shaba said:is it just me or do the early iterations of p.1101 look like p.1073 derivative's
Justo Miranda said:P.1101 Post -1
newsdeskdan said:Think I can shed a little more light on P 1101. These graphs (attached) are from a bundle of notes by Hans Hornung dated May 24, 1944. They show the Me 262 being compared against three designs under P 1101 - one with two HeS 011 turbojets '2TL', one with three '3TL' and one with four '4TL'. So P 1101 must've followed on immediately from the twin jet P 1099 and P 1100, but using the HeS 011 and scaling up. Presumably, when 1-TL-Jager came along in July and there was a solid requirement which specifically wanted the HeS 011, the general features of the multi-jet P 1101s were scaled down to create the company's first design for the competition.
Interesting. Thank you for that. I figured most of the jet aircraft he listed were dubious given that a few were traceable to Luft 46 and others being entirely napkin drawings so to speak. That being said, despite the likely dubious origin of this concept, would you say that compared to the "stag antlers" of FuG 202, 212, 218, etc., that FuG 240 would be more appropriate for such an aircraft in a night fighter role had the Germans actually committed to developing it? I do like the concept but I feel like it would be unrealistic when considering that production of said aircraft would then deviate between two separate designs, amounting to more work than is necessary, rather than just slapping on a dipole array.O boy, Lepage is an extremely unreliable author, I wouldn't even bother with his publications... He is actually a draftsman, who just adds some text (based on any information he had on hand) to his comic style drawings, which are not accurate or wrongly captioned too, and creates books this way. His works on the Flak and Hitlerjugend are unbelievably poor, full of the most fundamental mistakes. And, for example, in his Flak book he posts a thank you note fore a person, who provided him with technical information - it clearly means, he started his work knowing nothing on the subject.
It is highly unlikely that the P 1101 or a derivative thereof would be suitable as a nightfighter. In the late 40's and into the early 50's the state of the art in nightfighter technology required a dedicated radar operator aboard the plane. It wouldn't be until such systems as the Hughes E series of semi-automatic intercept computers were developed that you could successfully do all-weather intercepts with just one crew member. Germany during the war did put radar on single seat fighters, but these didn't produce much in the way of exceptional results.Interesting. Thank you for that. I figured most of the jet aircraft he listed were dubious given that a few were traceable to Luft 46 and others being entirely napkin drawings so to speak. That being said, despite the likely dubious origin of this concept, would you say that compared to the "stag antlers" of FuG 202, 212, 218, etc., that FuG 240 would be more appropriate for such an aircraft in a night fighter role had the Germans actually committed to developing it? I do like the concept but I feel like it would be unrealistic when considering that production of said aircraft would then deviate between two separate designs, amounting to more work than is necessary, rather than just slapping on a dipole array.O boy, Lepage is an extremely unreliable author, I wouldn't even bother with his publications... He is actually a draftsman, who just adds some text (based on any information he had on hand) to his comic style drawings, which are not accurate or wrongly captioned too, and creates books this way. His works on the Flak and Hitlerjugend are unbelievably poor, full of the most fundamental mistakes. And, for example, in his Flak book he posts a thank you note fore a person, who provided him with technical information - it clearly means, he started his work knowing nothing on the subject.
Didn't the USN successfully use wing-mounted radar on F4Us and F6Fs during the war?It is highly unlikely that the P 1101 or a derivative thereof would be suitable as a nightfighter. In the late 40's and into the early 50's the state of the art in nightfighter technology required a dedicated radar operator aboard the plane. It wouldn't be until such systems as the Hughes E series of semi-automatic intercept computers were developed that you could successfully do all-weather intercepts with just one crew member. Germany during the war did put radar on single seat fighters, but these didn't produce much in the way of exceptional results.Interesting. Thank you for that. I figured most of the jet aircraft he listed were dubious given that a few were traceable to Luft 46 and others being entirely napkin drawings so to speak. That being said, despite the likely dubious origin of this concept, would you say that compared to the "stag antlers" of FuG 202, 212, 218, etc., that FuG 240 would be more appropriate for such an aircraft in a night fighter role had the Germans actually committed to developing it? I do like the concept but I feel like it would be unrealistic when considering that production of said aircraft would then deviate between two separate designs, amounting to more work than is necessary, rather than just slapping on a dipole array.O boy, Lepage is an extremely unreliable author, I wouldn't even bother with his publications... He is actually a draftsman, who just adds some text (based on any information he had on hand) to his comic style drawings, which are not accurate or wrongly captioned too, and creates books this way. His works on the Flak and Hitlerjugend are unbelievably poor, full of the most fundamental mistakes. And, for example, in his Flak book he posts a thank you note fore a person, who provided him with technical information - it clearly means, he started his work knowing nothing on the subject.
Consider one of the first single-seat all-weather fighters, the F-86D. The "Dogship" as it became known fits this bill. It had the Hughes E-4 using an APG 36 radar to perform intercepts. It was at once a technological marvel and maintenance nightmare. Germany was nowhere close to producing anything remotely that sophisticated in 1945.
The did do that, but it wasn't highly successful. The USS Enterprise was the USN's specialist night warfare carrier by 1944, and while TBF Avengers with radar proved highly successful, the single seat night fighter left a lot to be desired. This was rectified to some extent in 1945-46 by the introduction of the F7F-2/3/4N Tigercat, although short-lived.Didn't the USN successfully use wing-mounted radar on F4Us and F6Fs during the war?It is highly unlikely that the P 1101 or a derivative thereof would be suitable as a nightfighter. In the late 40's and into the early 50's the state of the art in nightfighter technology required a dedicated radar operator aboard the plane. It wouldn't be until such systems as the Hughes E series of semi-automatic intercept computers were developed that you could successfully do all-weather intercepts with just one crew member. Germany during the war did put radar on single seat fighters, but these didn't produce much in the way of exceptional results.Interesting. Thank you for that. I figured most of the jet aircraft he listed were dubious given that a few were traceable to Luft 46 and others being entirely napkin drawings so to speak. That being said, despite the likely dubious origin of this concept, would you say that compared to the "stag antlers" of FuG 202, 212, 218, etc., that FuG 240 would be more appropriate for such an aircraft in a night fighter role had the Germans actually committed to developing it? I do like the concept but I feel like it would be unrealistic when considering that production of said aircraft would then deviate between two separate designs, amounting to more work than is necessary, rather than just slapping on a dipole array.O boy, Lepage is an extremely unreliable author, I wouldn't even bother with his publications... He is actually a draftsman, who just adds some text (based on any information he had on hand) to his comic style drawings, which are not accurate or wrongly captioned too, and creates books this way. His works on the Flak and Hitlerjugend are unbelievably poor, full of the most fundamental mistakes. And, for example, in his Flak book he posts a thank you note fore a person, who provided him with technical information - it clearly means, he started his work knowing nothing on the subject.
Consider one of the first single-seat all-weather fighters, the F-86D. The "Dogship" as it became known fits this bill. It had the Hughes E-4 using an APG 36 radar to perform intercepts. It was at once a technological marvel and maintenance nightmare. Germany was nowhere close to producing anything remotely that sophisticated in 1945.
Grumman TBF-1C night fighter with AN/APS-3 AI radarThe did do that, but it wasn't highly successful. The USS Enterprise was the USN's specialist night warfare carrier by 1944, and while TBF Avengers with radar proved highly successful, the single seat night fighter left a lot to be desired. This was rectified to some extent in 1945-46 by the introduction of the F7F-2/3/4N Tigercat, although short-lived.Didn't the USN successfully use wing-mounted radar on F4Us and F6Fs during the war?It is highly unlikely that the P 1101 or a derivative thereof would be suitable as a nightfighter. In the late 40's and into the early 50's the state of the art in nightfighter technology required a dedicated radar operator aboard the plane. It wouldn't be until such systems as the Hughes E series of semi-automatic intercept computers were developed that you could successfully do all-weather intercepts with just one crew member. Germany during the war did put radar on single seat fighters, but these didn't produce much in the way of exceptional results.Interesting. Thank you for that. I figured most of the jet aircraft he listed were dubious given that a few were traceable to Luft 46 and others being entirely napkin drawings so to speak. That being said, despite the likely dubious origin of this concept, would you say that compared to the "stag antlers" of FuG 202, 212, 218, etc., that FuG 240 would be more appropriate for such an aircraft in a night fighter role had the Germans actually committed to developing it? I do like the concept but I feel like it would be unrealistic when considering that production of said aircraft would then deviate between two separate designs, amounting to more work than is necessary, rather than just slapping on a dipole array.O boy, Lepage is an extremely unreliable author, I wouldn't even bother with his publications... He is actually a draftsman, who just adds some text (based on any information he had on hand) to his comic style drawings, which are not accurate or wrongly captioned too, and creates books this way. His works on the Flak and Hitlerjugend are unbelievably poor, full of the most fundamental mistakes. And, for example, in his Flak book he posts a thank you note fore a person, who provided him with technical information - it clearly means, he started his work knowing nothing on the subject.
Consider one of the first single-seat all-weather fighters, the F-86D. The "Dogship" as it became known fits this bill. It had the Hughes E-4 using an APG 36 radar to perform intercepts. It was at once a technological marvel and maintenance nightmare. Germany was nowhere close to producing anything remotely that sophisticated in 1945.
The lack of night fighters affected U.S. Navy that had to resort to the transformation of fourteen Lockheed PV-1 patrol bombers into a night fighting role as interim solution. The aircraft were fitted with one SCR-540 radar set in the nose, with the azimuth antennae installed of the engine nacelles, VHF radios, IFF equipment and a blister of three forward firing 12.7 mm heavy machine guns under the nose. In September 1943 the VMF (N)-531 Squadron, with the modified PV-1 night fighters, arrived in the South Pacific accomplishing their first kill, a Betty, off Vella Lavella, on 13 October. At the end of 1943, ninety per cent of the Japanese bombing attacks were performed at night. To confuse GCI radar operators, night intruders (wood and fabric biplanes) occasionally dropped chaff simulating false attacks.
In November 1943, during landings in the Gilbert Islands, the US Navy began its first night operations with Hellcats day fighters vectored by shipboard radar, achieving some success. At that time the USS Enterprise already had some TBF-1C Avenger torpedo-bombers fitted with the AN/APS-3 radar, an ASV set with marginal AI performance.
The ASV was too bulky for single-seat fighter installation, but these could be guided by a TBF-1C to visually spot the Japanese intruder blue exhaust flames. The US Navy tried a somewhat different approach using night combat air patrols consisted of a radar equipped Avenger (acting as an airborne controller) accompanied by two conventional Hellcats. The first kill was achieved in the night of 22-23 November, when one Mitsubishi Betty was shot down by the Avenger while the Hellcats avoided collision, a lesson that the British had learnt in 1941 with their Turbinlite teams.
Early in 1944 the first F4U-2 Corsair naval night fighter, equipped with AI radar, finally arrived on Tarawa with the VF(N)-101 Sqn, embarked aboard the USS Enterprise. The F4U-2 was an old F4U-1 Birdcage converted into night fighter with the installation of one Sperry/Western Electric AN/APS-4 AI radar with beacon function, IFF transponder and AN/APN-1 radio altimeter with two inverted ‘T’ dipoles fitted under the fuselage belly. Most of the radar electronic, including the Stromberg Mk.II modulator, were mounted behind the pilot seat, but the scanner with the 43 cm of diameter parabolic antenna, was housed in a pod merged into the starboard wing leading edge. The whole set weighted 110 kg. The installation of the pod made it necessary to remove one of the 12.7 mm heavy machine guns. The AN/APS-4 operated at 3.2 cm wavelength, with 40 kw power output, 4,000 m range and provided suitable indication for firing guns. Only thirty-four Birdcages were converted into night fighters. In the Pacific Theatre the VF(N)-75, VF(N)-101 and VMF(N)-532 Squadrons flew the F4U-2 on New Georgia, Eniwetok Atoll and Wotje Atoll. They also served on the USS Enterprise, USS Essex, USS Hornet and USS Intrepid aircraft carriers. The Corsair long nose and low canopy restricted the visibility of the pilot making it very dangerous to be used into carrier operations. By January 1945 the U.S. Navy started replacing them by three Bat Eyes Squadrons of F6F-3N and F6F-5N Hellcats, a type of plane considered safer for night missions. The F6F-3N, hundred and fifty of which were built with modified flat windscreen, also used the AN/APS-4 radar fitted into a radome (radar-dome) on the starboard wing, but in this model there was no need to sacrifice armament.
On 14 May 1945, the VMF(N)-533 flew the F6F-3N from Yontan-Okinawa airfield achieving his first kill two days later. Grumman built 1,435 F6F-5N with the Westinghouse Electric AN/APS-6A radar and two 12.7 mm machine guns replaced with 20 mm cannons, fitted with exhaust flame dampers, to increase the probability of first-pass kill. The AN/APS-6A was essentially a compact version of the AN/APS-4 with the modulator in the nacelle, close to the scanner, 3.2 cm wavelength, 40 kw power output, 9,000 m range, beacon function, IFF transponder and AN/APN-1 radio altimeter. The new AI radar operated in search and gunsight modes, providing suitable indication for firing guns.
During the first year of naval night fighter operations in the Pacific Theatre, a total of thirty-nine Japanese planes were shot down. In the autumn of 1940, one British scientific mission was sent to the United States for the purpose of providing information on the radar technical advances being made by Great Britain: IFF transponder, VHF radio, magnetron microwaves and LORAN electronic navigation system
Would the production version of the P.1101, which was intended to have been just a bit larger, have been better for housing armament and other systems?Of note here is that while the Messerschmitt P 1101 never flew, the prototype was delivered to Bell Aircraft in the US following the war where it was closely copied--with some improvements like being able to change the wing sweep in flight-- as the Bell X-5. So, we have some idea of how the Messerschmitt design would have performed in flight.
The Bell X-5 was considered somewhat dangerous to fly and had very vicious spin and stall characteristics (sort of like the P-39 maybe?). Both aircraft were really too small to be fitted with a useful armament or fire control systems. The Bell design did have some use in furthering both swept wing performance as well as in development of variable wing position aircraft. The Bell design was however much better than the competing Navy Grumman XF10F Jaguar that was a veritable death trap to fly.
Based on what we know of the very similar Bell X-5, I'd postulate that the P1101 would have had a protracted development due to the stability and spin issues it would almost certainly exhibit. I think the aircraft would have seen say about a half-dozen or so prototypes built that tried to rectify the issues over roughly 18 to 24 months then get dropped as the state of the art had moved beyond it.Would the production version of the P.1101, which was intended to have been just a bit larger, have been better for housing armament and other systems?Of note here is that while the Messerschmitt P 1101 never flew, the prototype was delivered to Bell Aircraft in the US following the war where it was closely copied--with some improvements like being able to change the wing sweep in flight-- as the Bell X-5. So, we have some idea of how the Messerschmitt design would have performed in flight.
The Bell X-5 was considered somewhat dangerous to fly and had very vicious spin and stall characteristics (sort of like the P-39 maybe?). Both aircraft were really too small to be fitted with a useful armament or fire control systems. The Bell design did have some use in furthering both swept wing performance as well as in development of variable wing position aircraft. The Bell design was however much better than the competing Navy Grumman XF10F Jaguar that was a veritable death trap to fly.
That being said, would you say, compared to the Focke-Wulf Ta-183, the Messerschmitt Me P.1101 does not have the same realized potential in the time required for it to be useful before being passed over? I recall such and such a South American country working with Kurt Tank post-war to develop a better-engineered version of the Ta-183 and that it flew rather well. Correct me here if I am wrong of course. Just food for discussion.Based on what we know of the very similar Bell X-5, I'd postulate that the P1101 would have had a protracted development due to the stability and spin issues it would almost certainly exhibit. I think the aircraft would have seen say about a half-dozen or so prototypes built that tried to rectify the issues over roughly 18 to 24 months then get dropped as the state of the art had moved beyond it.Would the production version of the P.1101, which was intended to have been just a bit larger, have been better for housing armament and other systems?Of note here is that while the Messerschmitt P 1101 never flew, the prototype was delivered to Bell Aircraft in the US following the war where it was closely copied--with some improvements like being able to change the wing sweep in flight-- as the Bell X-5. So, we have some idea of how the Messerschmitt design would have performed in flight.
The Bell X-5 was considered somewhat dangerous to fly and had very vicious spin and stall characteristics (sort of like the P-39 maybe?). Both aircraft were really too small to be fitted with a useful armament or fire control systems. The Bell design did have some use in furthering both swept wing performance as well as in development of variable wing position aircraft. The Bell design was however much better than the competing Navy Grumman XF10F Jaguar that was a veritable death trap to fly.
Bell and the USAF floated, for a short time, the idea of production of the X-5 as a lightweight, low cost fighter but dropped the idea because of the plane's vicious tendencies in flight.
Would the production version of the P.1101, which was intended to have been just a bit larger, have been better for housing armament and other systems?Of note here is that while the Messerschmitt P 1101 never flew, the prototype was delivered to Bell Aircraft in the US following the war where it was closely copied--with some improvements like being able to change the wing sweep in flight-- as the Bell X-5. So, we have some idea of how the Messerschmitt design would have performed in flight.
The Bell X-5 was considered somewhat dangerous to fly and had very vicious spin and stall characteristics (sort of like the P-39 maybe?). Both aircraft were really too small to be fitted with a useful armament or fire control systems. The Bell design did have some use in furthering both swept wing performance as well as in development of variable wing position aircraft. The Bell design was however much better than the competing Navy Grumman XF10F Jaguar that was a veritable death trap to fly.