The Emergency Fighter Barely Bigger Than Its Pilot: Arado E.381

In this video, we take a look at the Arado E.381 Kleinstjäger, a bomber-interceptor / fighter aircraft from Germany in World War II. We first talk about the general concept of a small or micro fighter, how they can be useful, and what their limitations are. We then talk about Germany's Emergency Fighter Program, and how a great deal of bizarre rocket and jet powered "superplane" fighters were designed as a part of it... and then amounted to very little. We also talk about the general concept of a parasite aircraft and what the potential benefits are.
We then talk about the E.381, a parasite, rocket-powered interceptor that was one of the smallest fighter designs of WW2, barely bigger around than the pilot inside. We talk about the plane it was linked to in the Arado Ar 234, the first jet-powered bomber in the world. We briefly talk about the design of the Ar 234, before then talking about the several proposed designs of the E.381. We talk about their incredibly small size, and how they likely would have been used in combat. We end by talking about the failure of the project, and how they likely wouldn't have been terribly effective in taking out enemy bombers if they had been used.

[@AlexHalt100]

German here. "kleinst" actually means THE smallest kind. just small/little/tiny would just be "klein". makes that concept even more bonkers

[@ArcticNemo]

I have learned Jaeger translated as 'hunter' but often see it used in context that better suggests 'armed outdoorsman.'

[@admiral_alman8671]

@@ArcticNemoboth are correct

[@prinzchen17]

@@ArcticNemo german here. „hunter“ is the correct translation. but what exactly is an „armed outdoors man“ supposed to mean?

[@AlexHalt100]

@@ArcticNemo it can mean the equivalent to "ranger" as well. Jäger Plane = Fighter Jäger Soldier = Ranger Jäger Civilian in the Woods = Hunter Jäger in a Bottle = very tasty when ice cold

[@ArcticNemo]

@@prinzchen17 outdoorsman: generally, one who is versed in many aspects of enjoying and living in the out-of-doors; usually a hunter but not necessarily.

[@onenote6619]

What you have to bear in mind is that in 1944 Nazi Germany, any male of service age would get sent to the front unless there was an overwhelming reason otherwise. A significant number of the engineers for this - and a lot of other projects - were coming up with crazy but plausible ideas to keep themselves from freezing their parts off on the Eastern front. And it's hard to blame them for that.

[@xxGravyBabyxx]

And let's all thank Hitler for wanting the impossible and his goons for not being able to say no the psycho. A lot of factors for Nazi Germany of losing the war and those two reasons sure add to those factors.

[@snakeplissken2148]

exactly, but nobody cares about this fact today! everyone almost wishes that this or other projects somehow was realized. i also know people who pretend that the nazis had a nuke developed, but didnt use it because of humanity reason. 🤣

[@gerhardris]

Indeed. SS general Ferdinand Porsche and his ever greater also electric Tiger tanks is no doubt such a rational. Such proven to be great engineers especially when befriending the boss who hasn't the foggiest can so dupe the rest who know better. Hitler wants it. Amen. 23:16

[@bigblue6917]

There was a meeting in Germany in the Spring of 1943 which decided that any defensive project which would not be ready in the next 12 months would be cancelled. This was because they believed Germany was winning the war they would not be needed. So not only were the engineers sent to the Eastern Front, as you rightly said, but also many of the scientists as well. Then in 1944 they started to see Lancaster bombers carrying radar which was used to show the terrain in front of them and which would greatly improved bombing accuracy. So suddenly all those scientists and engineers who were still alive on the Eastern Front were brought back to Germany in an effort to to find ways of stopping the Allies. I am sure you can imagine the effects of those SAM systems would have had of the Allied bombers if those projects had gone ahead sooner.

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

@@bigblue6917 It's the spring of 1941 as far as I know? By spring of 1943 nobody anywhere had any illusions about how this was going to end. I mean Goebbels gave his Total War Speech already in January/February 1943? Forgot which.

[@dakotahudson8964]

Late-war Axis powers basically came up with ideas that Wil E. Coyote would probably say were bad ideas.

[@jeffyoung60]

More than ten years ago I became fascinated with the Arado E.381 parasite rocket midget fighter when I came across it in a book about Luftwaffe emergency fighter designs. I scoured the Internet for any information about the E.381 concept. Concept it was because the E.381 Kleinstjager (miniature fighter plane) never progressed to the mockup or even prototype stage. The E.381 became another footnote in the myriad and plethora of fantastic emergency, technological cutting edge and avante garde fighter plane designs that the dying Luftwaffe grasped at in order to help stave off growing inevitable defeat for Nazi Germany. In retrospect the E.381 is a parasite midget fighter plane concept that probably would have held greater interest to the more fatalistic Japanese Imperial Headquarters High Command. In the afterthoughts of postwar history, would have and could have the E.381 Kleinstjager worked? From a purely technical and technological point, certainly, as Germany already demonstrated with its rocket-powered Me-163 Komet interceptor, the Me-262 twin-turbojet engine fighter plane, and the diminutive Heinkel 162 Volksjager. But how about its practicality in combat operations? I'm not positively certain except for an educated guess. My answer is, possibly and probably, but to no great consequence on the Allied Combined Bomber Offensive which had already reached its crescendo back in the late summer of 1944. In the overall picture, the Reichluftsfahrtministerium (RLM) and the Luftwaffe envisioned wistfully thousands of the jet fighters and jet bombers in monthly production by the spring of 1945. Only a few hundred of the 262 and Ar 234 ever reached completed production. That begs the question, where was the Luftwaffe going to find the thousands of new and fully trained pilots to fly all of these new technology aircraft? The Luftwaffe by early 1944 had run out of the capability to train new pilots fast enough to replace those lost in combat or injury. Right on its heels was the lack of aviation fuel due to the Allied bombing raids. What did in the Luftwaffe was not an absence of imagination and talent. It was an absence of time. The clock had run out on Nazi Germany.

[@edrosenquist6541]

What a fun vid about a "plane" that I've never seen before. Great job.

[@johnbuttery1171]

Smallest possible fighter? I'm picturing a hang-glider with a Glock zip-tied to it.

[@mondriaa]

@4:10 the DVL Jagdsegler was even smaller and planned to be launched from onder a FW190, it was planned to be armed with a couple R4M rocket pods or 8x RZ65, the bomber would carry 2x SC250 bombs or a BT400 torpedo. Wingspan 5,16m, length 3,36m, fuselage diameter 0,87m, wing area 3,70 sq meters. Weight max: glider/rammer 640kg, fighter (with pulsejet) 950kg, bomber 1100kg. Max speed gliding 360kph, with rockets 650kph, with pulsjet 900kph Anyway thanks for the cool video

[@gratefulguy4130]

Can't really find anything on it but it looks more practical

[@avnrulz]

Not to mention lack of air superiority meant ground attacks going on while trying to refuel and rearm, or just shooting them down as they landed, as was done with the Me-262.

[@peterlee4682]

381 looks like it was powered by the same engine as the ME 163. I believe the Natter broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight on its way straight down to its crash sight.

[@towgod7985]

They figure a number of P47 Thunderbolts did the same thing on bomb/ attack missions, broke the sound barrier all the way to the crash site. 😮

[@peterlee4682]

@@towgod7985 Maybe some P38s too.

[@JohnMoses1897]

The term is "compression," which limits (restricts) the flight control surfaces ability to imput directional change in the aircrafts existing flight path. GRAVITY, lift, thrust, drag are the "4 Forces of Flight" & Aerodynamics. Thus, since GRAVITY is the greatest force, it is always the dominant issue / force at the crash site. It can be of assistance to mechanical failure, control input errors, and atmospheric abnormalities, but it's always a player. Defying Gravity is the "utopian dream" of physicists 🙏

[@lowerquadrant4647]

They found some of the pilot's remains on the testing site several decades later.

[@juliane__]

These claims are only believes. There is no evidence or conlusive argument, that any of the planes crossed Mach 1. Me 262 also didn't make it. Flatter and broken wings/fuselages appear way before the shock hits the airplanes not designed to cross Mach 1. Usually it is even written in the handbooks at which speed the plane begins to disassemble itself. Counterwise: If it were possible, why didn't anyone flew a remote controlled plane of any of these types to test it? There have been way crazier attempts to test out something than this.

[@danielhurst8863]

You underestimate the destructive power of the Mk-108 30mm. Two head on hits pretty much guarantees a destroyed bomber. Even one hit would be devasting. What held the cannon back, was it had a slow rate of fire and the velocity of the round was low, making it almost useless against a fighter. So, fighters that carried this weapon couldn't be used against other fighters, and were very vulnerable to escort fighters, as the weapon was often in outside pods, greatly affecting weight and drag, hampering the speed of the aircraft. This tiny fighter would essentially be immune to escort fighters during the attack, as the speed would prevent interception. Plus, it would be near impossible for the bomber's gun to defend against, because of the approach speed. That said, the plane would be a sitting duck trying land, and few would ever have a second mission.

[@Squee7e]

I know it is not the same, but in flight simulators, many people can actually make good use of the 108 in fighter on fighter encounters when flying the Bf 109 G6 and later models. It is not very good in traditional turn fighting scenarios and hard to use in deflection shooting, but if the attacker pilot is in a favorable position (let's say 1000m above the target) and he uses to boom and zoom, a single hit can kill the enemy pilot or blast apart the whole center fuselage, depending on criticality of the hit. In a less favorable position, a good strategy is to hit the target with 13mm machine guns first in a quick strafe, reducing the maneuverability of the target plane and then finishing the target off with a couple of 30 mm hits. I'm not a very good Sim pilot, but even I can score a kill or two from time to time in multi player engagements against seasoned players, and the results are quite spectacular, to say the least. Like I stated in the beginning, flying a WW2 fighter while sitting in front of the PC is not the same thing as doing it in real life, but the guns are modeled correctly, and the flight models are considered realistic (I'm not talking about war thunder but IL2 and DCS). So I'd say you're a bit too harsh on the mk108. It is easier to use the MG 151/20 though but you need way better accuracy without wasting a lot of ammo on armored or non critical parts.

[@advorak8529]

The “Sitting Duck” would be supported by ground AA, and even fighters do not like AA going off all around them. Especially when they are not 20,000 feet high where they can alter their altitude/course fast enough to stay ahead of the measure-calculate-fire-shell travels up there in 20 or so seconds …

[@gerhardris]

No, I'll explain why in a new post. 23:16

[@serfgergergergerg8081]

@@Squee7e It works in war thunder but in reality most pilots wouldnt be insane enough to properly lead the 108 against a fighter. With muzzle velocity this low, leading the gun meant basically putting yourself in a direct collision course with the enemy.

[@Squee7e]

@@serfgergergergerg8081 I specifically excluded war thunder from my list of games because I don't believe that the flight model there is anywhere accurate You need to keep in mind that the planes that had the mk108 also had secondary guns. Most of the time those were mg131 13mm machine guns or even the mg151/20 20mm cannons that were quite capable in crippling the enemy. A punctured main wing could not sustain had turns and that's the moment when the mk108 could be used to finish the target off. Also the mk108 was capable enough to hit an enemy fighter at 200m with it when you had the upper hand in the engagement. It is not that hard to make a target turn into your wingman's fire line. So even if you didn't get a good position your wingman could hit the target. Remember that a single hit could be already enough to make the enemy pilot bail out because his plane isn't controllable anymore Did you ever try IL2 GB or DCS? If not give it a shot. Those simulator games are way more realistic compared to war thunder and you don't have those chaotic "team deathmatch" scenarios which make war thunder unplayable in my eyes 😅

[@berndhofmann752]

I'm German and I am interested in the aircraft design in ww2. I know a lot of constructions of this time. But this is new to me. ❤ thank you for this report.

[@stephanbateman5410]

An excellent video. Obviously well researched and very well presented.

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Now there's TWO definitions of the "pocket rocket" in my vocabulary :the 1st are the compact & sub-compact pistols termed by street guys, and THAT little "fighter" thanks to the title in the thumbnail

[@user-qb1sm3rk9r]

Is that a rocket in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

[@PunkinsSan]

T stoof and c stoof... Poor German pilots didn't have easy life with their engineers 😢😢😢

[@onlyhereformoney175]

it's stoff

[@kkteutsch6416]

Now - Sec XXI - you have 2 astronauts close in a space station that russians easily could resgate, and you, Nasa, Boeing and Musk, what to do with this fact ?

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

​@@kkteutsch6416Russians easily do what? Get hammered on Stoly! Da!

[@absoluteknifeofhyperstabby9233]

Nah stoof is right the pilot will be going oof the second one of those chemicals even looks at him funny

[@advorak8529]

@@kkteutsch6416 Nothing. Nothing of that information is new or surprising (nor relevant to the topic at hand).

[@pencilpauli9442]

The mother of all mother ships must be that Soviet Tupolev TB-3

[@JohnMoses1897]

It is said Igor Sykorsky was jealous

[@advorak8529]

Zweno came first. Then there were WW1 experiments with airship launched fighters, and the Akron and Macon, which were true flying aircraft carriers, launching, retrieving, refuelling, rearming and repairing, etc etc etc.

[@JohnMoses1897]

@advorak8529 Thank you. I always wondered why the germans never tried this either Zeppilins. Now we know 'the rest of the story'

[@jimdavison4077]

The irony is they planed in putting the same 30mm cannon used on the Me 262 on this. The 108 30mm cannon had such a low muzzle velocity it proved to be a problem in the 262 as closing speeds were so fact many pilots returned to base being unable to fire their guns. It's estimated that pilots had two to three seconds to get close enough to fire then break away before running into it's target. The E381 was estimated to be almost 50 mph faster than the Me 262 making it impossible for the 108's to ever hit the target.

[@advorak8529]

The Bettys were unable to carry their parasite kamikaze planes close enough to the target because they were aiming at ships - specifically aircraft carrier task forces. The US quickly realised that the parasite gliders (with some boost rockets) had a limited range and threw up a fighter shield 40 miles (sea miles I assume?) around their task forces and priority-attacked all bombers carrying parasites well outside their attack range.

[@nathanguyon7620]

Lord, tell me about it. How they could go from the glorious Handsome Jack to a couple annoying scene kids as antagonists boggles the mind.

[@javierpatag3609]

Ava.

[@adamconroy2146]

I've recently heard that the only rocket powered aircraft made during WW2 was the ME 163, but I know of the Japanese Risen and now the E.381. Thank you for this.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

Are you sure about surviving higher g while prone? I seem to remember post war experiments by the British found it pretty much the worst position.

[@juslitor]

From a biological stand point , a prone position enables the heart to keep pumping blood to the brain in a higher g environment, eg. wont black out as easily as a sitting person. Cant imagine it being ergonomical though, especially under high G´s.

[@durbeshpatel3047]

It has something to do with gravity naturally acting against pumping blood to your brain. When you lay down their is no pooling in feet or draining in brain its even. I do remember reading pilots can withstand higher gs in prone. But the design considerations and comfort make in undesireable

[@advorak8529]

⁠@@durbeshpatel3047 Comfort is often an “also-ran” for missions of an hour or two, especially in a desperate war. I also hear being uncomfortable is much more popular than getting shot to bits.

[@bigblue6917]

In WW1 Britain looked at hanging fighters beneath Airships so that when German's Zeppelin raids, especially against London, were mounted the fighters were already at a favourable altitude and could more quickly intercept the Zeppelins.

[@kongoubongo1114]

I shivered when I saw the type of fuel used and how close the tanks were to the pilot. Predictable if one knows about the Komet or recognized the engine but I still find the idea of piloting that aircraft a terrifying prospect.

[@paulwoodman5131]

C-Stoff &. T-Stoff😮. Pilot dissolving Stoff! 😮

[@alister917]

i dont think they gave a quarter of a shit about the pilot when there was LITERAL SKIN MELTING ACID placed right next to them. lol

[@nivocz769]

The hardest part of designing a parasite aircraft is the mid air docking and retraving... I like the japans solution of "retreaving what?"😂

[@artawhirler]

I always enjoy your videos! Your channel deserves way more subscribers! Thanks for all your hard work!

[@TrentFalkenrath]

My mind immediately went to the XF-85. But yeah, I never knew of this German project. I have three observations. The gun is mounted behind the pilot's head? I know that he wouldn't get shot by his own gun, but still, that'd freak me out. This is not the first time I've heard of an aircraft which had a prone pilot cockpit. The XP-79 springs to mind first. Lastly, oh no, C-stoff and T-stoff again. Hope they didn't have to clean up some melted pilots...

[@paullewis5045]

That is a good one. Both photons and dark space seem to have no mass making them sort of on the same playing field kind of like ying and yang. So, imagine tritium in a packet running through a clear tube with light baffles at both ends. Spaced evenly they would be like dots -light- and dashes -dark- then if pushed along by air pressure in a dark area you would see light, dark, light, dark and so on until the source runs out. Given then that light is followed by dark at the same speed in that concept, maybe light and dark could be considered to be running at the same speed.

[@olliea6052]

So thats it. My next scratch build is the ar234.😁 Dont worry, it wont be a showstopper. 🤣 But i do love the idea of building it.

[@treypeters1087]

This isnt the one we need, but its the one we want

[@chrissouthgate4554]

Sounds very similar to the Komit, with the same problems + needing a launch aircraft.

[@exidy-yt]

Now in the drone age, a parasite carrier could be extremely practical.

[@Chris84409]

The AR234 did achieve success as a reconnaissance aircraft.

[@MrJohndoakes]

The real failure for the RLM was the inability to construct the "Waterfall" surface to air missile because the A4/V2 rocket was eating up all the resources in rocketry.

[@myplane150]

Like the Soviets during the Cold War, the Germans made really nice looking aircraft. The Arado 234 is just about my favorite airframe of the late war experimentals. Beautiful...☺

[@carloshenriquezimmer7543]

The Arado was not experimental, it was deployed to service fully developed. It just happens that it was developed as a recon/observation plane, that happened to work as a bomber. Even the need for rocket trusters was because the bombs would slow it too much for take-off.

[@thaddeuszukowski4633]

Images landing this at high speed. It would have been nerve racking trying not to flinch when the ground coming up fast and CLOSE!!

[@robertl6196]

Nosing over would.....suck.

[@stephengardiner9867]

The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk fighter was probably the most notable and successful of the parasite fighters as it actually entered service with the U.S. Navy.

[@77gravity]

Hi, Nerd here: For many of the examples it's not so much a Parasite fighter as a Symbiont fighter - both aircraft benefit from the relationship. E.G. An airship with fighters to defend the airship.

[@TheGamerZapocalypse]

...the illustration shows three places for three of the Arado. One under the fuselage and one under each wing... So this concept is more plausible if it could carry three instead of one.

[@paulwoodman5131]

If they were making.the parasite with wood, the production system took days to set up the molds to cure. At least it did for the Moskito.

[@victorfinberg8595]

oh ... smallest possible FIGHTER ... i guess that wrecks my idea of saving weight by taking the guns off.

[@Bikelife9883]

Pity the opening pictures were R.J.Mitchel who designed the Supermarine Spitfire followed by the American Howard Hughes of Spruce Goose fame. Why not Willi Meschersmit or Kurt Tank?

[@LarsAgerbk]

Sending one huge plane up with several of these mini-fighters makes sense. But using one single plane to send another single plane into combat makes no sense to me.

[@gerhardris]

Nice video. I didn't know of this crackpot idea fighter. As stated elsewhere it probably was an enigineer ruse to not be sent to the front. This is not only as such a crackpot idea but a crack head and crack tiny plane design as well. Try putting your head just below a tin lid at the muzzle of a 30 mm auto gun going off. I was a gunner of the Dutch version of the Gepard 35 mm AA gun. Only slightly larger. Also the recoil effect in a tiny fighter would be whopping. Take the early versions of the EE Lighting with two 30 mm Aden canon near the cockipt. Firing these caused so much shock they were removed in later models. 23:16

[@joshuarosen465]

The Japanese way of suicide made vastly more sense then the Getman way. To begin with crashing into a carrier is instant, you are never going to feel it. Getting dissolved when the t stoff and g stoff leaks has got to be about the most horrible way to die. Next the target, the Japanese were aiming at carriers we only had dozens of carriers. The US and Britain had thousands of bombers, destroying a single bomber had essentially zero value. Then the vehicles themselves. The Japanese didn't need to waste weight on things like landing gear or parachutes. Finally a Kamakaze had a much easier job, all they had to do was fly into the target, no fancy maneuvers. A German flying one of these contraptions would have only a tiny chance of hitting his target and he would have been just as dead at the end of the mission.

[@nickmcgookin247]

I could see b 52 getting a little drone fighter could bring back the gunner crew member. One that could come back and refule

[@captiannemo1587]

A lot of fighters were designed and tested for the B36/52

[@JohnMoses1897]

​@captiannemo1587 Don't forget the USS Macon dirigable with its trapeze for the Sparrow Hawk fighter planes. If small fleet operational as originally planned, the IJ fleets would have had a difficult time surprising everyone at Pearl Harbor or the Philippines. Even though Sparrow Hawks (very small armed "pursuit" planes with good endurance & rafios) would be hopelessly outclassed by IJN aircraft, the radio alert from a CAP would have foiled the element of suprise. Ironically, blimp ideas are making a resurgence

[@wirelessone2986]

Beautiful thumbnail!!

[@Cuccos19]

The Crutiss-Wright CW-21 Demon was quite a decent light fighter / interceptor. On paper, at least. But in reality the pilots who flew it - Dutch mostly - were not up to the task to beat combat hardened Japanese fighter pilots. Shame, the Demon was such a cool little plane.

[@callhoonrepublican]

@5:02 the letters on the airship... hehehe

[@stevefriswell5422]

Given the history of the Me 163, that would be fun to land. Surrounded by t and c stuff and only a skid to land on.

[@advorak8529]

The 163 did not have a brake parachute and unlike this thing the 163 was a very, very good glider. I don’t see major problems. Especially if there is a T-Stoff quick dump - like they added to the 163B during testing.

[@davidjernigan8161]

It seems that the escort fighters would shoot down the 234 with the E.381 still attached since the combination would be significantly slower than a P-51.

[@kirgan1000]

How do you know that?

[@JohnMoses1897]

​@@kirgan1000 By #'s of "Mistel" combos shot down. [mistletoe] - fighter (usually a well worn Me109 or Folke-Wolf FW190) mounted atop an worn out bomber (Henkel 111-211, Dornier 17,117,217, Junkers 88, 188, 288, Messerschmitt Bf 110, 210) that was mounted atop bomber (stripped of weight) with maxed out bombload [CG- center of gravity- adjusted for final combo flight] was flown by both to close release point, where fighter jettisoned/dropped bomber for radio guidance or auto gyro to target impact. Fighter free to RTB. Laftwaffe realized same thing Japanese did - even when shot to pieces, 70% chance of target impact - without a dead pilot at controls to aid flight deviation, unless physically completely destroyed in the air, good chance of success. Very difficult for fighter to control both, & practicing not practical due to landing issues. When used in conjunction with an airraid to initially distract, a fairvelementnof surprise obtained. This from an old former 20 yr old FW190 pilot who survived the eastern front & fortunately served in the west after helping from combat injuries I met way back in high school - Flugleutnant Franz Ernst Miller- dated his granddaughter & remained friends till his passing. Therefore, I believe accurate.

[@JohnMoses1897]

DAMN GOOGLE AI Müller

[@advorak8529]

They would have to find it first. Which is a different proposition than defending your aircraft carrier task force where any radar contact not of your own planes would be an enemy. You have ground clutter, your own chaff, hundreds of other aircraft, both bombers and fighters, and much less capable radar systems … with an enemy tracking you closely. How do you intercept the 234 if you have little or no idea where it is?

[@timcargile1562]

I'm experiencing a low audio level on this video. But still it's and interesting video. Thanks!. Ignor e this, my Youbube had been inadvertantly turned down!

[@mikedearing6352]

Great video, thanks

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Another Great video.

[@bonearrowgamingcommunity3380]

My first impression of this fighter cockpit is similar to the one of the imperial Tie fighters.

[@victorfinberg8595]

4:30 KLEIN means "small", but kleinST means "smallEST"

[@LarsAgerbk]

16:08 actual 1:1 scale replica of the Arado E.381

[@ElsinoreRacer]

In the illustrations with a mothership, the parasite mount position is impossible. The CG is at about 1/3 of the cord back from the leading edge. In the illustrations, 90-100% of the parasite's weight is behind this. The approx correct position is with both of their 1/3 cord lines aligned. P.S. The complete list of all military parasite applications: End.

[@advorak8529]

While you are right in theory, you may be forgetting that the parasite has not just weight but also wings and drag, changing the CoL too.

[@advorak8529]

PS: Your list is woefully incomplete. You not knowing or not thinking of applications does not mean there are none; this is an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity, which are logical fallacies. I might reasonably argue that most combat planes today carry several unmanned parasite fighters. They do not have to return, they do not need space for a pilot and cockpit, … which is why spacecraft carriers are not a thing, especially as any spacecraft can fly as fast as any other if it has enough ΔV, unlike ships vs planes. I’d also argue that a CAM ship has a parasite fighter - a single-use Sea Hurricane. It did pretty well against the Fw 200 Condor/Kurier, a militarised civil transport aircraft that managed Berlin -New York non-stop in just under 25 hours in 1938. They had little opposition as they were staying outside fighter range … but few defences if attacked. 8 combat launches, 8 planes shot down, 1 damaged, 3 chased off, 7 fighters destroyed by ditching/bailing out (one landed in Russia), one pilot killed (died of wounds from bailing out), 1 injured, 1 nearly drowned before recovery.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

@@advorak8529 1st point has merit.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

@@advorak8529 2nd has none. Clearly we are talking manned, airborne, and able to return to the host. Intentional ignorance is lame.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

You seldom fail to surprise with planes never heard of.

[@chrislong3938]

Dude, I gotta say that you almost sound like you're reading a Dr. Seuss book to children! LOL! The Arato 381 is fun! Fun? Yes! It's fun, it's number one! I dunno... ;-)

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

You mean the same pilot-dissolving Walther HK-109 engine that they never got to work reliably without massive death in the Me-163 Comet?

[@WolfeSaber9933]

"Smallest fighter" Nowadays, that's like a pet project at this point.

[@keithlegge6848]

500 Arado bombers a month that's 6000 per year. Where did the Germans think the pilots were going to come from. Their manpower was being slaughtered by the thousands every day. They did not run out of aircraft but pilots.

[@cyberfutur5000]

If it's kleinst, with ST at the end, it means the "smallest (possible)"

[@DonHavjuan]

Same as english, more or less. Small smallest.

[@JohnJones-oy3md]

4:26 - It translates to "smallest hunter".

[@keithlegge6848]

A V1 was attached to a Heinkel 111 in a new offensive against the U K late in the war. It failed with heavy losses.

[@advorak8529]

It did not fail per se, but a few V-1 blew up on launch (insta-scrapped plane and pilot) and others had some technical malfunctions. It was not the most successful buzzbomb launch method, though it did allow to have them fly outside the well known corridors from the launch sites.

[@keithlegge6848]

@@advorak8529 you may want to view Mark Felton's video on this subject.

[@77gravity]

Having the parent aircraft only able to carry a single fighter makes the whole concept basically pointless. If it could carry even just TWO fighters it might make some sense, but even then you get very little "fighter bang" for the investment. By the time the parent descends, lands, climbs back to height, you would have a very long turnaround.

[@advorak8529]

The idea was to attack the bomber streams. 2 passes is much better than no pass at all. And the turn-around matters little, you attack a bomber stream, compressed in space and time, not a constant cloud of bombers. Any you may not appreciate just how fast a jet plane can fly and climb. m

[@simonkg6728]

The DFS used a HE177 as a parent aircraft to trail carrying a bf109

[@nektulosnewbie]

I winced seeing the internal diagram of this plane. The pilot's lowet half is surrounded by the T-Stoff and C-Stoff fuel tanks. Even a simple leak would melt at least the pilot's legs (enemy gunfire would only be worse) while an explosion resulting from the two reacting like they often would would be right next to the pilot's body.

[@advorak8529]

Bombers sit on a ton of explosives in their bomb bays and often under belly and wings, getting shot at by flak and fighters with explosive, incendiary and armour piercing rounds. Submarines sit around with explosive torpedoes - and some are explosively fuelled. Remember the _K-141 Kursk_ ? 2 nuclear reactors, 24 P-700 Granit missiles (never mind the 750kg high explosive or 500 kton nuclear warhead on each - that thing is 7 tons, most of which will be fuel, solid fuel in the booster, fuel for the ramjet in the body, the super-heavy Type 65-76 wake-homing torpedo (450 kg warhead, HTP fuel). I do not think being in that for weeks and weeks versus a quarter hour with just the T-Stoff. C-Stoff you don’t want to drink or get into your eyes, but it is not really bad … just do not mix with T-Stoff. And T-Stoff is simply disarmed by copious amounts of water, is not toxic or carcinogenic … avoid skin contact.

[@advorak8529]

Bombers sit on a ton of explosives in their bomb bays and often under belly and wings, getting shot at by flak and fighters with explosive, incendiary and armour piercing rounds. Submarines sit around with explosive torpedoes - and some are explosively fuelled. Remember the _K-141 Kursk_ ? 2 nuclear reactors, 24 P-700 Granit missiles (never mind the 750kg high explosive or 500 kton nuclear warhead on each - that thing is 7 tons, most of which will be fuel, solid fuel in the booster, fuel for the ramjet in the body, the super-heavy Type 65-76 wake-homing torpedo (450 kg warhead, HTP fuel). I do not think being in that for weeks and weeks versus a quarter hour with just the T-Stoff. C-Stoff you don’t want to drink or get into your eyes, but it is not really bad … just do not mix with T-Stoff. And T-Stoff is simply disarmed by copious amounts of water, is not toxic or carcinogenic … avoid skin contact, though!

[@user-vp6os5kj4t]

You forget the German Mistel project

[@jaanikaapa6925]

You do know that the first aircraft you described is a viable Warhammer 40K air unit? :)

[@wolfganghuhn7747]

8.31 until he stops rambling and shows the tumbnail the first time, 11.50 until he shows the drawings

[@WolfeSaber9933]

The dimensions given are similar to my idea for a drone fighter of that same size, armed with small missiles, a tiny engine, and no machine gun. Based on stuff like Star Wars' Jedi starfighter.

[@MisterOcclusion]

C-stoff. T-stoff. Single landing skid. It's a war winning combination! ...for the other side. Nein, Hanz! Is NOT a suicide maschinen

[@Ardox_the_fatebreaker]

We found it... The "PLNE"

[@charliemarkovic4301]

I'll fly it. I volunteer!

[@emdenny10]

Also harder to see at a distance if painted correct.

[@wyattr7982]

They should just bring back Handsome Jack for BL4

[@carbunkle9902]

If the T-stoff leaked into the C-stoff, the pilot would be P-stoff.

[@advorak8529]

The pilot would be compressed air or compressed nitrogen for the A-2 Meillerwagen? Interesting …

[@davidgrainger5994]

You missed the Russian aircraft that carried fighters above and below its wings.

[@indigohammer5732]

Wait! The canopy thickness was 145mm? That's over five and a half inches!?! It would have weighed as much as the pilot.

[@advorak8529]

5.7 inch. Sometimes you need to protect the pilot. Also, what is the diameter of that vision port (canopy implies opening)? It’s not huge. And it is the most likely part to be hit. Another 80 kg to give an improved chance of hitting the target is well spent, and psychologically makes the pilot feel more safe, thus allows for more aggressive attack.

[@donberry7657]

The smallest airplanes belong to the Lillipution Air Force.

[@ameliafox9429]

Perfect time to check yt :D

[@RobertERensch]

More Iron Crosses per mission.

[@richardclarke3924]

Not a great start, ironically (or maybe not) that you showed a picture of an aircraft designer exclaiming about options in 1944 and you showed RJ Mitchell (Spitfire designer) who died in 1939

[@Absaalookemensch]

The Evel Knievel rocket fighter.

[@donaldboyer8182]

The ME 163 was a small rocket powered fighter. It used the same fuel mix (T-Stoff and S-Toff). It also had a skid landing system. They weren't weren't made in any great numbers. Sometimes they would crash while landing and the residual fuel mix (being very corrosive) would dissolve the pilot.

[@advorak8529]

No, they did NOT use S-Stoff. The A model (training/development only) used T-Stoff as monopropellant with Z-Stoff as catalyst. Just as the Starthilfe RATO system did. The production/armed B model (and later) used the much more powerful and hypergolic T-Stoff + C-Stoff combination. They still used T-Stoff with Z-Stoff to run the fuel pump. The Mercury capsule used T-Stoff, too, BTW.

[@donaldboyer8182]

@@advorak8529 I guess I chose the wrong Stoff. Get it?

[@arieldiaz8204]

The video goes well until you assume that several E381s would be needed to kill a sinlge bomber cause they have only 45 rounds for the MK108 cannon. Let me remind you that German pilots needed only five 30mm rounds to make a B17 explode mid air. Confirmed by Galland while flying the Me 262. Aircraft that you also failed to mention in this video. Plus the Me163 with all it´s flaws confirmed that a rocket powered aircraft could just ignore fighter escorts and bomber gunners.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

Like if they could release like three of those little bugger and they had twice the firepower it might have been interesting. Like this it's really a waste of effort and resources.

[@advorak8529]

Like you don’t understand what a 30mm hit did do to a bomber. Like you do not know what resources were commonly available and which were rare. Like you don’t grasp what bombing did to cities and civilians. Like how about you offer a better solution?

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

​@@advorak8529Like you make a lot of assumptions with no basis. I do know what a 30 mm hit did to a bomber, but I also understand how MK 108 guns with low muzzle velocity weren't exactly easy to use, especially by inexperienced pilots. In addition even the more experienced pilots complained that jets like Me-262 were too fast to use that gun accurately. This thing had 45 shots which with the usual cadence of 650 shots per minute made less than 4.5 seconds in a burst and enough fuel to make one or two passes. It's almost like a more complicated Me-163 with even less ammo and so far unknown flight characteristics to work with. And we do know how successful those were while defending the Reich. Not sure what you are trying to achieve with the bombing commnet, but if you want a better solution then maybe replay the video - make normal fighters rather than this nonsense. Me-262 brought 4 30 mm guns with 80-100 rounds each and needed two jet engines and one pilot. And that was no Volksjäger, but rather a high end plane. Arado Ar-234C with one parasitic fighter had a grand total of 1 30 mm gun with 45 rounds and needed 4 jet engines (although somewhat less demanding) and three rocket engines and two pilots to deliver that. Is that enough to show how shitty the solution is?

[@tompraska6858]

Sir, You are knowledgeable and your videos are interesting. But it is almost impossible to listen to your vocal delivery, which emphasizes the final syllable of each sentence. Please listen to your delivery and modify your vocal pattern. I love your videos and hope you can learn to talk.

[@teehasheestower]

The world's last borderlands fan also has a history channel? Don't get *too* stuck in the past, we might not be able to get you back.

[@GDVALENTE]

I really enjoy you videos and appreciate the research you do in presenting them. However I find your sing song narration off putting.

[@cyberfutur5000]

8:37 For me this picture is pretty funny, because I know the Nazis named this thing "Donnerkeil" because of Norse mythology and the weird Nazi fetish with Scandinavia... but I only know this word, because my grandpa always mumbled it, when he was slightly annoyed. Like if his screw driver fell to the floor , etc. The guy's naming it probably found it pretty edgy but for me it basically mean's "Oh crikey!" they could have just named it: >:(

[@hughmarloweverest1684]

Thank you for the video, we know it was a desperate fantasy for the forces of evil.

[@thisisaduck]

It is pretty much just a low-tech version of an air to air missile.

[@advorak8529]

Pretty much, which is why as soon as technology allowed guidance, manned parasite fighters became unmanned parasite fighters, often called a “missile”. More G tolerance, less need for space and does not have to give the pilot a chance of survival. The Bachem Natter was a bit higher tech low tech SAM, with ground guidance to the target and then using the little-trained pilot to fire an (unguided) rocket salvo at a bomber, which would cause enough damage to bring it down.

[@Geoff31818]

What that rocket and the fuel this is an even worse version of the ME163

[@albertwolanski7688]

At that time only missiles fired from the ground would stop the US carpet bombings. They had some success but run out of time.

[@stevenleek1254]

Robot Voice? Good info though.

[@thingamabob3902]

do you have robot ears ? 🤣🤣 Thats his voice ...

[@markgarin6355]

Small hunter....

[@jonmcgee6987]

A plane meant for the lollipop guild's air force.

[@Rom3_29]

8:50 - Flying coffin, with view. Good luck finding an insane pilot to fly that flying death trap. He might be crazy Nazi but not crazy enough. Hitting ground would be like a moth slamming speeding car’s headlight… splat.

[@advorak8529]

There were a number of pilots ready and willing to get into old Bf 109 and ram bombers - for example, trying to cut off their horizontal stabiliser with a wing. Not kamikaze but you’d not land that aircraft afterwards. There were volunteers for the Me 163 which killed more Germans than Allies. Never mind some of the midget submarines and manned torpedoes with a cockpit - Losses like 12 went, 2 returned, no successes; 18 went, 1 returned, 1 ship sunk … … Tell me again about “not crazy enough” to fly a minimal size plane towards some bomber at high speed, pull the trigger, repeat once or twice, then land and done with the day. As to _[h]itting ground_ you clearly did not understand the presentation. You’d land on the extended, sprung sledge and stop with a parachute. The 163 has shown it can be done pretty easily if the pilots are trained in high-speed glider landing. And the 163 was a glider, this thing … not so much.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Absolutely bloody stupid idea. Germany should have listened to Von Kluge in '44; "Make peace, you fools".