FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 1392.PDF
German designers were seriously con-sidering the possibilities of launching heavily loaded jet bombers from specialaircraft. Their experience with "Mistel" composites would have been valuable inthis connection. JET Experience with bona-fide jet bombers being too limited for appraisal, it is worth-while to consider the achievements and possibilities of adapted jet fighters. In the last months of the war small numbers of Me262's carrying a 550-lb. or 1,100-lb. load, or two containers of anti-personnel bombs, made surprise attacks from low and medium levels. Their speed immunised them against interception and they achieved some slight success against troop concentrations. Jet aircraft, however, are not by nature amenable to improvisation, and to restrict e.g. displacement on the 262 it was necessary before bombing to use half an hour's fuel. External bombs reduced the speed by at least 60 m.p.h., but the carriers could be released with the bombs or jettisoned in emergency. Projected 262's intended primarily for bombing would have had greater capacity. Schnellbomber I, for example, would take an externally-stowed PC1OORS rocket bomb weighing about a ton or a 1,400-lb. bomb- torpedo, while the la was similar but with the cockpit advanced to improve sighting view. Schnellbomber II wouWhave had stowage in a ventral fairing for a one-ton load. At full thrust the estimated speed was 550 m.p.h. and endurance two hours. Though acceptable for certain duties, these modified fighters would have been inadequate for raids demanding pin-point accuracy, and would have fallen short of present-day army requirements which postulate a specialised "front-line" bomber capable of low-level or diving attacks on small tactical targets. For this work strength, manoeuvrability, heavy armour protection, good view and the ability to operate from small air- fields are essential requirements, and bombs are usually complementary to a heavy gun and R/P load. The class is exemplified by the Typhoon bomber and the American XA-41. Naval parallels are the Firebrand and certain American single-seat "strike"aircraft developed along similar lines. Again it is neces- sary to cite a German example, for the Henschel Hs 132 is still the sole jet-propelled representative in the specialised close-support class. Of composite construction and with a "pickaback" jet unit, like the He 162, this small machine is stressed for 12g, the pilot lying prone in the nose to enable him to withstand the violent manoeuvres allowed by this factor. A semi-internal bomb load of up to 2,200 lb. reduces the sea level speed of 500 m.p.h. by about 55 m.p.h. Blohm and Voss, after a special study of jet-propelled close-support bomber aircraft, offered their asymetric P 179 with a single offset Jumo 004 and the larger twin- boom P 196, a 20,000-lb. aircraft with two B.M.W. 003's mounted side-by-side under the nacelle. Each boom housed a 1,100 lb. bomb. Seeking a further application of the Argus 014 impulse duct used by the V-l flying bomb, the Germans decided that the low-level army-support aircraft was best suited to its peculiarities—severe loss of thrust with height, high consumption and shattering noise. Two of these "stuttering athodyds" were fitted without great success to the Me 328, designed for 500 m.p.h. at sea level or 455 m.p.h. with an external 1,100 lb. bomb. Five hundred gallons of petrol were required for a 300-mile range. Extravagant consumption likewise thwarted the Junkers EF 126, another army-support machine resembling a piloted flying bomb and fitted for two anti- personnel bomb containers or twelve "Panzerblitz" R/P's, and two 20mm. guns. Again, external stowage reduced speed by 60 m.p.h. America has long displayed a predilection toward specialised low-attack and dive bomber aircraft, but, if the adapted P-80 is excepted, is still without a jet- propelled army-support machine though the Convair XP-81, officially classed as a long-range fighter, suggests itself for development. The General Electric TG-100 turbine-airscrew in the nose and pure-jet 1-40 in the tail should promote manoeuvrability at low levels and com- paratively low speeds, with adequate performance for a surprise approach and a high-speed breakaway. In common with all fast army-support aircraft the XP-81 would benefit from dive-brakes. Elementary adaptation characterised the first conversion of the Me 26a for bombing. The aircraft as shown is still essentially a fighter. In this projected devimprove his sighting
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
