German “Viper” Rocket Powered Interceptor

hasdrubal barca · Jul 21, 2014

German “Viper” Rocket Powered Interceptor

Another crazy German project, enjoy

What if the Germany was able to produce the Bachem BA 349 Natter (Viper), Rocket Powered Interceptor, in large numbers?

Say Germany is able to fix the issues with the program and actually make it workable, what effect could it have had? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

On another note what potential did the two programs listed below have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_117

Garrison · Jul 21, 2014

hasdrubal barca said:
German “Viper” Rocket Powered Interceptor

Another crazy German project, enjoy

What if the Germany was able to produce the Bachem BA 349 Natter (Viper), Rocket Powered Interceptor, in large numbers?

Say Germany is able to fix the issues with the program and actually make it workable, what effect could it have had? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

On another note what potential did the two programs listed below have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_117

The Natter's major issue is that it was ever approved to be built in the first place. It's a terrible design and if it did see combat I doubt it would fare any better than the Me163. The other missile programs had potential but the lack of resources and infighting between various research teams mean that neither is likely to achieve any great military results.

Michel Van · Jul 21, 2014

the Bachem BA 349 Natter was a last attempt for rocket interceptor under Emergency Fighter Program
build from glued Wood and existing aircraft parts.
biggest problem was stabile launch and put the plane together after landing, because it separate into pieces which landed with parachute.

after some flights the crap plane would even not usable as firewood…

Good rocket interceptor was successor of Me 163, the Me 263 aka Junkers Ju 248
But RLM make from that program a mess by transfer the program from Messerschmitt to Junkers and back.

it had be powered by the more powerful BMW 109-708 rocket engine (two nozzle one takeoff and one flight), retractable landing gear and new pressurized cockpit and bubble canopy.

brovane · Jul 21, 2014

hasdrubal barca said:
German “Viper” Rocket Powered Interceptor

Another crazy German project, enjoy

What if the Germany was able to produce the Bachem BA 349 Natter (Viper), Rocket Powered Interceptor, in large numbers?

Say Germany is able to fix the issues with the program and actually make it workable, what effect could it have had? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349

On another note what potential did the two programs listed below have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_117

I think you would have gotten more effectiveness from your investment by pushing the Wasserfall into service before the Natter.

thaddeus · Jul 22, 2014

my scenario was to launch the ME-163 as a glider equipped with a rocket booster which could be fired to make a strafing run or perhaps fired intermittently to stay aloft (they had a similar plan for the DFS high altitude recon gliders.)

OTL time aloft? 6 -12 minutes? ITTL at least they could be aloft much longer. imagine they would be disruptive, allowing the piston engine German fighters an opening.

brovane · Jul 22, 2014

thaddeus said:
my scenario was to launch the ME-163 as a glider equipped with a rocket booster which could be fired to make a strafing run or perhaps fired intermittently to stay aloft (they had a similar plan for the DFS high altitude recon gliders.)

OTL time aloft? 6 -12 minutes? ITTL at least they could be aloft much longer. imagine they would be disruptive, allowing the piston engine German fighters an opening.

Would the ME-263 be better at this role? I think it was proposed to have a endurance of 15 minutes.

thaddeus · Jul 22, 2014

thaddeus said:
my scenario was to launch the ME-163 as a glider equipped with a rocket booster which could be fired to make a strafing run or perhaps fired intermittently to stay aloft (they had a similar plan for the DFS high altitude recon gliders.)

OTL time aloft? 6 -12 minutes? ITTL at least they could be aloft much longer. imagine they would be disruptive, allowing the piston engine German fighters an opening.

brovane said:
Would the ME-263 be better at this role? I think it was proposed to have a endurance of 15 minutes.

sure it was an improvement but still is requiring rocket fuel to launch, if they were launched by conventional fighters they could "hang around" before firing the rocket engine to attack. (my figure of 12 minutes was derived from articles stating the ME-263 had twice the flight time of original.)

my view the rocket planes would not replace piston engine or future jet engine planes but the older planes could not get to the Allied bombers and jet engines were in short supply.

Just Leo · Jul 22, 2014

thaddeus said:
sure it was an improvement but still is requiring rocket fuel to launch, if they were launched by conventional fighters they could "hang around" before firing the rocket engine to attack. (my figure of 12 minutes was derived from articles stating the ME-263 had twice the flight time of original.)

my view the rocket planes would not replace piston engine or future jet engine planes but the older planes could not get to the Allied bombers and jet engines were in short supply.

Your launch plan would lead to some Me-110s, the customary tow-plane, being shot down by marauding Mustangs, leading to a shortage of tow-planes.

Dan Reilly The Great · Jul 22, 2014

thaddeus said:
my scenario was to launch the ME-163 as a glider equipped with a rocket booster which could be fired to make a strafing run or perhaps fired intermittently to stay aloft (they had a similar plan for the DFS high altitude recon gliders.)

OTL time aloft? 6 -12 minutes? ITTL at least they could be aloft much longer. imagine they would be disruptive, allowing the piston engine German fighters an opening.

In an interceptor, the Germans needed a craft that could be launched quickly, and require minimal manpower costs. This suggested setup would do the opposite.

Saphroneth · Jul 22, 2014

Wasn't this the line of aircraft that could melt the pilots?

Cook · Jul 22, 2014

Saphroneth said:
Wasn't this the line of aircraft that could melt the pilots?

You are thinking of the Me-163 Komet. The engine was fuelled by C-Stoff, which was a hypergolic fuel mixture, and T-Stoff, aHigh Test Peroxide, which was 80% Hydrogen Peroxide. The these were combined in the engine combustion chamber where, because of their extreme reactant and oxidant natures, spontaneous combustion would take place. In addition to the constant risk of catastrophic explosions, the very toxic nature of C-Stoff and T-Stoff, as well as the toxic exhaust vapours, C-Stoff sometimes also ate its way through the poor quality fuel tank, spraying into the cockpit where it would dissolve flesh in seconds. Fun stuff.

A number of Me-163's were also sabotaged by the slave labourers who assembled them.

Saphroneth · Jul 22, 2014

Cook said:
You are thinking of the Me-163 Komet. The engine was fuelled by C-Stoff, which was a hypergolic fuel mixture, and T-Stoff, aHigh Test Peroxide, which was 80% Hydrogen Peroxide. The these were combined in the engine combustion chamber where, because of their extreme reactant and oxidant natures, spontaneous combustion would take place. In addition to the constant risk of catastrophic explosions, the very toxic nature of C-Stoff and T-Stoff, as well as the toxic exhaust vapours, C-Stoff sometimes also ate its way through the poor quality fuel tank, spraying into the cockpit where it would dissolve flesh in seconds. Fun stuff.

A number of Me-163's were also sabotaged by the slave labourers who assembled them.

I know the Me 163 was the actual production one that did that - but if this other interceptor is also rocket powered, wouldn't it then use the same fuel?

(And at least they didn't use chlorine tetraflouride)

Cook · Jul 22, 2014

hasdrubal barca said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall

The principal flaw with Wasserfall is its guidance, it relied on an operator on the ground directing it by radio. This radio control method would have left open the opportunity for jamming countermeasure by the allies if it had gone into large scale production. A better alternative would have been to have initial post-launch control by wire guidance, followed by the use a small on board radar, simple analog computer to guide it close to that target, at which point a proximity fuse would trigger detonation. All such items were available to the Germans during the war. The principal problem with Wesserfall and the other defencive measures is that far too much resources in the form of scientists, engineers, technitions and materials were devoted to the V-2 instead.

Cook · Jul 22, 2014

Saphroneth said:
I know the Me 163 was the actual production one that did that - but if this other interceptor is also rocket powered, wouldn't it then use the same fuel?

After a quick check it seems you are correct, the Natter's engines used the same bipropellant system, with all the same drawbacks.

Wolf1965 · Jul 22, 2014

The Natter was unlikly to be very sucessful. The best hope of the "Jägernotprogram" was probably the He-162 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162 which was also build with a lot of wood, had definitvly good enough speed and was supposedly easy to fly.

Saphroneth · Jul 22, 2014

Cook said:
After a quick check it seems you are correct, the Natter's engines used the same bipropellant system, with all the same drawbacks.

German interceptor pilots: "What a world, what a world..."

Meadow · Jul 22, 2014

This thing was so fun to fly in BF1942: Secret Weapons of WWII.

thaddeus · Jul 22, 2014

Just Leo said:
Your launch plan would lead to some Me-110s, the customary tow-plane, being shot down by marauding Mustangs, leading to a shortage of tow-planes.

Dan Reilly The Great said:
In an interceptor, the Germans needed a craft that could be launched quickly, and require minimal manpower costs. This suggested setup would do the opposite.

my scenario is similar to launch plan for BV-40 glider, but the glider would have a small rocket booster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_40

they were projected to be launched by Bf-109s, so my scenario a number of rocket gliders lifted aloft with fighter squadron to try and disrupt Allied formations. of course this would not preclude other ME-163s being launched under their own power per the original setup.

Delta Force · Jul 22, 2014

A program that relies on people perfectly operating sophisticated new weapons with minimal training isn't crazy enough to work, it's just crazy.

Saphroneth · Jul 22, 2014

Delta Force said:
A program that relies on people perfectly operating sophisticated new weapons with minimal training isn't crazy enough to work, it's just crazy.

http://www.viruscomix.com/page463.html
This explains all.