Mistel, composite attack aircraft.

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#1

Mistel composite attack aircraft:

Early development.

In search of a better means of towing transport gliders than the previous rope towing method, research was conducted by the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug (DFS) at Ainring near Freilassing (Bavaria).

In addition to fixed towing, this research included the piggyback or “Mistel” (mistletoe) method. With this type of towing, it was planned to affix a smaller motorized aircraft to the larger DFS 230 transport glider using a detachable connector.
The intended goal: takeoff on its own power, i.e. dispensing with a tow plane, and then having the Mistel combination separate at a preplanned altitude and preplanned time.
The testing program began on 1 September 1942, Fritz Stamer viewed the Mistel Gmposition with a rather large mething like this had been tried in Germany.

The British “piggyback aircarft” Short Mayo version, which had previously been flown with success, was known to the group. But at that time much experimentation was being done in the field of aeronautics, and so it was that these British flights didn’t spark any particular interest.

In any case, DFS “reinvented” the Mistel towing method, meaning that it was developed independent of the research and testing results of another group.
The first Mistel combination was a Klemm 35 supported on a DFS 230 transport glider. The connection between the two planes consisted of a rope pyramid, the uppermost point of which was attached to the fuselage underside of the Kl 35.

The Klemm’s tail strut rested on a vertical hollow steel tubing brace, so that the upper aircraft had the same flight attitude as the glider. The landing gear sat in wheel supports which were attached to the wings.
The rope pyramid was stressed in such a manner so that the landing gear suspension on the Kl35 was fully compressed.

When the connection was released, the aircraft was then given an additional “boost” upward, quickly separating itself from the transport glider.

A ju 52 served as a tow plane, The Klemm’s motor was running at full throttle, which shortened the takeoff run. The planned altitude of 2000 meters was attained without incident, and the Mistel was released from its Ju 52. After descending 500 meters the team separated, having determined that the engine of the Ki 35 was too weak to maintain altitude with the DFS 230.

Separation occurred without mishap. Karl Schieferstein
gave the Klemm full throttle and at the same time Kurt Oppitz slowed his bird down; the Klemm immediately pulled up and away. the test was completed succesfully several times, The next option was for an combination capable to take off under its own power.

#2

Looking for Power.

The next aircraft to be set atop the DFS 230 was the Fw 56 “Stosser”, which could maintain altitude as part of a Mistel team thanks to its more powerful engine. An independent takeoff without a tow aircraft was still not
possible, however.

FW 56 / DFS 230

Nevertheless, it was already apparent that the Mistel method was generally more advantageous than other methods of towing.
In order to achieve an independent takeoff, a Messerschmitt Bf 109 E with 1100 hp engine was set on the DFS 230, but not without modifying the glider beforehand.

It was given a leaf-spnng landing gear with the wheels of a Junkers W 34 and the tailwheel of a Henschel Hs 126, the fuselage was strengthened and for the first time the upper aircraft rested on a support mount with its landing gear retracted. Together with additional safety measuresfor the pilot of th; DFS 230, the transport glider’s weight had increased by 600 kg. This time the takeoffs would not be perfomed from the relatively small grass strip at Ainring; instead, the longer and solid main concrete airstrip was
used.

This airfield was also utilized by the DFS. The Bf 109 e/DFS 230, with Zitter/ Schieferstein as pilots, took
off without a hitch on 21 June 1943, climbed to an altitude of 2000 meters and reached a maximum speed of 240 kmh. No separation occurred and the team landed 40 minutes later in good order. Immediately aftenvard the combination took off again, this time with the intention of separating in flight.

Messer Me-109 E /DFS 230 combination.

During this procedure, at an altitude of 1500 meters, Schieferstein broke cleanly away in his Bf 109. Zitter’s glider, however, suddenly pitched nose upward probably due to the adverse flight path profile and brushed solidly against the Bf 109’s coupling with its canopy. As a result, the support mount was improved, and the installation of a dive brake provided the necessary flight attitude.
Once again, takeoffs were made back at Ainring, since the Bf 109 E/DFS 230 combination onlv needed a takeoff run of 400 meters.

#3

The Arado E.377
The carrier was a He 162 or Ar 234.
In the case of the Ar 234 the BMW 003s were not needed.
The payload was 2500 (2000 in front, 500 in back) of liquid explosives.

#4

Interesting , the Arado combination look better than the fragile He-162 one.

Adaptation for Combat:

In the fall of 1943 the DFS trials were concluded Holzbaur himself had tested this new system. The director of the institute, Fritz Stamer, even (e.g. ships) size could be accurately targeted and hit considered it within the realm of possibility to have a Bf from a distance of more than 10 km. Nevertheless, the 109 and a Ju 88, for example, take off singly and couple RLM was still not interested and a development contogether once in the air. tract was not forthcoming. Holzbaur was able to demonstrate this automatic control.

Combat Misteln

At the beginning of the Second World War Siegfried Holzbaur, Flugkapitan and chief test pilot at Junkers Flugzeugbau, had the idea to utilize a Mistel combination
for attacking targets. The Mistel would consist of a “Grossbombe”, or large bomb of simple design and minimal cost, carried to the target by a smaller plane resting on top of it.

Holzbaur proposed this concept to the Junkers firm and in 1940 patent protection was even applied for, but otherwise
the design wasn’t pursued further. At that time, victory after victory was being reported, the Luftwaffe shooting down and bombing al1 opponents wherever they could be found, and the ship tonnage being sunk was climbing to dizzying heights at least that’s what could be heard and seen on a daily basis. Two facts gave renewed life to Holzbaur’s idea:

  1. the blatant disparity between the ships sunk and the loss in friendly aircraft (statistically speaking, one ship
    equaled 27 aircraft), and:

  2. the precise execution of target approaches by means of a new course guidance system which had hitherto not been possible. In 1941 get run during a visit by Major Peltz to Junkers, and considerable interest ensued. Such a Grossbombe used against a point target would mean one ship = one aircraft!

The operation was similar to the Japanese karnikaze attacks, but without having to sacrifice the pilot. Peltz and Baumbach interested Goring in the possibility of converting aircraft which were no longer in serviceable
condition over to Grossbomben, whereby the upper aircraft - after separation - would be a fully operational fighter and thus have the greatest chance of survival. Goring arranged it so that Junkers - in strict
secrecy could provide the appropriate modifications to a few aircraft.

Holzbaur’s Grossbombe concept had now, for al1 practica1 purposes, become a reality; in official circles it was called the “Beethoven-Gerat”, but the troops called it “Mistel”, the name by which it became popularly known.

In mid-1943, as Junkers learned of the test results from the DFS, closer cooperation between the institute and Junkers grew, with the latter making a “Mistei” converted Ju 88 A-4 available for testing. Junkers and DFS personnel worked together at the Ainring airfield on the
continuing development of the Mistel.

After a complete redesign of the support brace for the Bf 109 F, separation from the Ju 88 occurred without problem. It was planned to utilize a simplified landing gear for the Mistel lower component (i.e. the Ju 88), which would be droppable and not require hydraulic operation.

To be continued…

#5

There was a one with me 262 on top, ju 287 on bottom.
Me 328 on ju 290Z. (the Me 328 was to be escort.)
/(@o@)/\ This must be the closest thing Pzk got to make a website.

#6

A image of the Me-328 “parasite Fighter” .

This must be the closest thing Pzk got to make a website.

Why not ?, I am using this server to accumulate data, data that could be transfered to my page if eventually I have that.

me328-1.jpg

#7

I knew it! /(‘o’)>

#8

Combat Mistel (II) targeting and explosive payload.

The penetration depth of the Mistel combination into enemy territory was naturally dependent upon the weight of the explosives canied, the capacity of the auxiliary fueL tanks, rernoval of all unnecessary parts, etc. 1,500 km with 3.5 tons of explosive charge was considered to be posible.
Based upon the data from the DFS, a flight altitude of 3000 to 5000 meters would be considered the rnost effective for the maximum penetration of enemy airspace.

The fuel for the control aircraft’s retum flight would be drawn from the Ju 88’s tanks, since the aircraft would have to begin its trip home with full tanks.
The determination of the DFS to use the Bf 109/Ju 88 combination as a Grossbombe turned out to be quite good: minimal personnel requirements (1 pilot), large distance to target following separation and finally, a fully operation fighter iin the form of the control aircraft.

The most effective type of explosive was achieved by the hollow charge, a type of giant Panzerfaust. Duds were avoided by using four completely separate fuses and an extended fuse (called an “elephant’s trunk”) ensured that upon impact the base of the hollow charge would be ignited first; the sequence of detonation would then progress from rear to front. A shaft of flame and melted copper (or other soft metal) would be propelled forward, melting its way through the armor plating of the target. Only then would the actual 3.5 t charge detonate. The first live tests began in May of 1944. Takeoff was from Peenemünde and the target was the chalk cliffs of Móen, Denmark. As a result of an unintentional break in the electrical feed to the autopilot of Holzbaur’s Bf 109, an emergency separation took place and the Mistel occurs smoothly crashed on the island of Rügen, barely tree kilometers from a village.

The powerful explosion from the hollow charge left nothing remaining of the Ju 88, but other than a few damaged buildings there were no further casualties.

Images of the Schulmistel 1 (School mistel i.e training Mistel) on ground, air and the moment of separation.

The incident was kept under tight wrap and the “crew” of the crashed plane even received a “burial.” The second live test, on 31 May 1944, resulted in a lateral deviation of 100 meters and a 40 meter overshoot of the target at a launch range of 4 km. Allied reconnaissance wasn’t sleeping, either, and on 16 June 1944 warnings were already being issued to be on the lookout for German “Mistel” aircraft.

After the first failed attempt Holzhaur again flew to the chalk cliffs of Móen in August of 1944, this time with an Fw 190 as a control plane. He released the lower plane at a distance of 1,500 meters from the target and [/COLOR][COLOR=black]an altitude of 800 meters and, despite the poor weather conditions, scored a relatively successful hit. All Kampfmistel lower components were Ju 88s of the most varied construction and of Zustand 3 (Class 3), meaning repaired and in flyable condition (Zustand 4 meant scrap). It was a tight squeeze in the cockpit of the control aircraft, since nearly all functions for the Ju 88 were assumed by the control pilot.

#9

Loading the massive Hohlladung (Hollow charge) warhead in a Ju-88A kampfmistel.

#10

I never knew what the peculiar shape of the noses of Mistel bombers were. It realy does look like a Pzf. What was the gimmick of this? (ju287/Me262)

#11

There is already a topic on this.

The above picture is a model makers wet dream. It never saw combat. But towards the end of the war, all manner of aircraft were mated and used as Mistles.

Jet planes weren’t though.

Some people just get excited thinking about the achievements of te Nazis and crack on from there.

#12

Correct me if im wrong, but I think there was a Me262/Me262 combo.

#13

I never knew what the peculiar shape of the noses of Mistel bombers were. It realy does look like a Pzf. What was the gimmick of this? (ju287/Me262)

The used in Ju-88 Mistels was definately a oversized shaped chage. And yes works in the same way of the antitank weapon.

Looking for more info about the model ( by the way the lower aircraft is not a Ju-287) I found this Me-262A-2/U2 bomber with a pilotless Me-262 below, I dont know if this design used a shaped chage in the lower airplane. The composite aircraft take off on a trolley, but probably never reach the prototype stage.

#14

You’re WRONG!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

No, seriously there was a design as PK shows above, and it was thought about, but never actually carried out in practice.

The combination that was actually used was the Ju 88/Fw 109 mistle.

There were plans to use the Me 190 in place of the 109.

Towards the end of the war, designs were thrown together for all sorts of combination including the 262/262. However, the design as shown above was quite a feat of engineering to accomplish, and it would have wasted the precious few jet engines/262s Germany had.

#15

You’re WRONG!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

No, seriously there was a design as PK shows above, and it was thought about, but it never actually became reality.

The combinations that were actually used (operationaly) were the Ju 88/Me 109 and Ju 88/Bf 190 mistle.

Towards the end of the war, designs were thrown together for all sorts of combination including the 262/262. However, the design as shown above was quite a feat of engineering to accomplish, and it would have wasted the precious few jet engines/262s Germany had.

There were only 250 (give or take) mistles created. The vast majority on NEW Ju 88s. There is a beleif that they were surplus or old air frames, but after the first few prototypes they were purpose built Ju 88s for the mistle project.

#16

Walther , here is the combination Ju-287/Me-262, remain as projeky only.

#17

Im Walter. People confuse me with that pistol.
Anyway, thanks.
Ive also seen Fw190/V-1

probably a project.

#18

Interesting to note.

The mistle concept was of a plane that could be ferried by a bomber, for self protection.

The idea being the bombers realise the “parasite fighter”, the fighter defends them, then heads home. THis would extend the fighters range.

THe americans tried a similar thing in the 50s with its FICON, or fighter convery project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project

#19

Also there was the XF-85 “goblin”.

Good Mistel site.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/mistel/mistel.htm

#20

Hmmm…that combination Fw-190 / V1 even amusing is not true.

Mistel in action !!

2/KG 101 received the first five Kampfmistel aircraft and formal training began in the spring of 1944 in Nordhausen; later the unit moved to Kolberg on the Baltic Sea.
Since this was to be purely training, both upper and lower aircraft were manned, but the Ju 88s were readied to the point to where they could he modified to flying bombs with little effort. With the beginning of the Allied invasion on the Normandy coast IVIKG 101 transferred from Nordhausen to St. Dizier with twelve Misteln.

Combat ready Mistels, June 1944.

There the Ju 88 nose glazing was replaced by the 3.6 tons hollow charge explosive. On 24 June the 12 Misteln took off on a strike against the ships in the mouth of the Seine and Orne rivers.
Due to a technical malfunction, one Mistel was aborted during approach to the area; it continued flying in a straight path as far as the Scottish mainland. Another Mistel was intercepted and shot down by a Mosquito as the group approached the target, with the Bf 109 breaking away and disappearing and the Ju 88 exploding in the sea. The ship targets concealed themselves in smoke, thereby preventing the Germans from fully determining the efficacy of their attack. Allied and German data also differentiated in the fact that even if damage did occur as a result, it was probably against the “blockade ships”, expressly designed to absorb such attacks one first Mistel Gruppe was formed from 2/KG 101 as the II/KG 66, from which II/KG 200 was born and
whose 6 Staffel (insignia “father and son”) was exclusively responsible for Mistel operations. 5KG 200 functioned as pathfinders and 7/KG 200 was an operational training and auxiliary unit.

There then followed the occasional combat mission, most of which failed in their attempts; “misfires” terrified the English population when they detonated in the countryside, even if they didn’t cause any casualties.

Combat group of 6/KG 200 July 1944.

There were also Gerrnan losses during low-level flights in bad weather, etc., with the Misteln usually exploding somewhere in the countryside.
In the fall of 1944 60 Misteln were collected together at the Danish airfields of Grove, Tilstrup and Aalborg- West for an attack on the British Home Fleet in the ScapaFlow.

Bad weather repeatedly caused delays for the long flight over water. The main reason preventing the Home Fleet from leaving, the German battleship Tirpitz, was finally sunk after several attacks by British bombers on 12 November 1944 in Tromso. The fleet was then able to leave its base, the Mistel target ceased to exist and plans for the attack were scrapped