Mistels - Real and imagined

[philp]

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.

[Sauragnmon]

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.

[sequoiaranger]

>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!   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.

[Sauragnmon]

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.

[philp]

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.

[dy031101]

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......

[Cobra]

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

[Sauragnmon]

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...

[jcf]

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.

[Weaver]

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.