two different book
Bachem Ba 349 "Natter"
- Thread starter Michel Van
- Start date
You are not necessarily right:
"The Luftwaffe test pilot Lothar Sieber (7 April 1922 – 1 March 1945) may have inadvertently become the first man to break the sound barrier on 1 March 1945. This occurred while he was piloting a Bachem Ba 349 "Natter" for the first manned vertical takeoff of a rocket in history. In 55 seconds, he traveled a total of 14 km (8.7 miles)."
Sound barrier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"The Walter liquid-fueled rocket motor built up to full thrust and Sieber pushed the button to ignite the four solid boosters. Initially, it rose vertically. at an altitude of about 100 to 150 m (330 to 490 ft), the Natter suddenly pitched up into an inverted curve at about 30° to the vertical. At about 500 m (1,600 ft) the cockpit canopy was seen to fly off. The Natter continued to climb at high speed at an angle of 15° from the horizontal and disappeared into the clouds. The Walter motor stalled about 15 seconds after take-off. It is estimated the Natter reached 1,500 m (4,900 ft), at which point it nose-dived and hit the ground with great force about 32 seconds later, some kilometres from the launch site. Unknown at the time, one of the Schmidding boosters failed to jettison and its remains were dug up at the crash site in 1998."
Bachem Ba 349 Natter - Wikipedia
The Walter engine has 2000kg and the four Schmidding boosters 4x500kg thrust, but the Natter weighs only 2232kg. This is 1,792 thrust/weight ratio against the Bell XS-1's 0,495 value. OK, I know the Natter has worse aerodinamic design and was a subsonic plane, but not impossible.
Here is another article about this deadly flight:
Historical Footnote: On March 1st 1945, did Lothar Sieber become the first person to break the sound barrier?
Yes, it’s true, Chuck Yaeger probably wasn’t the first person to break the sound barrier in manned flight. On a cloudy day in 1945, accomplished test pilot Lothar Sieber flew a Natter …united-cats.com
(It wasn't the only event, because Mano Ziegler reported his friend Heini Dittmar's famous flight on 6 July 1944 in the Me 163V-18 (VA+SP) at a speed of 1,130km/h. And Hans Guido Mutke claimed to have broke the sound barrier with his Me 262 on 9 April 1945 also. Without knowledge of the exact flight altitude, among other things, have not been proven.)
But would one call the Natter launch "flight" in the usual sense of the word--controlled flight? The descriptions sound more ballistic than aerodynamic.
I'm also skeptical about other wartime claims. Transonic aerodynamics were not well understood and measurement instrumentation was unreliable at the time. You still see claims of 500+ mph flight by P-47s, for example. The Me 163 and 262 seem like particularly unpromising shapes from a drag ans stability point of view.
The Me 163 could reach 621 mph. Compression was well understood. The Me 262 had leading-edge slats to improve high speed handling. The sweep back also delayed compressibility. A captured film shows the Me 163 climbing at an 80 degree angle. The Natter was not just tested once. As a rocket propelled point interceptor, it reached altitude and fired its rockets or cannons, and on the way down, a lever was pulled as the aircraft fell to earth, releasing a portion and leaving the pilot free to parachute to the ground. I have seen a photo of a field filled with completed Natters. US soldiers/intelligence were very interested in this aircraft. In fact, it received the first FE or Foreign Equipment number, FE-1/T-2 1.
I'm quite familiar with the Natter and the Me 163.
windswords
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 19 May 2009
- Messages
- 387
- Reaction score
- 194
According to https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/speed-distance-time-calculator.php
the speed reached was 569.5 mph or 916.36 Kph. Of course the speed was not constant for the whole distance, but also no one claimed to hear a sonic boom.
the speed reached was 569.5 mph or 916.36 Kph. Of course the speed was not constant for the whole distance, but also no one claimed to hear a sonic boom.
Grzesio
ACCESS: Secret
There are no documents supporting the claim, the Me 163 BV 18 has ever reached 1130 km/h.
The loss of the rudder documented with photos, which allegedly occured during this flight, actually took place on another occasion and at much lower speed.
The loss of the rudder documented with photos, which allegedly occured during this flight, actually took place on another occasion and at much lower speed.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,643
Claims of achieving supersonic speed re: the Natter (or Komet or other WW2 German jets and rocket aircraft that actually flew) have little to no credibility.
Right up there with claims of a Nazi Germany nuclear bomb, another claim/ theory which perhaps not coincidentally is also being pushed by some of the same contributors, and perhaps gives some context for how seriously the supersonic claims should be taken.
Right up there with claims of a Nazi Germany nuclear bomb, another claim/ theory which perhaps not coincidentally is also being pushed by some of the same contributors, and perhaps gives some context for how seriously the supersonic claims should be taken.
ubekistano
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 18 July 2020
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe he broke the sound barrier
Armin Derer
In dire need for coffee
- Joined
- 10 June 2021
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 99
taildragger
You can count on me - I won a contest
- Joined
- 2 November 2008
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 450
Eyewitness accounts, especially of startling events like an aircraft diving into the ground, are notoriously unreliable. Given that this account is based on a childhood memory from at least 10 years earlier (and even 1954 would have been very early for a TV documentary), I don't think much weight can be put on it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,469
- Reaction score
- 7,524
to make matter worst the TV documentary was from 2012, 67 years later !
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,628
One thing overlooked in all this is that the Ba 349 was really just a manned surface-to-air missile. The pilot got around the problem of providing an automated guidance system for the missile. Thus, I wouldn't call it an "aircraft," "fighter," or "interceptor," but rather a manned SAM.
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,050
- Reaction score
- 12,647
I want to remember the competitors,
Arado
Blohm & Voss
Fieseler
Focke Wulf
Heinkel
Junkers
Siebel
www.flugrevue.de
www.flugzeug-lexikon.de
Arado
Blohm & Voss
Fieseler
Focke Wulf
Heinkel
Junkers
Siebel
Bachem BP 20 / Ba 349 Natter: Die bemannte Rakete aus Holz
Zu den letzten deutschen Entwicklungen des Zweiten Weltkriegs zählt der senkrecht startende Raketen-Abfangjäger Bachem Natter. Der einzige bemannte Teststart der Holzkonstruktion endete am 1. März 1945 mit einem tödlichen Absturz.
www.flugrevue.de
Bachem Ba 349 Natter
Attachments
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,050
- Reaction score
- 12,647
Arado E.381
Blohm & Voos BV.40
Fieseler Fi.166 ?
Focke Wulf ?
Heinkel P.1077
Junkers EF.128
Siebel ?
- Joined
- 26 May 2006
- Messages
- 33,050
- Reaction score
- 12,647
From this book,what were these projects ?.
Attachments
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,628
Natter: Manned Missile of the Third Reich by Dr. Brett Gooden.
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.www.facebook.com
Gooden's book on the Natter is definitive. It goes into every detail of the missile--aircraft almost seems inappropriate--and its engagement system. What the Natter, in essence, is is a manned surface-to-air missile.
On launch all the way through approach to target, it is running on a 3-axis autopilot that takes it to within visual range of the target on a radio command link from the ground. The pilot takes over at that point, flies to a firing position, engages the target with air-to-air rockets, then dives away to escape by parachute.
If it were the Japanese, they'd just have the pilot crash into the target and that'd be that. The Germans tried to reuse all the expensive parts of the system.
Gooden's book is way expensive and a bit hard to find. I did get a copy and the UK export paperwork was damn near as thick as the book! But if you can afford a car payment, next month's rent, etc., to buy a book and can find one...
Anyway... The Natter really isn't an "interceptor' or "aircraft" in the conventional sense. It really is just a manned SAM. It's a shortcut to getting a SAM because you don't have a viable guidance system and proximity fuze to use with one and you need the system to work yesterday.
It's an interceptor and an aircraft. Gooden makes a point of mentioning missing material about the period, including pressure suit designs. His book is outstanding but there is more to declassify. This is not the end. I managed to find a copy of the hardcover for about $90.00 plus shipping. Well worth it.
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,628
It's a manned SAM. The original concept for the Natter lies with Werner v. Braun who proposed a manned surface-to-air missile as early as 1939. Erich Bachem resurrected the idea with the Natter. It took Himmler's intervention to force the Luftwaffe to accept the proposal and build the system.
The Natter vertically launches using boosters just as many early SAMs do. It has a liquid fuel sustainer rocket motor, again just like most early SAMs. Control is done by radio link and command from the ground. It would ultimately be tracked by radar along with the target and a very simply analog computer would calculate the intercept point. The only difference is the Natter needs the pilot to detect the target and release the warhead (rockets) to destroy it. Everything after that is simply cost saving measures along with giving what is nearly a suicide weapon a fig leaf of cover that it isn't. Like SAMs, the Natter was also a one-shot deal. One launch, one intercept, and that's it. You need another Natter.
If you were to get rid of the pilot and the space he takes up, you'd end up with something that looks just like the British Brakemine SAM.
It's a manned SAM. The original concept for the Natter lies with Werner v. Braun who proposed a manned surface-to-air missile as early as 1939. Erich Bachem resurrected the idea with the Natter. It took Himmler's intervention to force the Luftwaffe to accept the proposal and build the system.
The Natter vertically launches using boosters just as many early SAMs do. It has a liquid fuel sustainer rocket motor, again just like most early SAMs. Control is done by radio link and command from the ground. It would ultimately be tracked by radar along with the target and a very simply analog computer would calculate the intercept point. The only difference is the Natter needs the pilot to detect the target and release the warhead (rockets) to destroy it. Everything after that is simply cost saving measures along with giving what is nearly a suicide weapon a fig leaf of cover that it isn't. Like SAMs, the Natter was also a one-shot deal. One launch, one intercept, and that's it. You need another Natter.
If you were to get rid of the pilot and the space he takes up, you'd end up with something that looks just like the British Brakemine SAM.
I am aware of the von Braun Interceptor. This is not a suicide weapon. Once it enters the bomber stream it fires its rockets and falls back to Earth. The pilot pulls a lever and the Natter's upper and lower parts separate. The pilot parachutes to the ground. I have seen an unpublished photo of a field with Natters taken after the camouflage netting was removed.
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 955
- Reaction score
- 1,628
It might as well be. Given the rate of pilot deaths and injuries during testing, there was a damn good chance a Natter pilot would die during any given mission. My bet would be close to 50-50, possibly higher. That pretty much makes it a suicide weapon in reality even if it's not supposed to be. Bailing out of a plane, no ejection seat, no particular design aspects to make that easier or safer, isn't an easy feat to do every mission.
It also isn't an "interceptor," as this would make it reusable after a mission as an aircraft. That would imply it could land intact and be used again. That too isn't the case. The engine might land intact, or far more likely, be damaged or destroyed during the mission and the rest of the plane is going to be seriously damaged or destroyed necessitating a new airframe for the surviving bits--assuming they can be recovered.
