TYPE: Anti-ship and -fortification explosive filled glide bomb as “Mistel” composition. Project
ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only in Arado Ar 234C-3
POWER PLANT: None with glide bomb, two BMW 003A turbojet engines with Arado Ar 234C-2, rated at 850 kp each
PERFORMANCE: Data not available
COMMENT: This “Mistel 5” project was one of the last glide bomb developments submitted to the RLM before the end of WW II. Arado, working with Rheinmetall-Borsig, designed a simple glide bomb that would be powered (version B) or unpowered (version A) and carried beneath the Arado 234 “Blitz” bomber or Heinkel He 162 “Spatz” interceptor. The purpose of this glide bomb, which could be guided by radio control or a target guidance system, was to attack targets such as ships or military facilities.
construction of the Arado Ar E.377 was wooden throughout the entire aircraft. The fuselage was circular in cross section and was cigar shaped. The nose held 2,000 kg of high explosive especially suitable for ship attacks. In addition 500 kg of an incendiary liquid was stored in the rear fuselage which also acted as ballast to counterbalance the forward warhead. The wings were tapered and shoulder mounted. They also served as auxiliary fuel tanks for the guide aircraft. A cruciform tail unit was mounted at the rear of the fuselage. For take-off the “Mistel 5” composition was set on a releasable trolley, developed by Rheinmetal-Borsig.
Upon arrival of the target the E.377 glide bomb was released by means of explosive bolts and flew to the target by means of a radio-control (Ref.:17).
POWER PLANT: One Walter HWK 509C liquid-fuel rocket engine, rated at 2,400 kp thrust (main chamber: 2,000 kp thrust, auxiliary chamber 400 kp thrust)
PERFORMANCE: 569 mph (estimated)
COMMENT: In 1944 the Arado design team proposed two liquid-rocket engines powered reconnaissance versions of the Arado Ar 234 “Blitz” (Lightning) high-speed bomber. The Arado Ar 234R, as it was designated, would consist of a regular Ar 234C frame but without turbojet engines. Instead two pods were installed under the wing, each containing a Walter HWK 109-509A bi-fuel rocket engine (project Ar 234R-1A). The second project Ar 234R-1B was to be powered by a Walter HWK 109-509C two chamber liquid-fuel rocket engine mounted in the rear section. Therefore a cowling would have been installed in the rear fuselage underneath the rudder. The upper rocket engine called “Steigofen” (Accelerate chamber) delivered 2,000 kp and was to be used for climbing to altitude while the lower rocket engine, “Marschofen” (Cruising chamber) delivered 400 kp thrust and was used to power the aircraft during horizontal flight. During return flight – over a distance of more than 155 miles – the aircraft flew as a glider without power. The wing had a laminar profile with its maximal thickness at 50 to 60% chord. The glide ratio was calculated to 1:14.
Because of the limited fuel capacity and short endurance of the rocket engines the Ar 234R-1b was to be towed by a Heinkel He 177 “Greif” heavy bomber. A possible reconnaissance mission in the London area was calculated as follows: After take-off from a Luftwaffe base near Paris the aircraft was towed to the operational altitude of app. 26,247 ft, reached near Calais. After release of towline with “Steigofen” at full throttle the aircraft was powered at a speed of app. 506 mph to an altitude of app. 55,775 ft. This height was reached in a few minutes app. near the coast of Dover. During horizontal flight intermittent ignition of the “Marschofen” accelerated the aircraft with 569 mph to the target (i. e. London). After photo mission the aircraft flew back to the coast of England at a speed of 541mph and the descent back to the home base was flown as a glider. The mission was estimated for 21 minutes.
Although the Arado Ar 234R-1B project was promising it was abandoned in favor of the DFS 228 reconnaissance rocket-driven glider giving even better ceiling of 75,460 ft (Ref: 16).
TYPE: Anti-ship and -fortification destroyer Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a missile. Project
ACCOMMODATION: Crew of two in Messerschmitt Me 262A-2a/U-2 only
POWER PLANT: Two Junkers Jumo 004B turbojet engines each aircraft, rated at 950 kp thrust each
PERFORMANCE: No data available
COMMENT: In the last stage of WW II in Europe the RLM made great effort to deploy a great variety of composite aircraft (“Misteln”, “Mistletoes”) against enemy ground installations, troop concentrations, harbor facilities, bridges, ships, etc. and even bomber formations. In most cases elder or not for service qualified aircraft were used as un-manned, lower bomber compartment but also reconstruction of existing aircraft or complete new constructions – most made of non-strategical materials like wood etc. – were proposed. The bomber compartment was filled with explosives and guided to the vicinity of its target by a single seat fighter temporarily attached to a superstructure above the fuselage.
One of the extraordinary proposals was the combination of a Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a or Me 262A-2a/U2 as guide aircraft to an un-manned Messerschmitt Me 262A-1 as guided bomb. The cockpit canopy was faired over and all equipment stripped down to only those needed to keep the bomb flying. Nose of the aircraft was filled with explosive as well as two additional tanks setup in the fuselage. Three bomb load versions were proposed: Model A. Armored nose of the fuselage and additional tanks filled with 4,460 kg of liquid explosive, Model B: Armored nose formed of solid explosive, additional tanks filled with blocks of solid explosive, total amount restricted and Model C: Armored nose formed of 2,450 kg solid explosive, additional tanks filled with 2,760 kg liquid explosive, total amount 5,210 kg.
The upper component of this “Mistel” composition – number of “Mistel” variant not clearly known – was a two-seater Messerschmitt Me 262A-2/U-2. Besides the pilot a second crew member was lying in prone position in a glazed nose section of the fuselage. He guided the bomb into the target by means of a television set “Tonne-Seedorf”. In the cone of the lower (bomb) compartment a television camera (“Tonne”) was installed and the radio operator had a television tube (“Seedorf”) with relative high resolution. By means of radio-control the missile was guided to the target.
The project was soon rejected. It became clear that a pilot of a Messerschmitt Me 262 had enough problems with his own machine and to handle two of these excentric aircraft together seemed to be impossible.
POWER PLANT: One Daimler-Benz DB 610 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2,900 hp, driving two four-bladed pusher propellers
PERFORMANCE: 466 mph
COMMENT: In 194/42 the design team of Henschel Aircraft Company proposed an advanced project of a fast light bomber and ground attack aircraft. Power was provided by a single Daimler-Benz DB 610 engine that in fact consisted of two Daimler-Benz DB 605 liquid-cooled engines, joined side-by side. The engine drove two four-bladed pusher type propellers via an extension shaft. A similar design but powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 613 was the Henschel Hs P. 75 fighter and interceptor project. Both designs were radical in so far as a canard arrangement was proposed with elevators in front and the wing positioned to the rear. By that enough space was available to integrate the wide and bulky power unit. Furthermore, a large weapon bay in the in the forward fuselage was available. The disadvantage of this arrangement is the permanent shifting of the center of gravity. Vertical fins were located at the wingtips. Intensive work was done concerning the lay-out of the cockpit in order to give the two crew members an excellent view forward. In case of emergency the cabin could be blown up in order to prevent a collision with the eight-bladed propellers. Detailed construction was in an advanced stage when the RLM refused this project with the flimsy comment “… the pilots couldn’t acclimatize with a propeller in the back and the elevators in front”. So further work on this project was stopped (Ref.: 16, 17).
POWER PLANT: Four Heinkel/Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engines, rated at 1,300 kp each
PERFORMANCE: 565 mph
COMMENT: The Heinkel He 343 was a four-engine jet bomber project by Heinkel Aircraft Company in the last years of WW II. In 1944 a total of 20 of these aircraft were ordered. For shortening the development time and for re-use of existing parts, its general design was envisioned along the lines of an enlarged Arado Ar 234 “Blitz” (“Lightning”). For a choice of engines, the Junkers Jumo 004 and the Heinkel HeS 011 were planned. The DFS (Deutsche Forschungsinstitut für Segelflug), (German Research Institute for Gliding Flight) was involved in the project and created the project known as P.1068. By the end of 1944, work was nearly finished by the Heinkel engineers, with parts for the He 343 prototype aircraft either under construction or in a finished state, when the order was cancelled due to the “Jägernotprogramm (Emergency Fighter Program). Four versions were planned: the He 343A-1 bomber, the He 343A-2 reconnaissance aircraft, and the He 343A-3 and He 343B-1 “Zerstörer” (“Destroyer”) heavy fighters.
The Heinkel He 343A-1 was to be the bomber version. Depending on the engines used, the bomb load ranged between 2000 kg to 3000 kg, with 2000 kg to be carried internally, and 1000 kg to be carried externally. Trials were to be held with the Fritz X radio controlled bomb, which would have also added a third crew member. Defensive armament consisted of two fixed rear firing MG 151 20 mm cannon with 200 rounds each, which were mounted in the rear fuselage. None aircraft was completed. However, after WW II the Soviet Union utilized the design as the basis for the development of the Ilyushin Il-22, changing some of the parameters such as size and crew numbers. One prototype was built and flown. The results of the tests were used in development of the Ilyushin Il-28 (Ref: 24).
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: 599 mph
COMMENT: On February 1945 the Tank design team proposed a second design of the Focke-Wulf/Tank Ta 183 turbojet fighter although the RLM accepted the first design for production. The new aircraft was similar to the Ta 183 design, except the wings were swept back at 35 degrees and the cockpit was set farther aft. Also, the tail unit was of more conventional design, with a curvilinear sweep of the fuselage into the vertical tail. This seemed to be necessary because it was expected that the long vertical tail of Ta 183 led to vibrations. By that the horizontal tail planes were mounted lower at the end of the fuselage. As with many other projects al work was halted with the end of the WW II two months later (Ref.: 17).
POWER PLANT: One Daimler Benz DB 613 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 3,500 hp
PERFORMANCE: 491 mph
COMMENT: In early 1941 the OKL asked for a possible successor for the Messerschmitt Me 110 heavy fighter. Among others the Henschel Aircraft Company proposed a design of a futuristic and unusual configuration. This design, the Hs P.75, featured a tapered fuselage with slightly swept-back wings set back to the rear fuselage of the aircraft and a pair of slightly swept-back canards located on the nose. The widened fuselage housed a powerful engine that drove three-bladed contra-rotating pusher propellers at the rear via an extension shaft. As power unit a Daimler Benz DB 610 engine, which were two DB 605 liquid-cooled engines joined side-by-side, was proposed. These were the same engines that the Heinkel He 177 bomber used and became known for overheating and catching fire. So it was decided to install the Daimler Benz DB 613, in fact two coupled DB 603 liquid-cooled engines, rated at 3,500 hp. A vertical tail unit was mounted beneath the fuselage additionally functioning as a tail bumper and protected the propellers from stroking the ground during take-off. A tricycle landing gear arrangement was chosen and a single pilot sat in the cockpit located about midway along the fuselage. All weapons were mounted in the nose. The advantage of the pusher propeller and the forward canard design was the excellent view of the pilot and concentration of weapons in the nose. The disadvantage would be the engine cooling and the pilot’s safely exit in case of emergency. Although good results were obtained in wind tunnel testing this design was not followed up further.
Notable is the fact that this basic design was realized in several WW II aircraft design such as Curtiss XP-55 “Ascender” and Kyushu J7W1 “Shinden” (Ref.: 17).
POWER PLANT: Two Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engines, rated at 1,300 kp each
PERFORMANCE: 659 mph at 45,900 ft
COMMENT: In 1944, Focke-Wulf Aircraft Company projected three designs of a bomber using two Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 turbojets. These bombers were known under the unofficial designation “1000x1000x1000 Bomber-Projekt A”, Projekt B and Projekt C. The designation “1000x1000x1000” meant that the aircraft could carry a 1000 kg (2205 lbs) bomb load over a distance of 1000 km (621 miles) and at a speed of 1000 km/h (621 mph).
The second design under the Focke-Wulf internal designation Fw P.031 0239/10 “3×1000 Bomber, Projekt B” was of a flying wing layout. There was a small fuselage which held the cockpit and forward landing gear. The wing was swept back at 35 degrees and the fuel load in flexible tanks was carried ahead of the main wing spar. The engines and main landing gear were located behind the main wing spar. Two Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 jet engines each developing 1300 kg of thrust were fed by air intakes located in the wing leading edge near the wing roots. The wing tips were bent downwards to act as vertical stabilizers and contained small rudders. The ailerons also served as elevators and in addition small deflectors were mounted within the jet exhaust, one of the first uses of thrust vectoring. The main landing gear retracted inwards and the nose gear swung up and forward. A single pilot sat in the extensively glazed cockpit located in the extreme nose, and no armament was planned at this stage in the development. A 1000 kg bomb load could be carried in the internal bomb bay located in the center wing. Since these designs would have taken several years to complete, the end of the war ended all development (Ref.: 17).
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel/Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: 609 mph
COMMENT: As part of the “Emergency Fighter Program” (”Jägernotprogramm”), at the beginning of 1945 a program was launched by the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, High Command of the Luftwaffe) for a new generation of fighter/interceptor aircraft in order to replace the winner of the “Volksjäger” fighter design competition, the Heinkel He 162A “Spatz” (“Sparrow”) . The new aircraft was intended to have superior performance in order to deal with high altitude threats such as the the Boeing B-29 “Superfortress”, but only had a 30-minute endurance figure.
Heinkel produced three different designs of the project (He P. 1078A, B, and C) which were submitted in February 1945. The high-altitude fighter designs brought forward by other German aircraft makers were the Messerschmitt Me P. 1110, Focke-Wulf Ta 183 “Huckebein”, Blohm & Voss Bv P.212 and Junkers EF 128, the official winner of the competition. After being subject to severe criticism, the project was cancelled by Heinkel at the end of February 1945. Other reports state that these Heinkel projects have never been submitted to the OKL. In fact, members of the Heinkel construction bureau were working on these designs under U.S. supervision after WW II during the summer of 1945 (Ref.: 24).
POWER PLANT: Two Daimler-Benz DB 603 B liquid-cooled engine
PERFORMANCE: 426 mph
COMMENT: In February 1942 severe problems became obvious with the new twin-engine Messerschmitt Me 210, successor of the aging Messerschmitt Me 110. Due to longitudinal instability and lack of performance the series production was stopped and switched back to the inadequately Me 110. So Messerschmitt was forced to redesign the aircraft by lengthening the fuselage and adding more powerful engines what finally became the Messerschmitt Me 410. In the meantime a search was begun on a new design for a twin-engine heavy fighter.
Since beginning of 1939 Prof. A. Lippisch and his design staff was part of the Messerschmitt Company and was well known for many advanced and unorthodox projects. Among these was a design study, the Lippisch LiP.10, a fast, tailless, twin-engine bomber that incorporated many parts of the unsatisfactory Me 210. Independent to this Dr. Wurster from Messerschmitt’s design team was working on a similar project that officially was designated Messerschmitt Me 329. This aircraft was of tailless design and was to be constructed mainly from wood. This would save on strategic materials and keep the weight lower. The large area wing was swept back at approximately 26 degrees, and two Daimler-Benz DB 603 engines were buried in the wings, each driving a 3.4 m four-bladed pusher propeller. A large fin and rudder was mounted at the rear and a tricycle landing gear was provided. Other advanced touches included the pilot and navigator sitting tandem in a broad bubble canopy and a remote-controlled rear gun in the tail aimed via a periscope system from the cockpit. Performance comparison between the Lippisch Li P.10, the Me 329 and the Me 410 showed that the improvement of the Me 329 over the Me 410 was marginal. So development received a low priority, and while a full-scale glider mock-up was tested in the winter of 1944/5, work on the project was cancelled shortly after (Ref.: 16, 17).
Scale 1:72 aircraft models of World War II
Mit der weiteren Nutzung unserer Webseite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies verwenden um Ihnen die Nutzerfreundlichkeit dieser Webseite zu verbessern. Weitere Informationen zum Datenschutz finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.