Aerial Flamethrower

[tigercat]

Could an aerial flamethrower be made to work

I believe the Germans and Americans briefly looked into the idea without much success in WW2.

As long as the flames weren't blown out by the  slipstream would a cone of fire be more likely to strike a targe than  having to the greater precision needed with  a bullet.

You have Air to Air applications as well as Ground to Air.  I imagine to the PBI an aerial flamethrower would be bloody terrifying.

[Mossie]

Apart from them blowing out, I think there were two main problems.  First was it was a fixed mount so the enemy had to be directly behind you, second was it was pretty short range.

I remember hearing of attacking aircraft thinking there was a problem with the plane ahead because there was a belch of flame or if it failed to ignite they were covered in oil.  Occasionally the plane got away because the attackers eased off but usually they just got out of the way & resumed the attack.

[Logan Hartke]

There's a lot of reasons this is terribly impractical.  I think the only ways it would really be ~practical is in an air-to-ground role.  Even then, a napalm tank would be superior in almost any application.

The only "practical" flamethrower I can think of for air-to-air use would have to be a thermobaric weapon, like a defensive RPO.  In that case you'd be relying on the pressure wave as much as anything to achieve a kill (or at least get the enemy off your back for a few seconds).  In fact, that would probably be its best use, as a defensive weapon designed to shake an enemy that's on your tail and in close.  You're not going for the kill as much as a few seconds of breathing room.

Cheers,

Logan

[RussC]

A subject best left to the imagination than actual hardware.

[rickshaw]

The one the Germans developed for the Hs129 apparently fired forwards IIRC and was intended as a ground attack weapon.   I've often wondered how they made it work, it must have also been angled downwards but even so, I don't think I've have liked to be the pilot, flying into the flames.   I'm also aware they developed one to fire backwards, for use on bombers as a defensive weapon.   In both cases, the short range and the limited fuel supply would have been such that it most probably wasn't worth the effort.

[RussC]

The one the Germans developed for the Hs129 apparently fired forwards IIRC and was intended as a ground attack weapon.   I've often wondered how they made it work, it must have also been angled downwards but even so, I don't think I've have liked to be the pilot, flying into the flames.   I'm also aware they developed one to fire backwards, for use on bombers as a defensive weapon.   In both cases, the short range and the limited fuel supply would have been such that it most probably wasn't worth the effort.

  And over on the "James Bond" thread, we were just talking about "Little Nellie" which used a rear firing flame gun among its arsenal.

  One thing that I'm having trouble with is understanding how the speeds effect this thing, I'm sure we all have done the whisk your fingers over the candle thing. And how to reliably ignite something in a hurricane slipstream.

  The only craft I would think of to do this well in ground support would be a helicopter.

[Cobra]

i think i heard or read somewhere there was a Proposal to Equip a B-52 with a Flame Gun in place of the twin 20mm mount but it was Rejected because of Weight & space Concerns and also on Account of Concerns Voiced by Ground Crews Servicing the Aircraft. think a Flame Thrower would Work on a Cobra gunship? Dan

[rickshaw]

The one the Germans developed for the Hs129 apparently fired forwards IIRC and was intended as a ground attack weapon.   I've often wondered how they made it work, it must have also been angled downwards but even so, I don't think I've have liked to be the pilot, flying into the flames.   I'm also aware they developed one to fire backwards, for use on bombers as a defensive weapon.   In both cases, the short range and the limited fuel supply would have been such that it most probably wasn't worth the effort.

  And over on the "James Bond" thread, we were just talking about "Little Nellie" which used a rear firing flame gun among its arsenal.

  One thing that I'm having trouble with is understanding how the speeds effect this thing, I'm sure we all have done the whisk your fingers over the candle thing. And how to reliably ignite something in a hurricane slipstream.

  The only craft I would think of to do this well in ground support would be a helicopter.

As a defensive weapon I suspect it was intended to be more psychological than physical in its effects.  As fighters moved away from fabric covering, its effectiveness would have decreased and anyway, it can't have had a terribly effective range so they'd have to be almost touching the tail for it to work.

[RussC]

As a defensive weapon I suspect it was intended to be more psychological than physical in its effects.  As fighters moved away from fabric covering, its effectiveness would have decreased and anyway, it can't have had a terribly effective range so they'd have to be almost touching the tail for it to work.

Imagine the gunnery problem of a tail turret flame thrower. Not just leading the target but computing a real hefty plume-drop and figuring how big a squirt to throw. It might actually have been better to throw a stream of un-ignited liquid that was like opaque black paint with the vapor point of methanol. That way, at least you crud the interceptors windscreen and let their exhaust stacks do the ignition.

  For psychological effects, one thing often used was to load all tracers and that would look like a fireworks show. Also some crews actually mounted big dummy guns to give the sharp eyed antagonist more to think about.

[NARSES2]

  One thing that I'm having trouble with is understanding how the speeds effect this thing,

You and me both

[Go4fun]

How about a spring launched airial mine on a parachute fired in a defensive mode? Fire several out the rear suspended by small parachutes to give a enemy on your 6 a new worry besides knocking new holes in your flying fliver?

[rickshaw]

How about a spring launched airial mine on a parachute fired in a defensive mode? Fire several out the rear suspended by small parachutes to give a enemy on your 6 a new worry besides knocking new holes in your flying fliver?

British & Germans both tried a similar weapon in WWII.  The idea was to drop them in the path of an oncoming bomber.  A parachute deployed and a cable was reeled out of the small bomb, which suspended it a hundred feet or more below the 'chute.   If the bomber flew into the cable, it snagged it and the 'chute with then pull the bomb up to the bomber where it would explode on contact.   A great idea in theory but the practicalities of actually making sure the bomber flew into the cable was such that it was unlikely to succeed.  Whereas the British one was intended to work against single bombers, the German one was intended as a "pulk destroyer" for use against USAAF daylight bomber formations which flew quite closely and in large "boxes".

Interestingly, it was also tried as an AA weapon - both by the British and the Japanese.  Launched from a simple mortar, the bomb would fly to a predetermined height, deploy the 'chute and slowly descend - hopefully in front of the attacking aircraft.  The Japanese took it one twist further and used multiple small bombs which deployed from a casing after it was launched, each with an incendiary warhead.   Didn't work any better than the airborne weapon.   In the Japanese case, apart from the problems of getting the attacking aircraft to obligingly fly at the right altitude and speed to snag the cable, the small incendiary warheads more than likely wouldn't have done much harm.

[Go4fun]

But even if they were just flares suspeneded on chutes, flying into them might give you second thoughts about the tactic of getting in close for a 'clean shot'. I should say I'm thinking 1940s useage of this might be a real annoyance.

[pyro-manic]

But would it be more of an annoyance than a tail-gunner hosing you down with tracer fire?

[Old Wombat]

Might have been of some use in WW1 but by the mid-30's I would suggest aircraft were travelling too fast for a flame-thrower to be very effective at either end.