# Dornier 219 What If



## wiking85 (Sep 8, 2012)

Historically the Dornier 19 (Dornier Do 19 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was produced to meet the German Air Ministry's requirement for a 'Ural Bomber', but when it came time for the prototype to enter testing, it was deemed too underperforming by the Luftwaffe and superseded by the 'Bomber A' project that was given only to Heinkel to produce the He177. 
Recently I've come across information that suggested that the Dornier was ordered to stop development of the Do19 in July 1936 about 5 weeks after the Bomber A requirement was issued and several months before the first prototype was delivered.

What if Dornier, rather than accepting that the Do19 contract was going to be cancelled, instead tried to horn in on the Bomber A contract? They had been one of two companies that had experience designing four engine strategic bombers and learned a great deal from the less than stellar Do19. That experience could have helped them tremendously when designing a next generation strategic bomber. Heinkel at this point had no experience designing such a technically complex machine, so would likely have issues with their first generation strategic bomber. The Do219, Dornier's offering, could provide a back up to the potential of a Heinkel failure. 

As to what the Do19 would look like, I figure that pretty much everything with the Do19 would have be changed and they might look at the success with the Do17 for inspiration, rather than their flying boats, which inspired the Do19. Historically the Do217, despite superficial resemblances to the Do17, were a totally different design internally. Just as the Do217 took the nose from the Do17 and had a similar tail assembly, perhaps the Do219 would end up looking like a larger, 4 engine Do217 with the same deepened bomb bay sleek design, though with turrets mid-fuselage, rather than right behind the cockpit. They would also retain the tail gunner position of the Do19.

So in my mind the Do219 would look like a cross between the Do217 and the Lancaster. If design starts in mid-July 1936 when the order comes down to cancel Do19 development, that gives it 4 years to develop to July 1939 when it could theoretically enter production. Most WW2-era aircraft took about 4 years from design to production, though further development to bring an aircraft to its full potential sometimes took longer. 

So does anyone think this could be a viable potential path for a German strategic bomber instead of developing the Do19 or fixing the He177?


----------



## davebender (Sep 8, 2012)

This is a Do-26 flying boat. Note the engine configuration. I think a Dornier Bomber A should copy this arrangement with two pairs of Jumo 211 V12 engines. Early versions of the aircraft would have 4,800 total hp (4 x 1,200 hp). 1941 and later aircraft would have 4 x 1,340 hp Jumo 211F engines.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 8, 2012)

Very interesting. I didn't even think about that. The Do26 debuted in 1938 though, even though the configuration worked in earlier models, the latest attempt, the Do14, was a failure. Its a mighty big risk to take for a major design like the Do219, but success would be massive if it worked. The question is whether Dornier would be willing to take the risk of trying the remote engine configuration in a strategic bomber...
Dornier Do 26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dornier Do J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dornier Do X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Sep 8, 2012)

Why do you say that? Dornier had all sorts of experience with tandem engine arrangements. Using familiar technology is normally the least risky option.

*Do-18.* First flight 1935.





*Do-335.* Originated as project P.59 during 1939.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 8, 2012)

Ah, I discovered the Do18 after I posted about the Do14, which was a failure. Obviously the Do18 was more recent than the Do14 and the Do26 was in the works by 1937. Plus the Do335 was originally a bomber design...so this could work. Any idea if the push-pull configuration could handle a medium dive? The Bomber A specs required a 'medium' dive, whatever that meant. Apparently the later Udet issued dive specs were a 50-50 degree dive, so a 'medium' dive would be 30-40 degrees? Apparently the He177 was originally designed to handle that, which is why the DB606 and the two large propellors were used before Udet's request. 
The question is whether the push-pull could as well, which I see no reason why not, but I'm not aeronautics engineer.


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2012)

The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees. Why would it be any different for an aircraft with twin engine pods?


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees. Why would it be any different for an aircraft with twin engine pods?


The way the air flows over them perhaps?

It just seems like such an easy way to improve performance of any aircraft, so I don't know why it wasn't used more widely in WW2 aircraft designs.


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2012)

Why were USAAF fighter aircraft armed with .50 cal MGs right up to the Korean War?
Why did the Luftwaffe procure the Me-110 rather then the Fw-187?
Why did the Westland Whirlwind carry so little internal fuel?

Not all aircraft design decisions can be explained by logic and common sense.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 9, 2012)

There us usually an explanation though.
The USAAF had the .50 for inertia reasons, large stocks, lobbying
The Luftwaffe had the Bf110 because of Goering's demands
And I'm not sure about the Whirlwind.

There usually is a logic behind most things if we dig deep enough


----------



## Denniss (Sep 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees.


No it couldn't. The only (german?) aircraft capable of doing this was the Ju 87.


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2012)

*Ju-88 Flying Operations Manual.*
Ju-88 Flying Operations Manual


> There is a multicolored dive angle scale 40Y-70Ygiving the dive angle in the left sliding window panel. There is:
> 
> 40Ydive angle = red
> 50Ydive angle = black
> ...


I stand corrected. It appears 40 to 70 degree angle was normal for the Ju-88A dive bomber.

What was the normal attack angle for Me-410A dive bombers?


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 9, 2012)

Didn't the dive requirement get deleted after all of the trouble with airframe? Same with the Do217, He177, and Ju88.


----------



## davebender (Sep 9, 2012)

Newer German bomb sights allowed acceptable weapons delivery accuracy at shallower dive angles. This placed less stress on the airframe and was probably easier for green pilots then a 70 degree dive.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 9, 2012)

I thought that even the 'glide' bombing was too much for the Ju88, as it deformed the skin past 40-45 degrees. The Ju88 as a result was only used as a level bomber from 1940 on.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why were USAAF fighter aircraft armed with .50 cal MGs right up to the Korean War?
> Why did the Luftwaffe procure the Me-110 rather then the Fw-187?
> Why did the Westland Whirlwind carry so little internal fuel?
> 
> Not all aircraft design decisions can be explained by logic and common sense.



Well one out of three isn't bad. 

The FW 187 could not meet the specification _as written_, which is pretty much a logical and common sense reason for turning it down unless you could convince the officers involved that the specification was wrong. ( and in hind sight it may have been, but ordering aircraft that _DO NOT_ meet the specification is a sure way to be accused of favoritism or incompetence. 

The Whirlwind carried what for fuel? 134imp gallons? It was a small airplane. Wing smaller than a Hurricanes. It's single speed supercharged engines were rigged for altitude work which meant that they were good for only about 770hp each for take-off. Small wing, limited take-off power, what was the minimum field length requirement? Something had to give and it was fuel. of course the fact that it could easily out range either a Hurricane or Spitfire if they weren't carrying drop tanks might mean they weren't quite as worried about short range. Seems like logic and Common sense to me.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 9, 2012)

That's it, so what is the reason for the push-puller configuration not being used? The only logical reason, unless there was some technical issue, was that no other German aircraft manufacturer had experience producing such an engine and didn't have the technical know-how. Dornier was the only one, but didn't have the Bomber A offer from the Luftwaffe (or RLM, not sure) and didn't request to be included. They of course studied on how to use it for a medium fast bomber with the Do335, but not for a strategic bomber because it looked as though the He177 was favored.

Of course we can speculate what if the Do19 used the pull-pusher configuration, which would have meant a totally different aircraft that may well have been produced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 10, 2012)

The "push-pull" was not new, it was not German, and it offered a number of problems of it's own. 

It had been used in WW I, including by the British on the Handley Page V/1500. It had been used by Fokker on civilian airliners (including a few built in the US) It had been used by the French on bombers, mail planes and at least one flying boat. Its advantages and disadvantages, as known at the time, were fairly well known. 

It seems to work best when the propellers are a good distance between them. This means things like the extension shafts on the Do 26 flying boat, extra weight and complication, or really long engine nacelles. There is often trouble cooling the rear engine. Not necessarily the radiator but things like the accessories depended on cool airflow through the cowling and many times on liquid cooled engines special small ducts carried cooling air directly to the spark plugs.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> It seems to work best when the propellers are a good distance between them. This means things like the extension shafts on the Do 26 flying boat, extra weight and complication, or really long engine nacelles. There is often trouble cooling the rear engine. Not necessarily the radiator but things like the accessories depended on cool airflow through the cowling and many times on liquid cooled engines special small ducts carried cooling air directly to the spark plugs.


This is what I was looking for. The really long engine nacelles don't seem to pose a problem with a strategic bomber, as its wings are already pretty wide and could accomodate longer nacelles without much of a design issue and the wings could be shorter in length to compensate to a point.
As to the cooling issue, from what I am able to tell on Wikipedia, the radials were the only ones with the cooling issue. How much air flow did the liquid cooled engines require?


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

I agree. Large radial engines such as the BMW801 and R2800 had far more cooling problems then any liquid cooled engine.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

In general or in the push-pull configuration?


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

Dornier had all sorts of experience with liquid cooled tandem engine aircraft. Why would a heavy bomber be any different then the Do-26 seaplane?


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

Dornier Do 214 Luft '46 entry






Powered by eight DB613 24 cylinder engines. A tandem engine Bomber A powered by four Jumo 211 engines would be puny by comparison.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

Again, just seaplanes or flying boats for Dornier. Did they just not get contracts for land-based planes after the Do19 fiasco?


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

Ar-196 was the primary German ship based seaplane.

BV-138 was the primary German long range seaplane.

He-115 was the primary German seaplane torpedo bomber.

Do-17 light bomber and Do-18 seaplane were phased out of production by early 1941.
.....Dornier couldn't obtain enough engines for the Do-217 bomber program. It was the logical replacement for the Do-17 level bomber.
.....Do-26 seaplane was not allowed to enter mass production. It was the logical replacement for the Do-18.

Ju-288 was selected for Bomber B program rather then the equally capable Do-317.

Do-335 tandem engine light bomber program specifications were changed several times, preventing that aircraft from entering mass production.

It appears to me Dornier had few friends within the German government. Otherwise it's difficult to explain why orders for Dornier aircraft dried up after 1940.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

The Do17 was supposed to be phased out in 1938, but Dornier lobbied to get it continued, successfully keeping it around until 1941. So he had some influence it seems.


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

Luftwaffe only had 787 He-111s as of September 1939. Ju-88 didn't enter mass production until late 1939.

IMO the Do-17 probably remained in production until 1941 because Germany had nothing to replace it with. If the Ju-88 had entered mass production two years earlier then Do-17 production would have ended during 1938.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

Alright, somewhat separate question. Could the Do19 be redesigned with the push-puller configuration and be production ready in 1939? That would mean a total wing redesign, a fuselage enlargement, a tail and nose assembly redesign. Pretty much a total overhaul. I think it would take about 1 year for the full redesign to finish, about a 10-12 months to produce a prototype and about a year of testing/further development.
So assuming a start in July 1936 when the halt order came down for Do19 development and Dornier convinces the RLM to authorize further development, the redesign would be ready around August 1937. The prototype would be ready in June-August 1938. The green light for production could either happen after the prototype is demonstrated as basically sound even if it needs some tweeks over the next year. Still, most new designs in WW2 required 2 years of development/testing to be production ready, the major exception being the Do217, which to a degree was an outgrowth of the Do17. Could this abbreviated timeframe work with the Do19?


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

17 April 1936. RLM request for Bomber A.
…..Top speed of 335mph.
…..Operational radius of 1,000 miles with a 2,000kg payload.
…..Operational radius of 1,800 miles with a 1,000kg payload.
…..Capable of shallow angle bombing. Later modified to 60 degree angle.
…..Expected to be operational by 1940.

IMO Do-19 is the wrong approach. Start with the much better Do-217 which historically could almost meet Bomber A specifications powered by a pair of DB603 engines.

Historical design of the Do-217 began during 1938. However it was based on the Do-17 which first flew during 1934. Move Do-217 airframe design forward two or three years. Power it with a pair of tandem Jumo 211 engine pods which will eliminate the historical Do-217 engine shortage and provide quite a bit more total power. You need more internal fuel capacity to meet the range requirement which may result in a slightly larger aircraft.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

Yeah, the wings would have to be expanded too to make sure the engines were far enough apart. I have to think over this idea, because there are going to have to be several changes of the OTL model, which will pretty much make it a Do219.

The Bomber A spec could have been met by the B17...which the Do19 could have turned into by 1939-40 with development and testing.


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

I disagree. B-17 cannot meet Bomber A speed or range with payload requirements. The 1943 B-17G comes close but by then Germany had the superior He-177A3 and He-177A5 in production.

Factsheets : Boeing B-17E
B-17E entered service during 1941. 
317mph max speed.
3,200 miles max ferry range.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

You're right, the speed is the only thing it cannot keep up with when using the required payload. But otherwise it meets the spec. 
But I'm for the He177B or Do219. The question is whether either could be ready in time to make a difference in the Blitz.


----------



## davebender (Sep 10, 2012)

I agree. 

He-177B (4 x Jumo 211 engines) recommended by Heinkel during 1938 had potential to be the best heavy bomber of WWII and it probably could have been in service by 1941. Late war version powered by DB603 or Jumo 213 engines would have rivaled the B-29 in performance. I believe there was even a He-177B prototype powered by 2,500 hp Jumo 222 engines.

However it would still have been interesting to see a Dornier tandem engine bomber design. Do-217 was an excellent airframe.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 10, 2012)

Certainly. The mockup was ready in mid-1937, but was delayed by modifications ordered by the Luftwaffe. At that point they could have also requested changes to the engines, as the 2 props predated the dive bombing requirement, which appeared in November 1937 when the final mockup was ready. It the original plan was stuck to, the first prototype would have flown in late 1938 and probably been production ready in late 1940, to enter service in June-July 1941. 

As to the Do217 frame with tandem engines, the airframe would have had to have been modified to handle the significantly larger wings that would have been required. So the airframe would have ended up much larger and not been the Do217 anymore, but something like a Do317 or Do219. It would have had to have been so much larger than it would then make sense to have a bomb bay that could take 6 tons of bombs and been the rival to the He177B.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

> airframe would have ended up much larger and not been the Do217 anymore, but something like a Do317


Data from Wikipedia.

Wingspan.
19 meters. Do-217J (BMW801 engines).
20.63 meters. Do-317A (DB603 engines).
26 meters. Do-317B (DB610 engines).

Length.
18.2 meters. Do-217J.
16.8 meters. Do-317.
.....Not sure why Do-317 is shorter then Do-217. Could that be a misprint?

A tandem pair of Jumo 211 engines should weigh about the same as a paired DB610 engine. So I think the Do-317B represents what our hypothetical aircraft would look like. Except for greater wingspan it's still pretty much a Do-217.


----------



## zoomar (Sep 11, 2012)

Minor point. It seems like by now we are talking about an aircraft that has essentially no similarity to the original Do-19, and which is not even descended from it. The discussion is about a purely hypothetical Dornier aircraft that, if anything, is an extrapolation of the Do-217 using tandem push-pull engines developed from the concepts used on floatplanes. Very unlikely it would be called Do-219, methinks. How 'bout calling it a Do-417 or taking another approach and making it a landplane adaptation of one of the proposed Dornier large flying boats. Actually, it seems to me to be that forthright accelerated development of the He-177B or He-277 makes the most sense.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

If design work begins during 1935 or 1936 it would be earlier then the historical Do-217. So it would probably receive the Do-217 designation.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

I meant the width of the wings (front to back), not the length. The wings would of course be strong enough to handle two Jumos, just as they would two DBs, but they would need to be wide (deep?) enough to one directly behind the other on each side. 
Junkers Jumo 211 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Length: 1,768 mm (69.61 in)


Each is nearly 6ft long, so the wings would also need to be about 14ft or so long/deep to take both engine and give enough room between engines so they don't over heat, but also to give the propellors enough room so that the 'backwash' of the front propellor doesn't disrupt the rear propellor's airflow.



davebender said:


> If design work begins during 1935 or 1936 it would be earlier then the historical Do-217. So it would probably receive the Do-217 designation.


Why? The Do217 was a development of the medium bomber the Do17. Hence the advanced designation of 217. A strategic bomber would be the advanced version of their previous version, enough though it has nothing to do with it, just as the Do217 structurally had little to do with the Do17. So IMHO it makes more sense to go along with the next step in the 19 series, as it was the Dornier strategic bomber series. Unless they just wanted to go for an unassigned number like the Do30 or something like that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> Each is nearly 6ft long, so the wings would also need to be about 14ft or so long/deep to take both engine and give enough room between engines so they don't over heat, but also to give the propellors enough room so that the 'backwash' of the front propellor doesn't disrupt the rear propellor's airflow.



And there you have one of the problems with the tandem engine. 

You have to decide on all but the largest of planes _before metal is cut_, if you are using 4 tractor engines ( including coupled engines like the DB 606/610) or two tandem engines. The tractor engines are all forward of the main spar and forward of the center of gravity, while the rear engines in the tandem are aft of the main spar and aft of the center of gravity. On anything but the largest of aircraft ( like big flying boats) *ADDING* a pair of engines aft of the main spar is going to call for a lot of redesign.
Or teying to change from 4 tractors to to two tandem nacelles. If you need more room between the props you can use extensions shafts on the rear engines as was done on the DO-26. 

another choice that has to be made fairly early in the design process is if flaps are going to be used to assist take-off. In the early to mid 30s NOBODY used flaps for take off, in the early 30s many aircraft did not use flaps for landing The P-26 was first produced with out them although later versions had them and they were retro fitted to the earlier planes. Early flaps were little more than drag flaps in some cases ( including the earlier Spitfire), that provided no lift but steepened the landing approach. When flaps were arranged to lower a small amount (15-40 degrees?) instead of 70-90 degrees they could be used for more lift when taking-off. Putting a propeller right in back of of a lowered flap, even a moderately lowered one is going to do serious things to the airflow through the prop and the thrust.






Engine/props are raised but I hope show the idea, drooping flaps could have a rather negative effect on thrust. Not a deal breaker but you do have to decide while building the plane if it takes of on thrust or on lift from wing/flaps. 

The Germans ( and a few others) often complicated things to great extent in order to save 2-4% in drag. Tandem engines do make sense in some installations like the Do 18 flying boat (and numerous copies), you want the engines and props high up in order to keep them out of the spray, a central location centers the weight and improves roll. being able to stand on the hull or wing while working on the engines ( or reach them in flight) makes things easier for maintenance, especial if afloat and away from a land base.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

One engine on each wing. Third engine in rear fuselage with prop aft of the tail (i.e. similiar to Do-335 rear engine). This arrangement leaves nose free for bombardier position. Might need the 1,750 hp DB603 engine to provide enough total power with only three engines.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

Great idea! The Do217 gets changed only in that it has another engine in the pusher configuration. That way it can run on three Jumo 211's or DB601's until the DB603 arrives. Then it has more power than IOTL.
The only problem is how far toward the ground the propellor is during landing and take off.




Looking at this though shows that it would need special landing gear to keep it further off the ground like the tricycle landing gear of the Do335...which was expensive and difficult to produce and maintain...


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

I would expect a tricycle landing gear arrangement similiar to the Do-335.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

* the tricycle landing gear of the Do335...which was expensive and difficult to produce and maintain...*
It would reduce production and increase complications for maintenance.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2012)

A bomber with a engine in the rear of the fuselage would be a fighter pilots dream, no possibility of a tail gunner, or anyone shooting directly to the rear.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

The Do217 did have a rearward facing turret near the cockpit.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

What makes you think that? The American made A-20 had tricycle landing gear and it was our least expensive twin engine bomber.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> The Do217 did have a rearward facing turret near the cockpit.


How's it going to shoot thru the rear propeller disc ? 
Did anyone ever sychonize a flexible gun?

I don't see anyway to get the main gear back far enough for it to rest on a tri gear, especially with a engine behind the cg.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

Why does it need to?

Turrets and barbettes typically have mechanical stops to prevent a gunner from shooting the tail off. In this case mechanical stops would also protect the rear prop.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 11, 2012)

It's not going to be fast enough to not be intercepted, and you're leaving the ideal direction for it to be intercepted from unprotected.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

davebender said:


> What makes you think that? The American made A-20 had tricycle landing gear and it was our least expensive twin engine bomber.


I thought I read it was more expensive and helped delay the Do335 because of complexity, but it seems it has tons of advantages and none of the drawbacks I thought:
Tricycle gear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> What makes you think that? The American made A-20 had tricycle landing gear and it was our least expensive twin engine bomber.



It was also our smallest and least capable twin engine bomber, not counting the Hudson. 

Tricycle landing gear is heavier and more expensive than tail dragger gear, but mostly by only a few percent. It may require more maintenance, it does mean fewer landing and take-off accidents which tends to over shadow the maintenance requirement.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

All loaded heavy bombers require escort. That's what Fw-187s are for.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> All loaded heavy bombers require escort. That's what Fw-187s are for.


 Never in the history of aerial warfare is there an bomber escort so effective, that the bombers themselves needed no defensive armament, and this fictional Fw187 would have been no different.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

> Never in the history of aerial warfare is there an bomber escort so effective, that the bombers themselves needed no defensive armament


I agree. However it's equally foolish to load a bomber down with payload hogging defensive weapons and additional aircrew to operate them. You want just enough defensive weapons to prevent being an easy kill. There should be some sort of rear protection but it doesn't need to be located in the tail.







I like what Focke Wulf did for their Fw-191 heavy bomber. Those remote control weapons located on the wing at the rear of the engine cowling should have a good field of fire.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 12, 2012)

Nice hypothesies so far - though I think adding a rear fuz engine, the associated redesigns, increased structural loadings weight and the extention shaft with its torsional anti-vibration bearings would severely eat into the operational range/mission requirements and maintenance ect.

Also, to compensate for the CoG differences, the main wing would have to be moved rearwards down the fusalage and/or the tractor engines extended forwards, or extend the forward fuz forwards or a ratio of all three - which could add further development delays to production upon those incurred for the rear fuz redesign for a pusher.

But, as with the resulting affects of trying to meet the glide/dive bombing stresses e.g; like the Ju88's He177's etc, the same redesigned, increased wieght of structural metal/members would make that area slightly more combat damage sustainable than a normal rear fuz' - barring critical member/equip't damage naturally.

Albeit with possible associated higher maintance needs for sustained operations - something that eventually assited in the crippling of german aircraft operationally via logistical needs/stresses incurred upon the transport system.


In no way am I meaning that it couldn't be done, or it being implausable, just it'd add to the 'gestation' period and combat infrastructural needs. 
Even if that might ignore the RLM, DVL, Techamt Luftwaffe personalities their opinions that'd infuriate matters further than just the accepted/tolerated/ignored/threatening party politcs of then.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. However it's equally foolish to load a bomber down with payload hogging defensive weapons and additional aircrew to operate them. You want just enough defensive weapons to prevent being an easy kill. There should be some sort of rear protection but it doesn't need to be located in the tail.
> 
> 
> View attachment 211251
> ...


 You've got just as much drag and weight with that solution, as a conventional turret with a gunner, but with a lot more complex and vunerable control runs between the aiming position and turret. That solution probably weighs more than just a conventinal manned turret.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

I disagree.

A tail turret can fire only to the rear. Remote turrets / barbettes (not sure what they were called) on wings cover the top and sides as well as the rear. One gunner sitting inside the Fw-191 cockpit area armored cocoon does the work of four B-17 crew members.
- Tail gunner.
- Top turret gunner.
- Left waist gunner.
- Right waist gunner.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A tail turret can fire only to the rear. Remote turrets / barbettes (not sure what they were called) on wings cover the top and sides as well as the rear. One gunner sitting inside the Fw-191 cockpit area armored cocoon does the work of four B-17 crew members.
> - Tail gunner.
> ...



You can tell by how that turret is positioned it has very little field of fire downward, like the tail gunner usually has, no ability at all to fire forward as the top gunner has, and no ability whatsoever to take care of more than one target at a time, as mulitple turrets do.

Also if that 3rd engine on the rear has as big a propeller as most twins, those guns wouldn't be able to shoot much closer to the center than straight back, leaving a huge chunk of sky uncovered.

Like I said, a 3 engine bomber, with that 3rd engine in the tail, has no way to defend the most important sector of sky around a aircraft, the tail.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> I like what Focke Wulf did for their Fw-191 heavy bomber. Those remote control weapons located on the wing at the rear of the engine cowling should have a good field of fire.



Now you just have to get them to work properly, something the Germans barely managed with manned turrets.


----------

