Inflight refueling

[PMN1]

How about why inflight refulelling wasn't used to close the Atlantic gap sooner.

It had been trialed before the war, BOAC had actually done it with their flying boats in their battle against PanAm and if you read the British Aircraft Specifications book then quite a lot of the 35 - 39 specs for bombers and patrol aircraft state 'An inflight refueling capability is required'. The strange thing here is for the Shorts Shetland patrol aircraft the spec states 'an inflight refuelling capabilty is NOT required'

[PMN1]

The inflight refuelling should have been in the 'Ideas' thread

[andyo2000]

I have a magazine article around it somewhere around here in the Spring 2004 edition of the "American Heritage of Invention & Technology" which is about in-flight refuelings entitled "Gas Stations in the Sky". I recommend picking up a copy if you are interested in the history of this topic.

To quote the article, "The U.S. military also stepped back from refueling technology in the 1930s . . . research continued, however, in other countries, particularly in Great Britain."

The US military thought dangling a hose from an aircraft was a primitive technique. This was one weak link in how in-flight refueling worked in those days, and is still one today to some extent. Another is the unfortunate series of mishaps in American due to and in the field of in-flight refueling, which were mostly due to poor preparation, communication, or training. American military aviation enthusiasts were unenthusiastic about refueling of this type, thinking it dangerous, unproven, and a needless annoyance. Commerical airlines didn't give the technology a second chance.

[robert]

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but there is an excellent book, Seventy-Five Years of Inflight Refueling: Highlights, 1923-1998, by Richard K. Smith, that is out of print, but which you can download free as a PDF from the US Air Force Historical Branch web site.

The entire text of the 86 page book is included, but unfortunately, not the pictures. But the chapter "Wartime Might-Have-Beens" has lots of interesting information about plans that never materialized.

Download the book at:

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/smithsevety.htm

[B-24WillowRun]

The midair refueling would have worked, but US designers favored the idea of holding all the fuel you need for the flight. It was tested with a C-109 and latter B-29s were converted for inflight tests. The flexible hose system that was used had its drawbacks because of the fear it would be cut by a prop.

If they system would have been used in the war it could have allowed the atlantic to be closed and even to increase bomber range, though that would be I think for smaller formations. Imagine trying to refuel a 1000 bomber formation.[:p]

[andyo2000]

Now, while refueling bomber formations may have been a good idea, there a few reasons why it would never have been accepted. First, imagine a formation dependent on fuel to get home. Then, a lucky piece of flak downs the tanker. Well, then the entire formation goes down. That's a bit risky. Normally, one downed plane usually just means a little psych warfare against the remaining planes. Second, planes were in short supply. Every combatant country was making as many planes as they could, and experimenting with unusual techniques with planes needed on the fronts was not something that came about full force until the late 40s.

And while flexible hoses did not work for the most part, one ingenious RAF pilot came up with a great idea at a Chicago airshow. He imagined a plane flying alongside a tanker. The plane trails a long hose, the tanker shoots a hook and drags it in, attaches another hose, and than the first plane reels it all in. While it may have sounded absurd, this was bought by a British company which, and its name just slipped my mind, was the primary expert on refueling through the 60s for all militaries. It won a patent in the US as well.

[B-24WillowRun]

That is a good point, but I was not thinking of return trips more to try and top off after the groups had formed up. This might be best thought of for a smaller formation. I know planes were tight for all, but this fueling could have helped to get B-24s and other bombers to Japan faster and not have the airfields or as meny Marine Landings. This is just my thought.:)

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

Now, while refueling bomber formations may have been a good idea, there a few reasons why it would never have been accepted. First, imagine a formation dependent on fuel to get home. Then, a lucky piece of flak downs the tanker. Well, then the entire formation goes down. That's a bit risky. Normally, one downed plane usually just means a little psych warfare against the remaining planes. Second, planes were in short supply. Every combatant country was making as many planes as they could, and experimenting with unusual techniques with planes needed on the fronts was not something that came about full force until the late 40s.



Wasn't it planned by the RAF for its 'Tiger Force', 2 Lancasters were converted to carry a bloody great saddle tank between the cockpit and where the dorsal turrret started which would increase fuel by 50% but IFR was considered safer.

I've seen text stating 40 squadrons of bombers and 40 squadrons of tankers which seems quite a lot of tankers to me.

Here is a picture of the hose and grapple method that I think was going to be used - the receiving aircraft plays out a hook to catch the fuel line that is trailed by the tanker - why the blindingly obvious hose and drogue method wasn't thought up sooner for bombers at least is another mystery to me

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/ww2.php

The article mentions 500 bombers and an equal number of tankers.

It also mentions a study being done using a Stirling (this is the first I've heard of this) - I'd say the Stirling would be a good tanker aircrfat for LRMP aircraft as its limited ceiling shouldn't cause too many problems. The impractibilities of large scale use would also presumably be reduced as there are less aircrfat in Coastal Command that could be air to air refueled than in Bomber Command.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by andyo2000

And while flexible hoses did not work for the most part, one ingenious RAF pilot came up with a great idea at a Chicago airshow. He imagined a plane flying alongside a tanker. The plane trails a long hose, the tanker shoots a hook and drags it in, attaches another hose, and than the first plane reels it all in. While it may have sounded absurd, this was bought by a British company which, and its name just slipped my mind, was the primary expert on refueling through the 60s for all militaries. It won a patent in the US as well.


Flight Refuelling

[andyo2000]

I stand corrected :D. Apparantly, I am in want of better sources.

[B-24WillowRun]

WE are all her to learn.;)
But if these talkers would have been developed then it would seem you would need less tankers to bombers. Say each tanker should beable to handle two or three bombers? This might be a strech so please corect me if I am a little grandios.

That is if you are not fueling a B-29, then it is about two Tankers useing the C-109, to top off the B-29.:(

[PMN1]

Does anyone know what method was used by Alan Cobham with the Empire flying boats prior to WW2 - Line and Grapple or trailing Hose Drogue as is used today?

Also has anyone seen any correspondence on the airspace required to refuel the Tiger force aircraft?

[Corsarius]

I'm a fan of inflight refuelling. I am pretty sure (don't quote me, though) that it was hose and drogue.

I also recall that for early modes it was mostly a 'gravity feed'. The 'tanker' flew above the fuelling aircraft, lowered a hose, then some <s>patsy</s> noncommissioned airman climbed out and plugged it in, just like on the ground, and turned on the tap.

I've never understood the American pechant for the 'flying boom' model of refuelling. To my mind it appears less safe and even more finicky than hose and drogue which, after seeing some RAAF videotapes, makes you realise just how hard a job it is!

[edit]
Not quite inflight refuelling, but I advise anyone interested in B-29 operations to look up 'project tom tom'. This was a postwar idea of attaching two escort fighters (in this case F-84s) to the tips of the bombers wings attached to the fuel lines by flexible mountings in an attempt to bolster range.

Not surprisingly, both Einstein and Venturi both disagreed with this arrangement, and, shortly afterwards, so did Isaac Newton.

[Trexx]

This whole thing vexxes me. 1925 was the year that it was successfully tried in the United States...
Airplanes then where a threat to 'old school' military staunches maybe. Airplane use was unpopular in the higher echelons so I imagine the idea of inflight refueling was considered a convoluted procedure for low value idea. Them dudes were dummies. ;)

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

I'm a fan of inflight refuelling. I am pretty sure (don't quote me, though) that it was hose and drogue.




This could be where the uncertainty comes in, from what i've read, the grapple and trailing hose method used a drogue to stabilise the hose and stop wild movements to allow the receiving aircraft to catch it with the grapple.

Pictures taken of IFR pre war mostly show the fuel line in a loop between the two aircraft which does seem to rule out probe and hose/droge method and support the grapple and hose method.

[ChrisMcD]

Slightly out of time context!

The RAF, Black Buck bombing misions to the Falklands had a ratio of one bomber to 12 tankers!

http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb1.html

All probe and drogue as far as I am aware.

And there was at least one unscheduled trip to Rio because of a refill failure.

[PMN1]

Quoting PMN1 (Reply 2):
British Aircraft Specifications book then quite a lot of the 35 - 39 specs for bombers and patrol aircraft state 'An inflight refueling capability is required'.

which most likely would have meant an ability to fill the fuel tanks from cans of fuel carried inside the aircraft, which was practiced startin in the 1920s.

Quoting PMN1 (Reply 2):
why the blindingly obvious hose and drogue method wasn't thought up sooner for bombers at least and had to wait until after WW2 is another mystery to me

The idea was likely around, but the implementation, especially the locking mechanisms, weren't available.

Two replies i have had on another site

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/67858/

Has anyone heard of refueling in flight from cans stored in the aircraft - sounds very dodgey to me.

Any thoughts on the locking mechanism idea?

[Montana]

Hi there,

I know that, the Douglas C-47 Dakota was definitely prepared to do so. It had a hatch at the bottom of it's cargo-department, where a valve was installed in the aircraft's fuel-lines. There you could connect a hose and refill the plane's tanks via a hand-pump from gasoline-drums which were carried as cargo.

B-17's had provision to install additional fuel-tanks in the bomb-bay for ferry-flights or, for extremely long-enduring sea-patrols. IIRC, those tanks were used by that B-17 bomber-group, which was based at Midway prior to the Battle of Midway - to increase the patrol-radius of said B-17.

PBY-Catalinas carried a large extra fuel tank in the fuselage for super-long patrols, also.

I don't know if that helps.

Cheers!

Montana

[Kutscha]

dp

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

[quote]Originally posted by Corsarius

I'm a fan of inflight refuelling. I am pretty sure (don't quote me, though) that it was hose and drogue.

I also recall that for early modes it was mostly a 'gravity feed'. The 'tanker' flew above the fuelling aircraft, lowered a hose, then some <s>patsy</s> noncommissioned airman climbed out and plugged it in, just like on the ground, and turned on the tap.

I've never understood the American pechant for the 'flying boom' model of refuelling. To my mind it appears less safe and even more finicky than hose and drogue which, after seeing some RAAF videotapes, makes you realise just how hard a job it is!Did not sometime in the '20s, the US Army conduct a long endurance flught in which a hose was dropped to the a/c flying below that was to be refueled?

The USAF uses the boom method but the USN uses the drogue method.

Both have their pluses and minuses. The drogue method allows multiple a/c to be refueled at one time.

[Lightning Guy]

The Warbired Tech Series on the B-24 (ISBN 0-933424-64-7) has a section and a series of photographs of a B-24D being used to refuel a B-17E.

[Trexx]

quote:...Did not sometime in the '20s, the US Army conduct a long endurance flught in which a hose was dropped to the a/c flying below that was to be refueled?...
Correct. It worked. Nothing special, just a barrel, hose and gravity.

(credit for text below)https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/75yrs_inflight_refueling.pdf

The First Refueling
On June 27, 1923, at an altitude of about 500 feet above Rockwell
Field on San Diego’s North Island, two U.S. Army Air Service airplanes
became linked by hose, and one airplane refueled the other. While only
seventy-five gallons of gasoline were transferred, the event is memorable
because it was a first. The summer of 1998 marks the seventy-fifth anniversary
of the use of this elementary technique of range extension.1
The airplanes were de Havilland DH–4Bs, single-engine biplanes of
4,600 pounds. First Lt. Virgil Hine piloted the tanker; 1st Lt. Frank W.
Seifert occupied the rear cockpit and handled the fueling hose. Capt.
Lowell H. Smith flew the receiver while 1st Lt. John Paul Richter handled
the refueling from the rear cockpit. The refueling system consisted of a
fifty-foot length of rubber hose, trailed from the tanker, with a manually
operated quick-closing valve at each end. The process is best described in
terms of “you dangle it; I’ll grab it.”
After six hours and thirty-eight minutes, and only one refueling, engine
trouble in the receiver terminated the flight. Recognizing that a second
refueling plane would provide more safety and flexibility, the next attempt
included a third DH–4 as the second refueler. Its crew members
were Capt. Robert G. Erwin and 1st Lt. Oliver R. McNeel, who became
the world’s second refuelers. On August 27 and 28, with fourteen midair
contacts, tankers operated by Hine and Seifert and Erwin and McNeel
kept Smith and Richter in the air over a prescribed track for thirty-seven
hours and twenty-five minutes (see Appendix 1 for a schedule of refuelings
and deliveries), and set a world record for endurance. The track flown
was 3,293 miles, about the same distance as that from Goose Bay,
Labrador, to what was Leningrad in the Soviet Union

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by robert

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but there is an excellent book, Seventy-Five Years of Inflight Refueling: Highlights, 1923-1998, by Richard K. Smith, that is out of print, but which you can download free as a PDF from the US Air Force Historical Branch web site.

The entire text of the 86 page book is included, but unfortunately, not the pictures. But the chapter "Wartime Might-Have-Beens" has lots of interesting information about plans that never materialized.

Download the book at:

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/smithsevety.htm


Not sure how but I manged to miss this on both threads!!!

I've printed out all 80+ pages (at work) and its making for some interesting reading, thanks for the link.

[PMN1]

The book that Robert mentions in his post says on Pages 14 and 15 that when the US produced their Sikorsky S-42 and Martin M-130, the UK had nothing to compare (after having cancelled the Vickers supermarine Type 179 in 1932 so looked to IFR to help, if the UK had had the Type 179, how would IFR have developed?

[PilotOfficerPrune]

Gentlemen, thanks to a article published a long time ago in the British magazine 'Air Enthusiast', I'm in a position to answer some of your questions.

The flight refuelling method used by the C Class flying boats was the hook and grapnel method. The receiving aircraft flew straight and level with a line trailing behind it in a parabolic loop because of a weight attached to the end of it. The tanker would fly slightly lower and behind the receiver on the starboard side. The tanker then used a Schermuly gun to fire a harpoon like missile with a another line which went in front of the receiver's line and hit it before sliding down it. Both of the lines had sinker weights on them but the one on the end of the receiver's line had two spring loaded pawls on top of it. The tanker line would press down on one of them when it reached the bottom of the receiver line and slide through, then the pawl spring would close the pawl behind it and the two lines were joined together, neither weight now being able to pass the other.

The tanker them moved to a position above the receiver and the tanker crew wound in the lines. The weight/line catcher was removed from the bayonet socket which held it to the receiver line and the nozzle of a flexible hose plugged into the socket. This was then lowered from the tanker. The receiver saw the hose emerge from the tanker and reeled in the line until the hose was inboard. It was then plugged into the fuel inlet and a signal made to the tanker. The tanker refueller opened a gravity valve and allowed the fuel to transfer until it was all gone or the receiver signalled him to stop. The receiver aircraft then detached the hose and the receptor coupling was automatically purged with nitrogen to prevent any chance of ignition by static discharge. The tanker then reeled in the hose and contact line and the aircraft separated.

This system, pioneered by Alan Cobham of Flight Refuelling Ltd was also known as the 'closed loop' or 'ejector' system. And yes, I know it sounds like a real Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg idea but all the evidence suggests that it worked perfectly well. Certainly, it was used on several passenger flights across the Atlantic (the only scheduled civilian service refuelled passenger flights ever?).

In any case Captain Bennett of the first C Class flying boat to fly the route was the same Don Bennett who set up the RAF Pathfinder squadrons. He has much to say in his autobiography of the problems involved in flying the Composite Mercury-Maia flying boat, but his Atlantic refuelling operations over Ireland and Newfoundland barely rate a mention. If there were any snags he doesn't talk about them. Another perspective on the method was provided by one of the pilots who used the same technique for the first time at night in February 1940:-

"We smelt about in a very orderly manner in our ink-blacked out arena and finally contacted each other, then proceeded with the hydraulics. Everything went to plan, the harpoon-contacting principle was, of course, ideally suited, and we landed some 45 minutes later, having I believe, established a little bit of history, by doing the first flight refuelling trials over England, and certainly the first under black-out conditions."

All in all, a distinct lack of drama. Or, in technical terms, a piece of piss.

The point of course is that air-to-air refuelling can dramatically increase a plane's radius of action even if it only refuels at operating height above its own base. At cruise altitude a refuelled aircraft could probably carry at least 25 per cent more fuel than it could ever lift off the ground, and it has also replaced the fuel needed to take off and reach altitude. Granted, there would be problems in refuelling an entire bomber formation but why this method was never used to allow Coastal Command aircraft to reach out further over the Atlantic is totally beyond my understanding. Apparently the passenger flying boats were topped off shortly after they'd taken off from their outward bound landing at Shannon in Ireland, receiving 2,270 kilos of fuel from a Harrow tanker. Incidentally, plans were made to convert De Havilland Albatross passenger liners into tanker aircraft with a capacity to lift 4,671 litres.

Later on, during Lancaster trials, it was established that the average time needed for two aircraft to make contact, pass 5,000 litres of fuel and breakaway was 19 minutes.

The Americans carried out trials with the same system at Eglin Field in 1943, using a B-17 receiver and a B-24 tanker. The tanker pilot reported that the operation seemed very simple after a few practice runs and that any normally qualified B-24 pilot could fly a tanker. The B-17 pilot made similar comments about flying the receiver aircraft. A tentative plan was drawn up to launch B-17's from Attu island in the Aleutians to bomb Tokyo, the B-17's being refuelled on route with an additional 1,500 gallons. A 6,000 pound bombload would be carried the 2010 mile leg to Tokyo, and the B-17's would then fly on another 1,550 miles to Suichwan.

If anybody is interested, you can contact me at [email protected] and I'll happily forward all the details I've got. Cheers!

[Trexx]

Whoa! That's major chunk of information. Thanks! :)

[PMN1]

Anyone know if the Germans thought about using this for bombing the US?

[PilotOfficerPrune]

The Germans could certainly have sent an aircraft to the USA using air to air refuelling, although the bombload would have been neglible. But if you wanted to make a novel out of it . . .

Dawn on the 16th December, 1944. A lumbering Junkers 290 breaks cloud cover over Long Island Sound. Ahead are the skyscrapers of New York. The aircraft's radio is tuned into a flash news bulletin from a local radio station, telling the stunned citizens of the city that a huge mass of German tanks and infantry has just smashed clear through the allied line in the Ardennes. The frontline American divisions are coming apart like wet tissue paper in a hurricane and thousands of English speaking German infiltrators in US uniforms are adding to the chaos spreading through the rear areas.

Whilen New Yorkers stare at their radio sets in horror the Junkers 290 releases a tiny plane from underneath its belly and turns for home. The crew of a fishing boat far below look up at the sky in bewilderment as a noise like a giant two stroke engine rattles overhead. Any Londoners on board would have already dropped on the deck with the their arms over their heads, but nobody on this side of the Atlantic realises that an angel of death is passing over them. A diminutive and rather plain looking angel born in Silesia and now about to dive down into hell with the name of her Fuhrer on her lips.
Her name is Hanna Reitsch, and she's one of the very few pilots in the entire world with the skills to fly one of the converted V1 cruise missiles.

But despite the hammering the cheaply made airframe is taking from its primitive pulse engine, Hanna keeps it going to where she is to strike a huge blow for Germany. Her and the 2,000 pounds of high explosie in the the nose of the converted V1.

Her arms aching with the effort of keeping the Fiesler on course, Hanna breathes a sigh of relief as she flies over the umistakable landmark of the Brooklyn Bridge. Not that it really matters now. Not only can she finally see her target, but nobody seems to be firing a shot at her. One of Hanna's last concious thoughts is that she's somehow flying into another world, a world she has only ever visited in cinemas before.

The world's greatest aviatrix does her country and her leader proud. The Fiesler hits within metres of its intended impact point and the fuses on the warhead operate perfectly within a split second, converting Reitsch's already dead body into heat and gas. The shock waves rip of concrete panels, cut securing rods, set up vibrations no man made structure could weather. An entire street level of a huge building is crushed underneath falling floors coming down like a tower of playing cards on a shaken table

Slowly, but then faster and faster, the Empire State Building leans forward like an old drunk sprawling out on his bed. As it drops down on onto Fifth Avenue a huge shroud of dust and dirt seems to spring out of nowhere, a pall of filth which will hang around New York for days, if not weeks.

And very soon the US Army will have to decide if the desperately hard fighting soldiers in the front line should be told about the German secret weapon which has just destroyed one of America's icons.

[Corsarius]

Seems a long way to waste Germany's greatest test pilot in a perfectly good Fi103 Reichenberg (see links below). Couldn't Hanna at least have just bailed out, or perhaps another pilot used?

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=213

http://greyfalcon.us/Fiesler%20Fi.htm

[Romantic Technofreak]

In Germany, the DFS successfully performed trials of inflight refuelling, but without practical consequences. Inflight refuelling for Atlantic sorties was considered some times, but there was no substantial result.

Hitler behaved contradictory about this. One time he fiercely demanded the Me 264, the other time he prohibited any planning of air attacks against the USA, saying they would only enforce American resistance. In the latter thing, he proved right, whatever other example you may take, Germany vs. Britain 1940, Allies vs. Germany 1940 - 1945, USA vs. North Vietnam 1970s, NATO vs. leftover Yugoslavia 1999, terrorists vs. USA 2001, Israel vs. Lebanon/Hezbollah 2006, none of these actions was suitable to break the adversary will of resistance, often it grew rapidly instead. I also doubt if a 1,000 kg explosive charge would be enough to cut down the Empire State Building - it needed fire to extinct the Twin Towers. Also, Hanna Reitsch would never have gotten permission to perform such an attack herself.

As I stated long time ago already, it would have been much more useful to do similar actions against the Allied aircraft carrier force, using the Do/Ju 635 as mother plane. It should have also been possible for the pilot to return his craft to the mother plane for an at least theoretical chance to get back home again - my opinion.

Regards, RT

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by PilotOfficerPrune

The Germans could certainly have sent an aircraft to the USA using air to air refuelling, although the bombload would have been neglible. But if you wanted to make a novel out of it . . .

Dawn on the 16th December, 1944. A lumbering Junkers 290 breaks cloud cover over Long Island Sound. Ahead are the skyscrapers of New York. The aircraft's radio is tuned into a flash news bulletin from a local radio station, telling the stunned citizens of the city that a huge mass of German tanks and infantry has just smashed clear through the allied line in the Ardennes. The frontline American divisions are coming apart like wet tissue paper in a hurricane and thousands of English speaking German infiltrators in US uniforms are adding to the chaos spreading through the rear areas.

Whilen New Yorkers stare at their radio sets in horror the Junkers 290 releases a tiny plane from underneath its belly and turns for home. The crew of a fishing boat far below look up at the sky in bewilderment as a noise like a giant two stroke engine rattles overhead. Any Londoners on board would have already dropped on the deck with the their arms over their heads, but nobody on this side of the Atlantic realises that an angel of death is passing over them. A diminutive and rather plain looking angel born in Silesia and now about to dive down into hell with the name of her Fuhrer on her lips.
Her name is Hanna Reitsch, and she's one of the very few pilots in the entire world with the skills to fly one of the converted V1 cruise missiles.

But despite the hammering the cheaply made airframe is taking from its primitive pulse engine, Hanna keeps it going to where she is to strike a huge blow for Germany. Her and the 2,000 pounds of high explosie in the the nose of the converted V1.

Her arms aching with the effort of keeping the Fiesler on course, Hanna breathes a sigh of relief as she flies over the umistakable landmark of the Brooklyn Bridge. Not that it really matters now. Not only can she finally see her target, but nobody seems to be firing a shot at her. One of Hanna's last concious thoughts is that she's somehow flying into another world, a world she has only ever visited in cinemas before.

The world's greatest aviatrix does her country and her leader proud. The Fiesler hits within metres of its intended impact point and the fuses on the warhead operate perfectly within a split second, converting Reitsch's already dead body into heat and gas. The shock waves rip of concrete panels, cut securing rods, set up vibrations no man made structure could weather. An entire street level of a huge building is crushed underneath falling floors coming down like a tower of playing cards on a shaken table

Slowly, but then faster and faster, the Empire State Building leans forward like an old drunk sprawling out on his bed. As it drops down on onto Fifth Avenue a huge shroud of dust and dirt seems to spring out of nowhere, a pall of filth which will hang around New York for days, if not weeks.

And very soon the US Army will have to decide if the desperately hard fighting soldiers in the front line should be told about the German secret weapon which has just destroyed one of America's icons.


"Those Dirty Rats!"

Well done, Pruneman

[Geheimprojekte]

I have read elsewhere that the Me 328 was intended for launch by Ju-390 over New York with 5/KG200 self sacrifice pilots.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/NYC2.jpg