From Newsgroup: soc.history.war.misc

Bachem Ba-349 Natter = most dangerous aircraft of WW II
from Quora - perhaps best to search there for the photos
Brian Gomez
-+
Follow
22h
There is a full size replica at the planes of fame museum in Chino
California, great to see there

Profile photo for Adler
Adler
World War II Enthusiast Jan 14
What was the most dangerous aircraft to fly in WW2?
The most dangerous aircraft of WW2 was undoubtedly the Bachem Ba-349 Natter.


The Bachem Ba-349 Natter was a very late war German rocket interceptor,
and the most dangerous aircraft of WW2, if not in history.

The reason for this aircraft being so incredibly dangerous was a very unreliable propulsion system, poor choice of building materials, a very advanced design which could not have been perfected to safety, and
extreme physical strain on the pilot.

rCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCorCo-

For one, the Ba-349 was launched vertically with the use of its rocket
engine and the help of 4 rocket boosters, accelerating to a speed of
1000km/h and reaching an altitude of 12,000 meters in a single minute.
During this climb the pilot would experience a force of 3Gs (as much as astronauts on the Space Shuttle). The rocket engines were prone to
failure, and due to the nature of the takeoff, their loss could have
meant a major thrust imbalance and subsequent crash of the aircraft. On
the very first flight of the Natter (March 1st, 1945), the main engine
did just that, and stalled at 15 seconds after launch, resulting in the aircraftrCOs crash with the death of its pilot 17 seconds later. Should
the aircraft reach altitude successfully, the booster rockets would be jettisoned, and the Natter would continue flight towards the target
bomber formation. This came with yet another issue of the boosters
failing to separate (this happened on the March 1st flight mentioned previously), which at high speeds would become a great aerodynamic
burden. The Natter was armed with up to 33 unguided air to air rockets
or 2 MK 108 cannons positioned in the nose of the aircraft. While this
was a good armament, aiming it at such high speeds would have been
incredibly difficult, especially taking into account the fact that the
Natter was designed for novice pilots. Upon exhausting its fuel, the
pilot would have glided the aircraft to an altitude of roughly 3,000
meters, where the front half of the cockpit would separate from the
aircraft. The pilot would be ejected, and both the aircraft and pilot
would subsequently land by parachute. If this was not bad enough
already, the aircraft used a combination of T-Stoff oxidizer and C-Stoff
fuel, which were extremely corrosive and would literally dissolve the
pilot should he come into physical contact with them. Oh, and did I
mention this thing was made primarily out of wood, which was held
together with glue and nails?

Now for a perspective, this aircraft was more dangerous than most
kamikazes. It wasnrCOt too infrequent that kamikazes would return from
their mission due to not locating a decent target or due to a mechanical failure, whereas the Natter was a near certain death sentence due to its
very own design.


199K views1.7K upvotes12 shares91 comments
2.5K views
View 13 upvotes

John Doherty
-+ Jan 15
In the 80rCOs, I was a Tech Rep for Xerox. Had an design engineer do a
field ride with me. Turned out, he was an ex Luftwaffe fighter pilot
from WW2. He had been assigned to an Me163 squadron, but rCLfortunatelyrCY
was badly wounded when his FW190 was hit attacking American B-17rCOs.

BTW. he said attacking those huge formations of bombers (he said he was
not concerned with the fighters) was like, his words, not mine, rCLfucking
a porcupine on firerCY.

Profile photo for Adler
Profile photo for Peter Chapa
Peter Chapa
-+ Jan 15
Yeah, and everyone knows what that feels like

Profile photo for Kelly Pedron
Kelly Pedron
-+ Jan 15
I donrCOt; but I donrCOt think I want to find out, either.

Profile photo for Paul Wickham
Paul Wickham
-+ Fri
A man with no imagination?

Profile photo for Chris Hall
Chris Hall
-+ Jan 28
I love that description.

Janos
-+ Jan 15
rCLMein Herren, we have two choices at this stage of the war. Either
surrender and stop murdering people, this would also immediately stop
the bombardment and destruction of our Vaterland. Or strap our boys into coffins and fire them at those bombers like firework, this would also
give our other troops and civilians the chance to keep dying without one
good f_cking reason. All in favor of Option 2?rCY

Profile photo for Steven Williams
Steven Williams
-+ Jan 15
WowrCa.I can see Wiley E. Coyote strapped to it banging on its ignition
with an ACME hammer Efye Efye

Profile photo for Stephen Binion
Stephen Binion
-+ Jan 15

I think the Ohka flying bombs were probably less safe than the Natter.

Profile photo for Adler
Profile photo for Adler
Adler
-+ Jan 15
Thus I said most kamikazes. Yes, the Ohka and Reichenberg bombs where
more dangerous since they where unable to land at all; and offered very little, if any, chance to bail out.


Profile photo for Stephen Binion
Profile photo for Mateusz Janicki
Mateusz Janicki
-+ Jan 25
Technically, at least you were sure to get to the target without fear of spontaneous rapid disassembly midway. And they werenrCOt supposed to
return at all, while Natter was technically reusable.

Profile photo for Krystian Lambui
Krystian Lambui
-+ Sun
The American sailors called them Baka which means Idiot in Japanese.

Profile photo for Stephen Binion
Profile photo for Ronald Mandell
Ronald Mandell
-+ Jan 14
ItrCOs hard to believe that any wesrwern pilot would have agreed to
attempt to fly this plane, or that the high command would anthorize such
a scene.

Profile photo for Bruce Robertson
Bruce Robertson
-+ Jan 15
It was war time, many in the military, airmen and others, routinely went
on what were little more than suicide missions.



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.war.misc

"a425couple" wrote in message news:P_NoP.170142$GtJ8.63803@fx48.iad...

Bachem Ba-349 Natter = most dangerous aircraft of WW II ---------------------------------------------------

The Me-163 wasn't far behind. This is a good story by a surviving pilot: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/rocket-fighter_mano-ziegler/381122/item/4659765/? The small view of the cover doesn't show that it was fleeing in a hail of 50 cal tracers from the ball and front turrets.

Much of the book details the many ways it could kill its pilots, with little on combat successes because they were rare and very difficult to achieve in the too brief flight time. They definitely respected the bombers' firepower and attacked from only a few angles that took time to reach.

Despite its rocket power the Me-163 wasn't supersonic, it would snap into a sudden uncontrolled climb or dive around Mach 0.85.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2