Author Topic: FW 190 D9 outfited with R4M rockets (pictures inside) (Read 3909 times)

Naudet · « **on:** June 27, 2002, 09:20:28 AM »

Here are two pictures showing a D9 with R4M wooden launch rails mounted to its wings.

As far as i could research it should have been 13 missilies on each rack. And before any LW folks claim the R4Ms as standard equitment, i just want to point out that such outfited Doras were very rare.

And here the close-up of the launch rails.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2002, 10:14:41 AM »

Those didn't burn the wings at all?

On the 262 they used a much different launch device didn't they?

Just curious, I thought only the 262 used it with a specialized launch rack.

Dora would be a better platform for 'em, IMO, because you have a lower approach speed and could traverse them across the formations much easier... or am I just talking out my ass?
-SW

Mathman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2002, 10:44:35 AM »

IIRC, the launch rails/platform was made out of wood, at least it was on the 262. I thought that it would catch fire too, but think about all the factors involved, and it would be very difficult to set the thing on fire. The relative airspeed, the time exposed to the heat and exhaust of the rocket, etc. Also, when I finally saw a technical drawing of the launching system, it became even more apparent that the chances of any fire starting was slim. When I get home, I will scan and post the drawings that I have from my 262 series.

BTW, I think this is something that needs to be added to the AH 262, even more so with the incoming BUFF formation changes.

whgates3 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:09:30 PM »

maybe the wood was treated w/ some sort of flame retardent

MadBirdCZ · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:32:38 PM »

R4M rails were made of wood even on Me-163s. Got a book about Me-163s written by a pilot (Mano Ziegler - ISBN 80-85831-01-5) where he describes flight tests and operational use of those planes... Interesting read as he describes all the good and also the bad sides of the plane.

Anyway Im pretty sure that after the introduction of multibuff formations we might find some use for this one...

MadBirdCZ · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:35:31 PM »

About the rails they were 1 use only so no matter if they got a bit burned or not anyway I think that the burn duration of the R4M rocket motor was not long enuff to cause the rails to catch fire....

Sachs · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2002, 04:26:36 PM »

And the fw-190 f8 dont forget:eek:

Mathman · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2002, 06:51:11 PM »

Here are some R4M pics if you are interested. The top one is the type that was mounted on the planes. The lower one is the type used by ground forces.

Mathman · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2002, 06:52:23 PM »

Here is a general image of an R4M with the fins popped out and warhead removed.

Mathman · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2002, 06:53:47 PM »

Here is the first schematic. It is of the rocket itself with the different warheads.

Mathman · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2002, 06:54:56 PM »

This is the schematic of the launch rails and how the rockets were mounted.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2002, 06:59:37 PM »

According to Robert Forsythe's mammoth work on JV44, the Operational evaluation of the R4M was undertaken by JG10 at Redlin, near Parchim.

The wooden rack carried 12 rockets. Test firings were from a static 190 (Wonder if that's your bird?)

First operational use of the R4Ms were by the 262s of 9 JG7 that were based near Parchim. They used them in action for the first time on March 20, 1945 when they fired 144 missles against a 8th AF raid against Berlin. That was from the 6 262s they were able to get airborne.

JG10 supervised the equipping of JV44 with the R4M in Early April 45 although it also states that the total number of 262s listed with JV44 was 18 with only 7 serviceable on April 9th. of 13 262s delivered straight from the factory, 11 were then destroyed on the ground by allied bombing.

Point being the R4M was a small footnote on the airwar. Way too little and way too late.

Where did the photos come from btw? The mounting looks much flatter then the one used operationally on the 262

Dan

Naudet · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2002, 04:18:13 AM »

Here a few additons:

The plane is an operational one, its "White 1" II./JG26

and according to reports from the end of the war, the racks carried 13 missiles each.

Not 12 as on the ME262 and not 14 as mentioned in FW documents.

Three D9 were captured by the allies that had R4M and all had 26 missiles, 13 under each wing.
And the planes were the following:
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 210 954, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 400 619, 2 x MG 131, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets (Identified here as "Weisse 1", 5./JG 26)
Fw 190D-9, W.Nr. 210 069, 2 x MG 131, 2 x MG 151, 26 rockets

And this may the reason why the launch rails look a bit different to the ME262 as they have 13 missiles.

butch2k · « **Reply #13 on:** June 28, 2002, 06:56:14 AM »

More details here :
http://www.stormbirds.com/experten/products2addendum1.htm

Naudet · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2002, 08:10:24 AM »

Did a little research if R4M were really just a footnote of the airwar in WW2.

So far it seems that 20000 R4M were ordered, 12000 delivered and up to the end of the war more than 500 kills were achieved by using R4M rockets.

I won't say 500 kills are just a "footnote"!