And you want to hang heavy drop tanks on this wing? "

 

I think this also, so i have overrun it wiht the pulse jet Okha-reichemberg concept.

Apart this, i don't see any real problem to find some place on the fuselage or the wings to mount some aux tanks. Again, i don't say it's aesy. but after all, it wasn't easy to put them even on the Me 109. If someone hadn't managed to do this, now you probably say that there is no way to installe them on the Me 109.

Think about it.

[hojutsuka]

i mean that this is the first time that i heard that a ferry range is calculate at MAXIMUM operative level of an aircraft.

173397[/snapback]

I said "jet aircraft ranges depend a lot on altitude; at 36090 feet, the He 162 has maximum range of 606 miles". How you managed to misunderstand that is beyond me.

 

First, you really need to have some idea of what the He 162 was like if you want to speculate on its possible uses as a one-way bomber. 36090 feet was not its maximum ceiling.

 

Second, you seem to be fond of using jargon like "ferry range" without regard to its exact meaning. I hope you won't mind my saying that from your handle and your postings, you appear to be not a native English speaker, so perhaps that accounts for your sometimes inappropriate use of technical terms. "Ferry range" means the longest distance an aircraft can fly when re-positioning to another friendly airfield. This means that no payload is carried; no ammunition, no bombs, no passengers, no crew beyond the minimum needed to fly the plane (no gunners in a WW II bomber for example). As much fuel as possible is carried, even to the point of exceeding normal limits. Just to give you an idea of what this is like, a fighter might be stressed for +5.5g/-1.5g for combat, but on a ferry flight it might be loaded with extra fuel so that it is only safe for +2.5g/-0.5g until the extra fuel is burned off (this is just an illustration that I made up, not a real plane). Often the fuel load puts the CG outside its normal limits (especially for a World War II fighter, which often got a special "ferry tank" in the aft fuselage); this meant that the plane could not maneuver normally and had to be flown very carefully. Sometimes small structural modifications are done, for example, a photo recce fighter might have the heavy camera removed for a ferry flight, or a bomber might have long range fuel tanks installed in the bomb bay. As you can see, "ferry range" has nothing to do with how far you can fly on a combat mission.

 

"And where are you going to put this auxiliary tank? The fuselage is small, and you already have to fit the (say 600kg) explosive charge into it. As for external tanks, apart from the increased drag, where are you going to mount it? The landing gear is too short to fit it under the fuselage. The wing is not only not plumbed for fuel, but well-known for sometimes coming off in flight due to shortcomings in manufacture. And you want to hang heavy drop tanks on this wing?  "

 

I think this also, so i have overrun  it wiht the pulse jet Okha-reichemberg concept.

Apart this, i don't see any real problem to find some place on the fuselage or the wings to mount some aux tanks. Again, i don't say it's aesy. but after all, it wasn't easy to put them even on the Me 109. If someone hadn't managed to do this, now you probably say that there is no way to installe them on the Me 109.

Think about it.

173397[/snapback]

You've got that backwards, istvan47.

 

You are the guy that hasn't bothered to check the maximum ceiling of the He 162.

 

You are the guy that appears to have no understanding of range versus altitude, combat radius versus ferry range, or structural and CG limits when trying to carry extra fuel.

 

You are the guy that needs to think about it.

 

Hojutsuka

[istvan47]

Over target me with your arrows, what's your point Hotsu?

[hojutsuka]

Over target me with your arrows, what's your point Hotsu?

174079[/snapback]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I gather you are upset.

 

I'm trying to explain to you why your choices for a Kamikaze plane don't make much sense.

 

First you wanted to use a He 162 loaded with anything from 600kg to 1200kg explosive.

 

When I pointed out that the range would be insufficient (even with 600kg load), you wanted to know what I thought about extra fuel tanks.

 

I explained why I didn't think extra fuel could be carried internally or externally by He 162.

 

You said that you were changing your choice to manned Fi 103, which as several posters have pointed out has even shorter range than He 162. The manned Fi 103 is even smaller than the He 162 and has even less chance of carrying extra fuel. Then you said that "Apart this, i don't see any real problem to find some place on the fuselage or the wings to mount some aux tanks" (presumably referring again to extra fuel for the He 162) and told me to think about it.

 

Well istvan47, it's easy to see no problems if you know nothing about the subject. I don't know if that is your intention, but your postings give the impression that you know very little about aircraft. That's why I suggested that you think about the subject before posting again.

 

By the way, my handle is still being misspelt by you...

 

Hojutsuka

[istvan47]

Ok,

 

Dr.eng.Nobelprize Hojutsuka.

 

I see that your "knowledge" is cleary shown.

 

You are "so" educate, and well disposed, your posts are so significative, that your point here from the beginnings of the topic is mainly to call ignorant the other TN members that had expressed some opinions about, with me in the pole position.

 

This should be a personal attack, but for sure is a show of self-arrogance and overrating narcisysm.

 

If you have NO ideas, NO interest to debate in a propositive manner in this topic, well, the TN forum is too roomly that you will have no difficulties to find something more interesting. NOBODY here is calling for your presence, and the worst thing for every debate is someone that self-rate himeslf "too superior " to the others to soustain a debate without insulting someone.

 

Here we discuss about "ideal" kamikaze aircrafts. Do you are interested on this? Yes? no? If yes, what have to say? If not why you are still here, wasting your time?

I am pretty sure that it could had done better than send zeros an kates to the US fleet, do you not?

 

This is not a simply meanings of "aircraft knowledge", this is a serious shortage of capability to understand how means "discussion" that you are lacking.

 

 

 

Just for example, your last post:

 

"I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I gather you are upset.

 

I'm trying to explain to you why your choices for a Kamikaze plane don't make much sense."

 

well, your excellent unsuperable knowledge is able to able to do better? Bring on, i am waiting. If not, what's the point of your presence here?

 

""First you wanted to use a He 162 loaded with anything from 600kg to 1200kg explosive.""

 

It looks cool. After all, the Okhas 43 with 800 Kg warhead had just 475 Kgt. jet, derived properly from the BMW 003. THIS says to you something? mmhh..

 

""When I pointed out that the range would be insufficient (even with 600kg load), you wanted to know what I thought about extra fuel tanks.

 

I explained why I didn't think extra fuel could be carried internally or externally by He 162.""

 

Naturally, You, you , you. Can you show us cleary "why" a HE 162 is totally unable to be modiphied with aux. tanks? I am TOTALLY aware of the problems that it could gives, i know of the accidents of the "wolkjager", the wooden wing, low level manufactures , difficulties of handling etc. etc. but in what way this "totally" preclude the modiphic about aux tanks? Do you have seen the modiphics prewiewed of the futher versions of the HE 162? Do have you given a check to the differences, just as example, between an P-80A and a F-80C.?

 

""You said that you were changing your choice to manned Fi 103, which as several posters have pointed out has even shorter range than He 162. The manned Fi 103 is even smaller than the He 162 and has even less chance of carrying extra fuel.""

 

Well, Mr.Dott.Eng.

 

Perhaps the amount of your active braincells is even smaller .

 

Can you cleary calsulate HOW the range grows IF the pulse jet is sobstitued by a jet engine? Bring on, Doc, i am waiting. You are so well educated..

 

Second, the range of the pulse-jet engine is already enough if you launch these things from the ground in the coastal defence, and even more if you launch these V-1s from an aircrafts. And i am pretty sure that if you launch by almost 300 Km this aircrafts could had been a quite safety stand off range, surely nothing to compare with zekes, kates and okhas. Or do you find "too low" 600kmhX800KgX300km?

 

""Then you said that "Apart this, i don't see any real problem to find some place on the fuselage or the wings to mount some aux tanks" (presumably referring again to extra fuel for the He 162) and told me to think about it.""

 

I am still in the full beliefh that aux tanks could be added, mr-dr.eng. "stink-under the nose".

I cannot show it cleary, because i don't have a building HE 162 in my garage, however do you can show the opposite? Who says that the hipotetic-kamikaze HE 162 should had been EXACTLY like the model we know?

 

Take the HE 162 baseline, sobstitute the landing gear with a droppable one, sobstitute teh gun-ammo sector with other fuel, add a semi-drowned 500-800 kg bomb in the belly, or two 250 kg, one forward the pilot's cockpit in the nose, the other behind the fuselage tank. I don't know if this was an acceptable handling aircraft, but i don't see why not at all.

 

""Well istvan47, it's easy to see no problems if you know nothing about the subject. ""

 

It's also easy to fall in narcisim and feel themselves too superior to discuss seriously something. I also call you ignorant, but i prefer though you as badly needing to learn the basics of the democratic discussions.

 

""I don't know if that is your intention, but your postings give the impression that you know very little about aircraft. That's why I suggested that you think about the subject before posting again.""

 

Oh, yes, MrDrEng. Hojutsuka. If you tell me where you teach about aircraft engeneering i will come to adulate your proficiency.

 

""By the way, my handle is still being misspelt by you...

 

Hojutsuka""

 

Oh yes, John the Baptiste speaks again

 

Istvan

Edited May 17, 2005 by istvan47

[hojutsuka]

Dr.eng.Nobelprize Hojutsuka.

174577[/snapback]

Thank you, but I have not been awarded the Nobel Prize. If you wish to propose me to the Nobel Committee, you may, but I don't think your recommendation will be sufficient to get me the award.

 

It looks cool.

174577[/snapback]

Well, if that's what you use to decide on an "ideal" aircraft, then clearly I have nothing to teach you! Aesthetics is not my strong point !

 

There are other people on this thread who appear to be interested in factors other than aesthetics, so I might continue to post. But you don't have to read anything I post, as you can be sure that it won't be about aesthetics.

 

Hojutsuka

[istvan47]

Thank you, but I have not been awarded the Nobel Prize. If you wish to propose me to the Nobel Committee, you may, but I don't think your recommendation will be sufficient to get me the award.

 

 

You are too yuong, i suppose. Try a bit lather and i will check what i can do for u

 

 

 

""Well, if that's what you use to decide on an "ideal" aircraft, then clearly I have nothing to teach you!

 

 

And even to Marcel Dassault i suppose. Incidentally, he was convincted that the hestetic is related to the functionality, whetever you think when in the morning you look youself in the mirror

 

 

 

""Aesthetics is not my strong point ! ""

 

Not the only one.

 

 

There are other people on this thread who appear to be interested in factors other than aesthetics, so I might continue to post. But you don't have to read anything I post, as you can be sure that it won't be about aesthetics.

 

Hojutsuka

 

 

OHH, dear.. i am totally burning about this. I expect that u continue to write in this topic and FINALLY, inshtead to say nonono u give us atleast some ideas of your "best" kamikaze aircraft concept. A drawing. A concept. whetever.

 

Come on, you can do it if you want.

[hojutsuka]

OHH, dear.. i am totally burning about this. I expect that u continue to write in this topic and FINALLY, inshtead to say nonono u give  us atleast some ideas of your "best" kamikaze aircraft concept. A drawing. A concept. whetever.

 

Come on, you can do it if you want.

174883[/snapback]

Well, since you have repeatedly insisted...

 

The "ideal" Kamikaze aircraft is any aircraft that has istvan47 on board! Lest anyone here think that this is an expression of unseemly personal animus, let me reassure you that I bear no ill will towards istvan47. The choice is purely a matter of technical merit. It does not matter what the aircraft is. Even if it cannot takeoff because the explosive load is too heavy, even if it does not have the range to reach its target, the presence of istvan47 on board will provide an inexhaustible source of hot air which will lift it into air and waft it beyond its mundane maximum range to its glorious consummation!

 

Hojutsuka

 

PS: This will be my last appearance on this thread. I am rather ashamed to find myself in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent, but I was tempted; once I resisted, the second time, I fell...

[Bob B]

Did some of this topics replies go away?

 

FWIW, I could have sworn I posted a reply here yesterday.

 

[istvan47]

""Well, since you have repeatedly insisted...

 

The "ideal" Kamikaze aircraft is any aircraft that has istvan47 on board! Lest anyone here think that this is an expression of unseemly personal animus, let me reassure you that I bear no ill will towards istvan47. The choice is purely a matter of technical merit. It does not matter what the aircraft is. Even if it cannot takeoff because the explosive load is too heavy, even if it does not have the range to reach its target, the presence of istvan47 on board will provide an inexhaustible source of hot air which will lift it into air and waft it beyond its mundane maximum range to its glorious consummation! ""

 

 

 

..and the brain of dr. hotsu as HE payload

(so, that's all folks)