# 1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?



## tomo pauk (Jul 17, 2012)

Okay, this time on the LW is to 'acquire' a super fighter 
Using the stuff historically produced in Germany, 1939/40, and the state of the art of the late 1930s, how would the ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe looked like if you were in charge? Production starts in January 1940, so the new fighter can be used vs. the Western European air forces when the time comes. The plane should have great performance for the day, along with other capabilities that make a great war plane. A single engined design. The growth potential should be there, too.

Answers like 'produce the He-100' or the 'Bf-109F' are wholeheartedly discouraged


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

1937.
RLM gives DB603 engine program top priority for development and production.
.....Reversal of historical decision to cancel DB603 funding during 1937.

Autumn 1937. Historical event.
RLM request for new fighter aircraft to supplement the Me-109.

Late 1937 / early 1938.
Dr Tank proposes new fighter aircraft design powered by the DB603 engine he historically preferred.

1 June 1939. Fw-190 V1 prototype first flight.
.....Historically with BMW 139 engine. In this scenerio it will fly with a DB603 prototype.

31 Oct 1939. Fw-190 V2 prototype first flight.
.....DB603 engine ILO the historical BMW 139.

Historical Fw-190 development was delayed while waiting for a reliable engine. That's the case in this scenerio also. Our Fw-190 will enter mass production as soon as the DB603 engine passes a 100 hour endurance test. Should be NLT January 1941.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

I think a Fw-187 powered by DB601 engines qualifies as an Uber fighter during 1939 to 1942. Not single engine. However it's available earlier and you don't need to develop a new engine. 

Oct 1935. RLM provides 50 million RM for new DB601 engine factory.
.....The original plan. Historically reduced to 20 million after an argument between Daimler-Benz management and RLM.

1936. Historical.
Fw-187 begins development as a private venture. Designed for DB601 engines. 
.....Full funding for Genshagen engine factory ensures there will be plenty of DB601 engines for this aircraft.

1937. Historical.
RLM request for new fighter aircraft.
RLM request for new twin engine CAS aircraft armed with cannons.
.....Variants of the Fw-187 can compete for both requirements.

Spring 1937. Fw-187 prototye first flight.
.....Historically RLM considered the Fw-187 only for the Zerstorer competition (vs Me-110). In this scenerio RLM will have enough DB601 engines that the Fw-187 can be considered for the day fighter competition.

Historically the Zerstorer competition forced Focke Wulf to redesign the Fw-187 for a second crew member which delayed development for a year. No redesign in this scenerio so the Fw-187 single seat day fighter will be ready a year early.

Feb 1938. Fw-187 A0 pre-production aircraft.
.....A year ahead of historical development.

Feb 1939. Fw-187A enters mass production.
.....Single seat.
.....Powered by two DB601A engines.
.....4 x 20mm cannon mounted in fuselage sides.
.....1,100 liters of internal fuel provide huge endurance for a 1939 fighter aircraft.

Rechlin test pilot Heinrich Beauvais opinions concerning Fw-187.
- Circled comparable to the Me-109.
- Roll rate slightly less than the Me-109.
- Top speed superior to the Me-109. ~30mph better.
- Climb superior to the Me-109. ~300 feet per minute better.
- Dive as good as the Me-109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 17, 2012)

I think the Messerschmitt Me 109 with all-round vision canopy, rudder trim, 50% more fuel, and inward-retracting landing gear.

If I had to pcik an existing German plane to be developed, without modifications as suggested above, I'd say the Heinkel He 112 shoed great potential, but the RLM hated Ernst Heinkel. I WOULD say the he 100, but I don;t think the plane was ready for production or combat as it existed at the time. The He 112, on the other hand, coule EASILY have been ready and available if the proposed Me 109 improvement is not in the spirit of the post.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

Design a "bigger" fighter. around 210-220 sq ft of wing area. 500-600 liters of fuel internal. Inward retracting landing gear. Ditch the slats. The 109F was not a particularly low drag airframe for it's size and it was a huge step ahead of the 109E. It shouldn't be that hard to to get 109E performance with the bigger airframe even with the same engine. 
The bigger plane with the extra fuel will allow longer range/duration. It will operate from either worse air fields or have lower accidents. It may allow the carriage of more under wing/fuselage stores. It may offer more room _in the wings_ for anti bomber armament in later models with better engines.


----------



## N4521U (Jul 18, 2012)

Wasn't there someone on the other side of the big river suggested Spitfires?


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

N4521U said:


> Wasn't there someone on the other side of the big river suggested Spitfires?



Range is far too short.

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 18, 2012)

Hello, Dave, 

The plane should be a single engined job, and available in numbers in 1940 vs. the West 

I agree with SR6, a plane of, maybe, Spitfire's size would not be too much for the DB-601A, with fuel of some 130-140 US gals. 
What would I do is to make it an 8 LMG fighter, 4 MG-15s in the wing roots, 4 outboard of the prop disc (so it's similar to the FW-190 weaponry layout, 2 LMGs in lieu of 1 wing cannon, but no hull guns). Maybe 500 rounds per gun. All fuel going between pilot and engine, so the plane looks like Fiat G.55 in side elevation.


----------



## Juha (Jul 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> I...If I had to pcik an existing German plane to be developed, without modifications as suggested above, I'd say the Heinkel He 112 shoed great potential, but the RLM hated Ernst Heinkel. I WOULD say the he 100, but I don;t think the plane was ready for production or combat as it existed at the time. The He 112, on the other hand, coule EASILY have been ready and available if the proposed Me 109 improvement is not in the spirit of the post.



Did the RLM hate Ernst Heinkel? But at least head of RLM, Milch, heartly disliked Willy Messerschmitt ever since the M20 airliner crashes in late 20s. That was the main reason why Willy chose to make Bf 109 so radical, heavy wing loading for its time, slats etc. He knew that if his design wasn't clearly better Milch would have driven hard for selection of another competitor.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 18, 2012)

As a conservative I'd say that a Bf 109E with a drop tank possibility and Fw 187 single seater as an escort fighter if it had enough range. I'd have diverted most of Bf 110 production to Fw 187 and kept only Bf 110C recon version even if that would have complicated logistics.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

Juha said:


> As a conservative I'd say that a Bf 109E with a drop tank
> Juha



Me too. Introduce the E-7 earlier. It could easily have been done,it's a simple plumbing job. Who knows what difference that would have made in 1940.
Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 18, 2012)

Juha said:


> As a conservative I'd say that a Bf 109E with a drop tank possibility



+1.

I'd also look to push the FW190 program (insisting on the l/c DB601 in some early prototypes).
I'm not sure you can rope an expanded engine program into this (re 601's/603's) but considering the number of prototypes sub-types the Germans indulged in it is a bit of a surprise we never see much of an early l/c engined FW190 or a bigger (bigger-winged) Me109.

In fact as versitile adaptable as the Me109 was it is surprising to see how the contemporary Spitfire was developed compared, by the mk14 on almost into a new plane (and in fact in the Spiteful became one) .
The philosophy of making the air-frame as tiny as possible was fine with trying to maximise capitalise on the engine power available in 1935/6 but it was doing the Me little favours 5yrs later when the design was probably close to the end of its substantive development (the impressive final hurrah in the K model aside).

(on 2nd thoughts I suppose you could point to the Me 209, not the record breaker, as the upgrading of the Me 109)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2012)

The Germans have a real problem in 1940 and it is with the guns. Drop tanks would help but they still need more fighters, It does little good to have fuel for 10-15minutes more combat if the wing guns are empty and the armament is down to the cowl 7.9mm machine guns. The 60 round drums for the MG/FF are too small. The Germans might need to relay fighters even with drop tanks to make sure that the escorts have enough ammo.

This is a big part of the problem with a single seat Fw 187 in 1940. After 6-8 seconds the cannon are out of ammo. Not so bad on a point defense interceptor 30 minutes from base. Not so good on an escort fighter 90 minutes from base.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

You need an Uber engine also. I have presented two possible solutions to that issue.

1. Build the DB601 in large numbers (i.e. similiar to Jumo 211) so Germany can afford to produce a twin engine day fighter. 
The Fw-187 is an obvious choice for that role.

2. Provide full support for the DB603 engine program rather then cancelling it during 1937. 
Engine development time is difficult to predict. Daimler-Benz had a 1,500 hp prototype running at the time funding was cut off. It's entirely possible that engine will pass a 100 hour endurance test before 1940. Even if the original (1940) production model DB603 engine is good for only 1,500 hp that's still a big leap in performance over the 1,100 hp DB601A.

IMO the Fw-190 airframe is the obvious choice for the DB603 engine as it's the engine Dr Tank always wanted. However you could use this powerful engine in any airframe large enough to hold it. If Messerschmitt has confidence that RLM supports the DB603 engine they could design something similiar to the Me-309 to make use of it.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 18, 2012)

If I had free choice of engine I'd say 190 with a DB601 and annular radiator. Switch to DB603 in 1942 should be rather smooth given the fighter gets priority for that engine.

Other than that Germany had a good fighter for 1940-42 and a good one in the pipe for 1942-43, even with BMW801 (which gets far too worse credit than it deserves). The failure to follow on with a decent medium-to-high altitude, 1750+ PS engine for 1943-1945 was their problem.

As for armament: Who had a really good armament for 1940? Certainly not the RAF and the VVS not really either. It was a period where everyone realized rifle calibre mgs are not a great option for a fighter aircraft and Germany arguably had one of the best solutions in the pipe with the MG151.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 18, 2012)

The DB 603 was about 75% more weight compared to the DB 601.....and nearly a full meter longer.
It's never going to be an easy conversion from DB 601 to DB 603 in a fighter, surely?

By all means use it in the much later Ta152 or multi-engined aircraft etc but surely in this time-scale it is more realistic to imagine a much more lightly modified early FW190 with a DB 601N or E IMO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> Airframe alone will not produce an Uber fighter
> 
> You need an Uber engine also. I have presented two possible solutions to that issue.




A decent airframe sure helps. The Japanese Ki 61 shows some of what could be done. bit slower than a 109 in climb it is faster on the level than a 109E, carries more fuel, has a higher ceiling. While not a huge advantage in any one area it offers more scope for improvement before flying qualities go in the toilet, With a reliable 1500hp engine one wonders what it could do let alone getting one of the _UBER_ 605 engines. 

1500hp from a 2000lb engine doesn't offer a lot to a fighter designer over 1100-1200hp from a 1300-1400lb engine. Actual installed powerplant weight may be worse than the dry weight comparison. you may need 20-25 sq ft more wing area to keep the same wing loading as the smaller engine. Bigger engines are better but they have to have a power to weight ratio as good as the smaller engine for a fighter, not worse.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 18, 2012)

Here is a pic of a Fw190 with DB605
cimmex

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

> The DB 603 was about 75% more weight compared to the DB 601.....and nearly a full meter longer.
> It's never going to be an easy conversion from DB 601 to DB 603 in a fighter, surely?


I agree. 

If Dr. Tank designs the Fw-190 for a DB601/DB605 engine then it should be smaller and lighter in weight. If the Fw-190 is designed for a DB603 engine then you end up with something similiar to the historical Fw-190D9. The Me-109 already provides an excellent light weight fighter so my preference would be for a heavy fighter powered by the DB603 engine or else the Fw-187 powered by two DB601 engines.

Fw-187 provides the best firepower (4 x centerline mounted cannon) plus outstanding endurance. A tempting choice even if the aircraft is a bit more expensive. An aircraft with endurance that good would not need to fly multiple sorties per day and it can project combat power to distances the Me-109 can never achieve even with drop tanks. Fw-187s could loiter over enemy air fields similiar to what P-51s accomplished over Germany during the final year of WWII.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 18, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> The DB 603 was about 75% more weight compared to the DB 601.....and nearly a full meter longer.
> It's never going to be an easy conversion from DB 601 to DB 603 in a fighter, surely?
> 
> By all means use it in the much later Ta152 or multi-engined aircraft etc but surely in this time-scale it is more realistic to imagine a much more lightly modified early FW190 with a DB 601N or E IMO.


 
Griffon was also significantly heavier than Merlin, still Spitfire-airframes could cope with it.

The Fw 190 airframe took the DB603 easily, that's been proven historically by the Fw 190 C prototypes.





I am not suggesting a lightened or slimmer Fw 190, keep it as it was historically. Even if it's a tad slower with the DB601, climbs worse and accelerates worse too, it is a worthwhile addition to the Bf 109 with heavier armament and more forgiving landing gear. The difference to the historical early Fw 190 will be about 200 PS, but it'll also be less draggy.
The point is, getting a fighter close to Fw 190 performance and with decent product lifecycle _in 1940_. Which was the aim of the thread, to my understanding.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 18, 2012)

Hello, cimmex,
Isn't that picture a hoax?

If is not too hard, maybe people could propose something along the opening post (SINGLE engined job, made from the stuff already in production). 

As for the Germans having problems with guns, in 1940, that is not the case - stuck in 8 LMGs, forget the MG FF, and you're set.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

Why? 

What's wrong with using MG FF cannon for early aircraft and upgrading to MG151/20 when that weapon enters mass production?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 18, 2012)

In the historical Bf-109E, once the 60 rounds per cannon are expanded, you're left with just 2 LMGs. Not such a great thing when over enemy-held land? Plus, with far to differing trajectories, using the cannons with LMGs in the same time wastes either one type of weapon/ammo or another. 
With 8 LMGS, each with 500 rds, there are no such issues.

I have no quarrels about one MG-151 replacing a pair of the LMGs, once the cannon is available.


----------



## DonL (Jul 18, 2012)

For the FW 187 it is a no brainer!

I have written it often, the FW 187 was designed from the scratch for the 35L 1000PS engine (advertisement of the RLM from 1935-36)

The first flight of the most advanced Prototype FW 187 V4 (twin seater) was october 1938.
If the the RLM had choosen the FW 187 as longe range fighter/ Zerstoerer (twin seater) instead of the Bf 110 at the end of 1938 there would be enough time to launch the production at the begin of 1939 after a few tests with the DB 601a. The real production begin of the Bf 110 was 1939.
Also there was the possibility to spread the production to other a/c companys with no production aircraft for the LW

The FW 187 could stay as it was developed, twin seater, with 4 x 7,92 MG's and 2 x 20mm cannon (same as Bf 110 C); 1100L fuel and 2x DB 601Aa engines. 
Estimated:
FW 187 "B0" (2x DB 601Aa) empty: 4200kg full load: 5500kg; Wing loading: 180-185 kg/m²; Speed: 610-620 km/h, range 1300-1400km.
This would be the best fighter at 1940/41 and with the same/or little bit more numbers (FW 187 is smaller and cheaper) of production as the Bf 110, it would had a very mighty word at BoF and BoB.



> Design a "bigger" fighter. around 210-220 sq ft of wing area. 500-600 liters of fuel internal. Inward retracting landing gear. Ditch the slats. The 109F was not a particularly low drag airframe for it's size and it was a huge step ahead of the 109E. It shouldn't be that hard to to get 109E performance with the bigger airframe even with the same engine.
> The bigger plane with the extra fuel will allow longer range/duration. It will operate from either worse air fields or have lower accidents. It may allow the carriage of more under wing/fuselage stores. It may offer more room in the wings for anti bomber armament in later models with better engines.



To me it is the description of the He 112B....C....D...etc.
Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The He 112 was significant larger with a lot more internal fuel as the Bf 109 and from all I have read from experts the design was very good also the wing design.
The He 112 was in need of a more powerfull engine then the Jumo 210 to show it's full potential. To me it was the right direction and the KI 61 has to my opinion much more in common with the He 112 then with the He 100.

To my opinion the He 100 is a dead horse and very much overrated because of the philosophy to join the smallest possible cabin/fuselage with the "biggest" engine.
This philosophy has not much room for development and space for a perhaps more powerful engine with the need of more space for cooling.
The He 100 was an extreme of this philosophy but to my opinion the Bf 109 suffered also from this philosophy but on a less extreme way.

It's speculative but the problems of the DB 605 weren't only problems of DB, much problems are from the too less space of the Bf 109 cabin/fuselage and the big compromises to fit the DB 605 and it's cooling to the Bf 109 cabin.
Here I think the He 112 would be the better choice through it's larger space and perhaps a He 112 with DB 605 engines had performed better then the Bf 109G and with less problems at the engines (DB 605).

The FW 190 is to me stronger in need of a powerfull engine then the He 112 and with a DB 601a it would be to my opinion no equal fighter at 1940, because the engine had too less power to fligh the FW 190 near it's performance. So I don't think that a FW 190 would be a good fighter at 1940 without a 1500PS engine.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

I realize this is historical but I don't understand the purpose. Why not just put four 20mm cannon in the Fw-187 nose / fuselage sides?

Messerschmitt Me 110dj_f4.htm
The Mk101 3cm high velocity cannon was designed for the Me-110. I assume it would be an option on the Fw-187 also with a similiar optional mount (field kit?) under the nose.


----------



## DonL (Jul 18, 2012)

I agree with the other guys Dave!

With four MG FF 20mm you have too less ammo for a long fight time. The FF 20mm is important for the impact, but two are realy enough at 1940 and compared with four 7,92mm MG's it's a very powerfull and balanced armament.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 18, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Griffon was also significantly heavier than Merlin, still Spitfire-airframes could cope with it.



Oh I know the FW could cope with the DB603 if modified (the Ta152 is exactly that afterall the FW190c did it 1st as you said) but in the 1940 time-scale I think the DB601 engined FW190 makes more sense......and Dave gets to indulge his interest in an alternate reality where it is also DB engines in large scale production and not just Jumo 211's.

I always thought the FW190C with turbo charger looked especially nice mean.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

Put four 7.92mm machineguns on target and it will indeed be a long fight. Put four 20mm cannon on target and the enemy will be dead before he even knows he's under attack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2012)

That is fine for the first two targets engaged. what happens to target #3? and #4?

The 110 carried 2 spare drums for each cannon, total 180 rounds per cannon. The rear gunner/radioman changed the drums, not a good system but better than 60rpg. 

Of course with the MG/ff cannon you have to almost on top of the target so that _surprise_ might be a bit harder to pull off. 

The MK 101 was a good anti-tank gun but a lousy air to air weapon. It weighed as much as 6 1/2 MG/FFs and had a rather low rate of fire making long range hits rather difficult. A 300mph plane moves 110 ft between shots.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> I WOULD say the he 100, but I don;t think the plane was ready for production or combat as it existed at the time.



I think you will find that the series II and series III delivered aircraft were the initial production aircraft. The aircraft was designed from the outset to be modular for mass production. Heinkel missed the boat, he should have secured license production of the DB601M which would have mitigated one excuse for not approving its production.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Griffon was also significantly heavier than Merlin, still Spitfire-airframes could cope with it.




The DB603, according to Wiki, is much the same weight as a Griffon. But it is significantly longer - about 20"/500mm. That may be the biggest problem.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 18, 2012)

DonL said:


> To my opinion the He 100 is a dead horse and very much overrated because of the philosophy to join the smallest possible cabin/fuselage with the "biggest" engine.
> This philosophy has not much room for development and space for a perhaps more powerful engine with the need of more space for cooling.
> The He 100 was an extreme of this philosophy but to my opinion the Bf 109 suffered also from this philosophy but on a less extreme way.



I think you will find the cockpit more spacious than the 109. With regards to its development potential the aircraft would accept the DB601N and the DB601E with a slight lengthening of the fuselage. The first armed model the V-4 on 369 liters could cruise to over 1000km.

A larger wing of 10.8m was in the planning which would have given the aircraft the looks of the Ki-61 and an extra set of wing guns and larger wing evaporators as the experimental Ki-61 had installed. An often overlooked feature of this cooling system is that it is more forgiving of battle damage than a pressurized glycol system.

A lot of good information on the He100 has come to light recently on the Deutsche Luftwaffe Cockpitinstrumente Homepage Titelseite Instrumente Gerätebrett Baumuster site.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 19, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Hello, cimmex,
> Isn't that picture a hoax?
> 
> If is not too hard, maybe people could propose something along the opening post (SINGLE engined job, made from the stuff already in production).
> ...



Sure, it is a fake picture. It is a mix of an existing Flugwerk 190 and the Red 7 of EADS, but looks nice IMO. I like the fuselage armament with both MG17 and MG131 too.
cimmex


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Four 7.92mm machineguns won't solve this problem. Germany needs to pull out all the stops to get a belt fed 20mm cannon into mass production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2012)

Britian was in the same fix in 1940. The First 400 Beaufighters used drum feed cannon and the rear seater changed the drums. Keeping up with four guns was usually too much and rarely were all four guns ready at the same time after the first drum loads were used. Beaufighters had 3 spare drums per gun. 

It is fine to say that some technical aspects should have been speeded up but when somebody says "what could have been done with historical bits and pieces" it means taking the guns as they were. A larger drum is a much better possibility. The Japanese used a larger drum (?) and Hispano Suiza advertised larger drums in their pre war literature although I don't think anybody took them up. 

Adapting the drum feed guns to belt feed can take some doing. It was done but it was not easy. Until you have the engine power to lift heavier guns with large ammunition loads there is little incentive to rush the bigger belt feed guns into production.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Depends on the starting date.

Germany had automatic 20mm and 37mm cannon during WWI and they appear to have lost little expertise between the wars. Large scale German rearmament began during 1935. If the newly created Luftwaffe makes belt fed 20mm aircraft cannon top priority the MG151/20 might be in mass production five years later. Perhaps they will also make a belt fed version of the powerful 2cm Flak38 for aircraft use.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2012)

Could you please research some of this stuff. 

The Germans had at least one MG 151/15 in Spain in 1938. They were working on it. The MG/FF was an interim weapon when the earlier MG 204 wasn't coming along as planed.

the "powerful 2cm Flak38" wasn't quite good enough for anti-tank work and too heavy for a good air to air weapon.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

42.7kg MG151/20 cannon.
57.5kg 2cm Flak38.
75kg MG213 revolver cannon.
176kg 3cm Mk101 cannon.

The 2cm Flak38 was considerably lighter then other aircraft cannon developed by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> 42.7kg MG151/20 cannon.
> 57.5kg 2cm Flak38.
> 75kg MG213 revolver cannon.
> 176kg 3cm Mk101 cannon.
> ...




What aircraft was armed with thw 20mm Flak38 ?


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

1930s Germany experimented with 2cm Flak30 (Predecessor of Flak38) mounted on He-112B prototypes. I have no idea why this wasn't pursued. You could certainly fit a pair of Flak38 in Me-110 nose.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2012)

They probably didn't develope them because in comparision to the MG151/20 both were too big, too heavy, and had too slow a ROF. 
The Flak 30-MG C/30L rof 280 rpm-350rpm, the Flak 38 -450rpm, the MG151/20- 700rpm. Plus the MG151/20 was about 2/3rds the weight of the Flak 38.

They tested one He-112 with the Flak 30-MG C/30L in Spain, installed weight with 100 rounds was 180 kg, and almost 13 feet overall length. 

Just too big and heavy for the times, I think they just decided to stick with rifle caliber weapons till a more practical 20mm was developed.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2012)

Why did the Luftwaffe develop the 3cm Mk101 cannon for use on the Me-110? Two 20mm Flak38 weight less and would be a lot more practical for shooting at aircraft.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why did the Luftwaffe develop the 3cm Mk101 cannon for use on the Me-110? Two 20mm Flak38 weight less and would be a lot more practical for shooting at aircraft.


 Maybe they wanted a 30mm. They were the people wanting to shoot down bombers, maybe they knew more about what was required.
Or just blame it on your usual fall guy, Milch.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2012)

The British put a 40mm gun in a turret on a Wellington, doesn't mean it was a good idea. 

A Flak 38 weighs _AT LEAST_ 7-8 kg more than a Hispano and that is without a belt feed mechanism. It fires at 80% the rate of fire of the Hispano. The rounds are little (if any) more powerful, and the complete round is a bit heavier.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 20, 2012)

The MK 101 was intended for anti-armor, -shipping or -building role, something that won't work with a 2cm gun.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

> MK 101 was intended for anti-armor, -shipping or -building role, something that won't work with a 2cm gun.


The 2cm KwK38 was effective against light armor. That's why it was the primary weapon of most German recon vehicles (armored cars, 3/4 tracks and Panzer II). It also fired a HE round even more powerful then 2cm mine shells fired by the MG151/20.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

Why are you bothering in suggesting arming a Me 110 with whatever weapon the Luftwaffe would end with a IDEAL fighter for 1940 or any period ???
No matter what it was armed with in 1940 it would be used primarily against other fighters, the Me 110 was sadly lacking in that ability, no matter how it was armed.

As for putting a Flak 38 or KwK 38 in a Me 109, even the MG 151/20 breech was beyound the pilots ankles, The Flak/KwK 38 are both significantly longer in the breech and barrel than the MG 151/20. Where are you going to put the pilot?


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

Because the Fw-187 could carry the same weapons as a Me-110.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

The Fw 187 was so cramped and compact that to read the engine instruments the pilot looked out the side windows and read them on the inside engine cowlings.
It didn't remotely have the spare space to carry anything the Me 110 could, any big weapons would take something else's space, like fuel.
Of course just redesign it, how hard could that be ?


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2012)

It appears to me Fw-187 and Me-110 carried identical forward firing weapons.

*Fw-187 A-0* Forward firing weapons.
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns in fuselage sides
2 × 20 mm MG FF cannon in lower fuselage

*Me-110C-4* Forward firing weapons.
Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guns:
2 × 20 mm MG FF/M cannons 
4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1930s Germany experimented with 2cm Flak30 (Predecessor of Flak38) mounted on He-112B prototypes. I have no idea why this wasn't pursued. You could certainly fit a pair of Flak38 in Me-110 nose.



Because it was way too heavy - 2cm MG C30 weighted above 64 kg... it was a heavy gun. At this weight, two MG FFs are a better solution. Three times the rate of fire at less weight...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> It appears to me Fw-187 and Me-110 carried identical forward firing weapons.
> 
> *Fw-187 A-0* Forward firing weapons.
> Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


 What does that have to do with putting even heavier weapons on the Fw 187, the Fw loaded weight was less than the Me 110 empty weight. The Fw 187 seems to be your favorite aircraft, and you're forever crying about the fact it went nowhere beyound only about 6-7 prototypes. 
Get over it, maybe it went nowhere because that same smallness that enabled it to have such spectacular performance, meant that it had no growth potential.


----------



## DonL (Jul 20, 2012)

> The Fw 187 seems to be your favorite aircraft, and you're forever crying about the fact it went nowhere beyound only about 6-7 prototypes.
> Get over it, maybe it went nowhere because that same smallness that enabled it to have such spectacular performance, meant that it had no growth potential.



I disagree to Dave's argumentation about the armament at 1940 because all was in the flow and development and I don't think it is that easy to accelerate things that much as Dave had suggested.
But there is no serious argumention that a FW 187 couldn't be armed with 4 x 151/20 at 1943.
If you want to argue about the FW 187 please read some serious sources! For example:

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History 

And to your argumentation about the growth potential, this are the original datas of the FW 187 at 1942 from Focker Wulf to the advertisements of the RLM of a nightfighter/destroyer and high altitude fighter:



> FW 187 "D0" destroyer and nightfighter full calculated project from FW 1942 with plans to the RLM/ordered by RLM but canceled 1943
> 
> weight: 7000kg loaded; 2 x DB 605A (2 x 1475PS), wing span 30m², payload to 8200kg (bombs, external fuel tanks, external weapons), internal fuel capacity 1300 liter; fuselage 880 Liter (increased to the A0) wings 210liter each; armor 167 kg; 4 x MG151/20 with 250 bullets - rigidly to the front, 2 x MG131 with 450 bullets - rigidly to the back, range 1200 km to 1.330 km,
> Calculated with 6650 kg:
> ...



So please do some research about the FW 187 before you make your statements.

Also there were built 6 prototypes and 3 preproducction aircrafts!

The FW 187 has much much more potential then the P38 from speed, climb performance, wing loading and roll performance and only the latest versions of the P38 had more range performance as the FW 187 with 1300L internal fuel. Also the FW 187 was production ready 1939!

Edit:


> Get over it



There is no single reason or agumentation to get over it!
It was the best german fighter from the potential till the Ta 152H and the FW190 D9.
To my opinion the FW 187 woukd be better from it's performance at constant development as the FW 190 D9!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

Calculated performance is always outstanding.

They built 9 Fw 187s, 6 prototypes, 3 preproduction models. The last prototype had 2 DB 601 installed, and when they managed to get the usually troublesome evaperative cooling system to function they managed to get 394mph out of it, no armament, just a bare bones prototype. How many more time did they manage to get that kind of speed out of it ?

The 3 preproduction samples had Jumo 210, about 700+ hp, 329 mph top speed, armed, tested by the Luftwaffe, and then sent back to the factory.

My or your opinion of the aircraft 70 years later means nothing. What the RLM thought of it at the time is what matters. Maybe they made a mistake, it certainly wouldn't have been their first one.


----------



## DonL (Jul 20, 2012)

Oh man!

excuse me!

But no single FW 187 had ever an evaporative cooling system! That shows your knowledge about this a/c!

The 635 km/h at SL clocked october 1939 was with Dampfheißkühlung!
Edit: *With full armament *



> This is wrong and a translation error!
> The FW 187 had never a surface/evaporative cooling
> 
> "Dampfheißkühlung"!: From the book Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History Page 73 (german version)
> ...



Your argumantation is a kind of myth but not the truth!

The quote is original from me and the citated books!

Edit:

My argumentation based on *primary* sources from Focker Wulf engineers and *original* estimated flight manuals of the FW 187 from Focker Wulf engineers!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

Maybe you need to look a little closer yourself Fw 187 V6 had a evaporative cooling system.

Don't get personal with the insults, just because I don't agree with you. You tried the same nonsense in the U-boat XXI thread, and it's getting old. 

I got over my fasination with German super weapons forty years ago.


----------



## DonL (Jul 20, 2012)

> Maybe you need to look a little closer yourself Fw 187 V6 had a evaporative cooling system.



No!!!

No single FW 187 had ever an evaporative cooling system! *That is proved from primary sources*!

The 635 km/h at SL clocked october 1939 was with Dampfheißkühlung and the V5! The V6 never flew, it was the prototype for the world record and never flew!

Primary source! Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History

You should consult primary sources or serious sources but no wiki!



> Don't get personal with the insults, just because I don't agree with you. You tried the same nonsense in the U-boat XXI thread, and it's getting old.



I have done no harm, I have only citated primary sources! Also at the XXI discussion! 
If it doesn't at your radar it is not my problem!


> I got over my fasination with German super weapons forty years ago.


Primary sources are primary sources get with it or not!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 20, 2012)

I've consulted several different sites, all agree there was a Fw 187 V6, not one makes the remark it never flew, ( which I find strange for a aircraft you say never flew) 3 agree it had the DB 601, and 2 note that that the V6 had the evaporative cooling system. 
Many sites out there were just copies of the Wiki site, these were not.

But I have a feeling no matter what I come up with online, i'm never going to meet you requirement of "primary sources".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2012)

I think part of the problem is bad translation of the cooling system and how it works, many people using the term "evaporative" when they shouldn't. The plane did not use conventional radiators and did use panels in the wings. I think ( and could be wrong here) that it rather depends on what proportion of the coolant was allowed to turn to steam/vapor. I believe the Merlin at times had some of the coolant vaporize and had a "separator" that sent a line of liquid _and_ vapor to the header tank where the vapor condensed back to a liquid. The total amount of vapor was very small. RR had had their fill of steam cooling with the Goshawk engine. RR and Curtiss and a few others had used "surface radiators" on race planes to reduce drag. This was successful but expensive in initial construction and in maintenance. 
The German system ( to me anyway) seems to be a combination. A bit more liquid is allowed to vaporize (but nowhere near all), the vapor is separated out and sent to the surface radiators/condensers ( or what ever you want to call them) where it condenses back to a liquid. It is collected and sent back to the header tank where it is mixed with the liquid coolant returned from the engine. (clarification wanted?) 

In some race planes a true "evaporative" system was used. The plane was fitted with a large coolant tank and after the liquid reached the boiling point the "vapor" was allowed to escape to the air. With enough coolant the plane can fly long enough for record runs. 
The Fw 187 and He 100 did not vent the vapor ( at least not on purpose) and flight times were not restricted by the coolant supply as in a "true" evaporative system. 

I would note that the presence of surface cooling panels is _NOT_ a sure indicator of what _kind_ of cooling system a plane has. I would also note that some low performance ( and a few high performance planes) of the 1920s and 30s did not have oil coolers. they simply mounted the oil tank with one or more surfaces exposed to the air stream.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 21, 2012)

With regards to the He100, the system was a leaky steam evaporative system. All the tests flights accounted for the consumption of water and alcohol up thru the V-8 aircraft with the initial liquid quantities provided for consumption for maximum flight time. Starting with the V-4 thru the series I,II and III aircraft were fitted with an auxiliary retractable radiator to be used on the ground and if required on the climb out. In normal flight it was retracted. The He119 employed a similar system but the radiator did not completely retract out of the airflow. 

The Ki-61 evaporative test bed employed something similar to the He100 and the Heinkel may have resembled this configuration had development continued to the 10.8m wing.


----------



## DonL (Jul 21, 2012)

> I think part of the problem is bad translation of the cooling system and how it works, many people using the term "evaporative" when they shouldn't. The plane did not use conventional radiators and did use panels in the wings. I think ( and could be wrong here) that it rather depends on what proportion of the coolant was allowed to turn to steam/vapor. I believe the Merlin at times had some of the coolant vaporize and had a "separator" that sent a line of liquid and vapor to the header tank where the vapor condensed back to a liquid. The total amount of vapor was very small. RR had had their fill of steam cooling with the Goshawk engine. RR and Curtiss and a few others had used "surface radiators" on race planes to reduce drag. This was successful but expensive in initial construction and in maintenance.
> The German system ( to me anyway) seems to be a combination. A bit more liquid is allowed to vaporize (but nowhere near all), the vapor is separated out and sent to the surface radiators/condensers ( or what ever you want to call them) where it condenses back to a liquid. It is collected and sent back to the header tank where it is mixed with the liquid coolant returned from the engine. (clarification wanted?)
> 
> In some race planes a true "evaporative" system was used. The plane was fitted with a large coolant tank and after the liquid reached the boiling point the "vapor" was allowed to escape to the air. With enough coolant the plane can fly long enough for record runs.
> ...



As long as I have understand you correct I would agree.

Some comments from me.
From all research I have done and through Dietmar Hermans Book about the FW 187 (also the pictures in it) the coolimg system of the He 100 (Oberflächenverdampfungskühlung) and the experimental system at the FW 187 V5 (Dampfheißkühlung) were fundamental different.
The He 100 has a true evaporative cooling were the steam/water was running through the wings at water lines in the wings and the wing was the surface of cooling!

As I understand the FW 187 V5 had a high pressure water cooling very simular as you have described from RR and Curtiss with the goal to have very low drag *conventional* cooler/radiator. Also as I have understand it was to optimistic but from the system it was nothing else as Junkers and DB introduced with the DB 605, 603, Jumo 213 and partly with the DB 601E and Jumo 211F a high pressure water cooling to reduce drag of the cooler.
To me that has nothing to do with an evaporative cooling through surfaces.

Anyway this has nothing to do with our discussion here in this thread and it is totaly unimportant.
All datas and estimations of the FW 187, that were published from Focker Wulf are basing on the FW 187 V4 which flew with a conventional cooling system and Jumo 210G. Also the V4 was at Rechlin and had testflights against the Bf 110 and Bf 109 and it was a full armed version .
Most to all datas and later estimations from Focker Wulf were from the datas of this Prototype (FW 187 V4).
This includes speed-, climb- and range- performances.



> I've consulted several different sites, all agree there was a Fw 187 V6, not one makes the remark it never flew, ( which I find strange for a aircraft you say never flew) 3 agree it had the DB 601, and 2 note that that the V6 had the evaporative cooling system.
> Many sites out there were just copies of the Wiki site, these were not.
> 
> But I have a feeling no matter what I come up with online, i'm never going to meet you requirement of "primary sources".



You can ask Shortround6, as I have understand from an early thread, he has also the book from Dietmar Herman which is basing on primary sources. So he can confirm that the FW 187 V6 never flew and in reality it was the V5 of which all internet sites are talking!
Also I don't understand why do you put primary sources to quotes?
Mr. Hermans book base on original documents from Focker Wulf which are to me *primary sources*, do you can confirm this of your citated internet sites?


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

The specification requires a superior German fighter aircraft that could be operational during 1940. IMO the Fw-187 is the only certain way to achieve that lofty goal. RLM must restore full funding for the DB601 program NLT 1937 to insure an adequate supply of engines. Everything else can proceed as happened historically.


----------



## DonL (Jul 21, 2012)

I agree with you Dave.

But also if every produced Bf 110C from 1939 to 1940 would be a Fw 187 "B" (with DB 601) BoF and BoB would be fundamental different because a FW 187 would have a totaly other impact at this fights and this impact would be very mighty and powerfull.

As I written before a FW 187 "B" would had a speed performance around 610 km/h and a climb performance near the Bf 109E with much more range compare to the Bf 109. Also the FW 187 was very good at the sticks at high speed maneuvers, at this part it was clearly better then the Bf 109. Also it could match with the turn and roll performance of the Bf 109E!


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

I consider that a bad idea. 

By mid 1940 most Me-110s went to night fighter units. A significant number also went to recon units. Plus a few experimenting with the 3cm Mk101 cannon for CAS and light maritime strike. If the Me-110 is cancelled then Germany must build something else for those roles. 

If RLM sticks to the original 1935 DB601 engine production plan there will be plenty of engines to go around. So why not build 100 or so Fw-187s per month in addition to the Me-110? Fw-187 would go to heavy day fighter units. Me-110 would keep its other historical roles. Without the day fighter mission there should be enough Me-110s to completely fill night fighter units so they don't need to piddle around with aircraft such as the Me-109D and Do-217.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2012)

The Luftwaffe already had some of the best fighters in the world...Ideal fighter for the Germans in 1940 was called the Bf 109 Emil and it was ideal.

With the 190 and Friedrich in the wings....sorted.

A weakness of the 187 was it has 2 engines. Engines cost the most and so the 187 would have been going on twice as costly as a Emil. Not to mention extra maintaninance. And the 110 was chosen anyway.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 22, 2012)

Even with access to "primary sources" it still seems to be a mystery why the Fw 187 was refused for production .


----------



## DonL (Jul 22, 2012)

> I consider that a bad idea.
> 
> By mid 1940 most Me-110s went to night fighter units. A significant number also went to recon units. Plus a few experimenting with the 3cm Mk101 cannon for CAS and light maritime strike. If the Me-110 is cancelled then Germany must build something else for those roles.
> 
> If RLM sticks to the original 1935 DB601 engine production plan there will be plenty of engines to go around. So why not build 100 or so Fw-187s per month in addition to the Me-110? Fw-187 would go to heavy day fighter units. Me-110 would keep its other historical roles. Without the day fighter mission there should be enough Me-110s to completely fill night fighter units so they don't need to piddle around with aircraft such as the Me-109D and Do-217.



Here I disagree and have a total other opinion.

The FW 187 twoseater could play nearly every role of the Bf 110.
It was the much better dayfighter and recon aircraft, could play the destroyer part and also I think till the Lichtenstein radar (introduction 1942)a twoseater could to the nightfighter role because without radar the direction comes from the ground from the Himmelbett station.

Longrange dayfighter: FW 187
recon a/c : FW 187
destroyer: FW 187
heavy destroyer: Ju 88
Night fighter with radar: Ju 88 and Do 215 B5 Kauz III (with DB 601A,N,E perhaps DB 605)
Maritim aircraft: Ju 88, He 111, Do 217 
Medium Bomber: Ju 88, Do 217 

In reality the Ju 88 was a very good night fighter, heavy destroyer and maritim aircraft but as medium bomber the Do 217 was better with more range and a better payload also the Do 217 was a very good maritim aircraft.
The nightfighter role of the Bf 110 with radar could be filled with the Do 215 B5 Kauz III with stronger engines, till the Ju 88 c and later G versions were fully developed. There are experts which say the Do 215 with better engine performance would be a better night fighter then the Bf 110 because of the much better endurance, more room for the crew and equipment and the speed was ok, not far away from the Bf 110 nightfighter and equal to the earlier Ju 88 nightfighter

All other roles of the Bf 110 could be done from the FW 187 with much more and better performance. The Bf 110 was obsolete from the beginning of it's carreer, because the LW had *better* a/c's (icluding FW 187)to fill the roles of the Bf 110!
With a better planning and more strength of purpose the He 111 would be out of production 1940 and there would be capacities for more Ju 88!

Sorry but I see no role or important missions for Bf 110!



> And the 110 was chosen anyway.


Yes and that was a very big mistake and the question of the thread was: 1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?
With the reality of 1940 and the requirements of BoB, Malta and the Mediterranean the FW 187 would be the ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe because of it's speed, range, arnament and climb performance.


Edit:


> Even with access to "primary sources" it still seems to be a mystery why the Fw 187 was refused for production .



It were political and personal reasons especially from Göring who loved the Bf 110 and was convinced of Willy Messerschmitt as designer. Udet had estimated the FW 187 different from Göring and had given orders to built the FW 187 but was overuled from Göring and Kesselring!


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2012)

I disagree.

The Bf 110 was chosen because it was chosen in 1936 and not 2012. I wish I was that good.


----------



## DonL (Jul 22, 2012)

What's your point?

There are more then enough books out to read, why decissions were made and it is proven that personal relations at/with the RLM were sometimes and between 1935-1940 more then sometimes more important then performance of the a/c. 

I don't think that sarcasm is helping your argument. And by the way the final decission of producing the Bf 110 was not 1936!


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

*1941 engine prices.*
27,970 RM. DB601.
.....55,940 RM for two engines.
45,000 to 65,000 RM for one BMW 801 engine.

Fw-190A was not "in the wings" during 1940. The BMW 801 engine was still crude, unreliable and cost as much as two DB601 engines. The situation doesn't improve much until 1942 and then the BMW 801 engine requires expensive high octane fuel. How much more power would the DB601E engine produce if Daimler-Benz were allowed to take advantage of C3 fuel?

You could make an argument for the Me-109F but that gives the Luftwaffe only one "iron in the fire" during 1939, 1940 and 1941. Put the Fw-187 into mass production and the Luftwaffe has a superior day fighter aircraft from 1939 onward.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2012)

The point and it's a good point is the Fw 187 was not produced.

No sarcasm just plain fact. I am not arguing because there is nothing left to say. You can win the argument with all the literature and stats you want but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

You know what would be cool....A jet!!! I could go for one of those....faster than a 187 too.


----------



## DonL (Jul 22, 2012)

Again.
You should read post Nr. 1!
It is a what if thread and by the way the 9 FW 187 were produced till 1939 and so the FW 187 fit the requirements of the thread!

As you said plain and simpel and no Jet was in the air at that time.


----------



## Ralf von Schneer (Jul 23, 2012)

Hi!

A very interesting thread,my opinion is that the He-100D series which used a conventional radiator could have been the ultimate fighter in 1940/1941.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 23, 2012)

DonL said:


> Again.
> You should read post Nr. 1!
> It is a what if thread and by the way the 9 FW 187 were produced till 1939 and so the FW 187 fit the requirements of the thread!
> 
> As you said plain and simpel and no Jet was in the air at that time.



Maybe some other people should read the 1st post too? It says, among other conditions, that a plane to be considered here is with single engine. So the Fw-187 is out, since it's a twin engined plane. 

Also, looking beyond the He-100 is also encouraged int the 1st post here.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2012)

There's only one German Uber engine which has any chance to be in mass production during 1940 and that's a slim hope. Do you want to pin all hope on 1940 production of the DB603 engine? Otherwise a twin engine is the only way to achieve a significant performance gain during 1940. Or you could slide the production date to 1941 which is entirely plausible for the DB603 engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

Building a lowerer drag airframe than the 109E is not that difficult and does NOT require an _UBER_ engine. Both the Italians and Japanese did it a bit further down the road and Messerschmidt did it themselves with the "F" model. 

A plane with adequate firepower instead of the odd ball combination of the 109E, and another 10 minutes of combat time might not be an _uber_ fighter but it might shift the balance scales a bit, it may also provide a more suitable airframe for 1941-42 with the later DB 601 and 605 engines and introduction of the MG 131 and MG 151 guns.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 23, 2012)

In the summer of 1940, the Me-109 was one of the three best fighters in the world. (The Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero did not become operational until the fall of 1940.) Trouble is, the other two best fighters were just across the channel. They were short-ranged, too, but they got to play defense instead of offense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2012)

The Problem for the Luftwaffe was that the "E" had about peaked. It needed the "F" to stay ( get ahead?) competitive. The Problem for the British was that the Hurricane had also (for the most part) peaked. The advantage for the British was that the Spitfire had NOT peaked. A good as an improvement as the "F" was it wasn't enough to base a future "all round fighter" on. It was too small.


----------



## Ralf von Schneer (Jul 24, 2012)

> Answers like 'produce the He-100' or the 'Bf-109F' are wholeheartedly discouraged


By the way why?
When in 1939 12 He-100D-1's where produced (armed production version) and no Bf-109F was in existence?


----------



## riacrato (Jul 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The Problem for the Luftwaffe was that the "E" had about peaked. It needed the "F" to stay ( get ahead?) competitive. The Problem for the British was that the Hurricane had also (for the most part) peaked. The advantage for the British was that the Spitfire had NOT peaked. A good as an improvement as the "F" was it wasn't enough to base a future "all round fighter" on. It was too small.


 
In general I agree, though I'd say it peaked at the F-4. And if it wasn't for the early problems of the DB605 one might argue it peaked at the G-2. The problems of the later Bf 109s are imo as much linked to the cell as they are to the engine. There's just so much you could do with a 1300 hp engine that is optimized for a (in meters) 6000-6500ish altitude. The latter Italian designs are interesting and neat, maybe better in some ways than what the contemporary Bf 109 had to offer (maneuverability and firepower) but their performance figures are not better and in some cases worse. That shows to me, that besides the unnecessary drag that was definetly there on mid-war Bf 109s (tailwheel, bulges etc.), as long as the engine isn't up to late DB605A specs or even DB605 AS / ASM / D level, not much is to be gained by introducing a new airframe for that engine family and given the logistical effort, the historical progression might even be the most sensible one (except for the aerodynamic refinements which should and could have been introduced much earlier).

To be more competetive than historically, both a larger airframe and a more powerful engine is needed. The airframe was the Fw 190 and the engine should have been the DB603, with 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2012)

I agree. 

You cannot achieve significantly better performance when using a single DB601A engine. It's possible to increase combat radius (i.e. more internal fuel) and visibility (i.e. bubble canopy) but that will decrease aerial performance and increase manufacturing cost. Adding more or heavier weapons will also decrease aerial performance.

If you want an Uber 1940 fighter aircraft then you need more then 1,100 total hp.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

The "F" prototype was about 20-30mph than the "E" using the same engine wasn't it? The Ki 61 was as fast or faster than a 109E wasn't it, despite the bigger wing/airframe that resulted in an empty weight as great or greater than the 109Es loaded weight? Granted climb wasn't as good. 

The 109E-3 also had a truly strange armament set up. I actually like the 20mm MG/FF. good punch for the weight even if they run out of ammo real quick ( but so did every body else's 20mm guns in 1940) 7 1/2 to 8 seconds firing time? It is the 1000rpg for the cowl guns that boggle the mind. Darn close to 60 seconds of firing time or 19-20 3 second bursts. 16-18 of them AFTER the 20mm guns are silent. Now maybe the front line units didn't fill the ammo tanks all the way but the 109 was hauling around 60lbs (over 1% of it's total gross weight) of ammo it didn't need to. Work harder at getting a MG 17 to fire though the prop and and give each of the 3 guns 500rounds. You might save weight (not much) but fire power is up 50-55% after the 20mm guns go dry and you still can shoot longer than the British planes. The likelihood of having fuel left after getting into firing position 1 1/2 dozen times is pretty slim. 

Stick a bigger wing on it an mount a pair of MG 17s either in the wing root or out by the 20mm guns. Give each (all four) gun 300 rounds and you break even on the armament weight even if you need a bigger airframe.


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2012)

If we want an airframe or engine to enter service faster than historical then we must identify a program which was underfunded.

Me-109 and Ju-88 plus Jumo 211 engine were the best funded Luftwaffe programs during the 1930s. You cannot push development faster then what happened historically. If Messerschmitt were able to get the Me-109F into mass production during 1940 it would have happened historically.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 24, 2012)

Talking twins about the 187.

The Me 210 was also about late 1930s and that was all singing all dancing and far more than a Fw 187 could ever be.

That's where the money and expectations went.


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2012)

Zerstorer. An aircraft mediocre in many roles and really good for nothing. Is that what we want?

Fw-187 should be built as a single seat day fighter.
Me-210 / Me-410 should be built as a light bomber.
If built at all the Me-110 should be a dedicated night fighter aicraft.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 24, 2012)

In 1940, the Bf 110 had very good performance and certainly could match a Hurricane for speed.

Remember it's numbers and you need hundreds....remember all the big names that fought in the battle Of Britain the prototypes were flying 1936 or before.

The timeline of anything that flew in 1938 is looking at 1942 before it makes an impact.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> Fw-187 should be built as a single seat day fighter.



And if you stay to historic availability it has the same problem in 1940 that the 109E had. The 20mm guns run out of ammo in 7-8 seconds. You have speed, you have climb, you have range, you have toothless wonder after 8 seconds. ( not quite you still have the four 7.9mm MGs.) Except you are using two engines to haul four machine guns instead of one engine to haul two mgs. Not a real big advantage. When the better guns show up the Single seat 187 looks a lot better.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 25, 2012)

A twin which is extremely limited in its role is not an easy sell. 2 109F or 1 Fw 187?

In my opinion...the 109 was the best fighter and history has proven that.


----------



## DonL (Jul 25, 2012)

Historical at 1939 only a twin seater Fw 187 makes sense! Here a I agree with shortround6, because you need the second crew to fed the drums and also the Fw 187 would/must be a multi role a/c as I have described on detail at post 67, so you need the twin seater. There is no reason for a Bf 110 (post 67) and realy no reason for this Bf 210/410 crap. All this roles could be filled as I described at post 67 with much better a/c's for this roles.

Also I don't see were a twin seater Fw 187 is limited in it's use?!

The Bf 109 F had proved that it was one of the best fighter till autum 1942, as the Spit IX was introduced, after that the whole Bf 109 series was only average with no upgrqade potential. That's one of the fundemental differents between the Bf 109 and Fw 187, the upgrade potential.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 25, 2012)

what upgrade potential do you expect at the Fw 187, the space in the fuselage is as limited as in the Bf 109 series. IMO this is why the Ta 154 was built which was no upgrade of the Fw187 but a new aircraft.

Cimmex


----------



## The Basket (Jul 25, 2012)

thread is for 1940 not 1942. Then other factors play agreed. No fighter in mass production and mass operational service in 1940 is going to get anywhere near a Spit 9 and that includes the Fw 187.

Spit 1 or Emil or Hurricane or P-40 or D520 or Zero is toast against the 9. I would certainly agree the 187 would have made an excellent B17 hunter and survived better than a Me 410 but that's a fair stretch for a prototype that has to be airborne years before events transpire . In my view, even What ifs have to be realistic. Otherwise the best fighter for the Germans in 1940 is the MiG -15


----------



## DonL (Jul 25, 2012)

> what upgrade potential do you expect at the Fw 187, the space in the fuselage is as limited as in the Bf 109 series. IMO this is why the Ta 154 was built which was no upgrade of the Fw187 but a new aircraft.
> 
> Cimmex





> FW 187 "D0" destroyer and nightfighter full calculated project from FW 1942 with plans to the RLM/ordered by RLM but canceled 1943
> 
> weight: 7000kg loaded; 2 x DB 605A (2 x 1475PS), wing span 30m², payload to 8200kg (bombs, external fuel tanks, external weapons), internal fuel capacity 1300 liter; fuselage 880 Liter (increased to the A0) wings 210liter each; armor 167 kg; 4 x MG151/20 with 250 bullets - rigidly to the front, 2 x MG131 with 450 bullets - rigidly to the back, range 1200 km to 1.330 km,
> Calculated with 6650 kg:
> ...



That's the upgrade potential from real existing plans from FW and they are much more impressive then the Bf 109G!



> thread is for 1940 not 1942.


Agreed but no Bf 109F was in mass production or at service at 1940 too! And the Fw 187 "B" (2 x Db 601Aa) would be better then the Bf 109E!



> No fighter in mass production and mass operational service in 1940 is going to get anywhere near a Spit 9 and that includes the Fw 187.



With no development agreed, but with normal development a FW 187 "C" with 2 x DB 601E engines (same as the Bf 109F4) would be a real match for the spit IX, with 2 x DB 605 it would be even better and the DB 605 was introduced late 1942.



> In my view, even What ifs have to be realistic.



Agreed but all a/c's have a continuous development and we know today when a new engine was introduced and fitted to the given a/c's.
And I'm refering to real plans and estimations based on 9 "prototypes" datas from Focker Wulf engineers with later engines and developed models.

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

This are datas original from FW and modern estimations.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 25, 2012)

Ralf von Schneer said:


> By the way why?
> When in 1939 12 He-100D-1's where produced (armed production version) and no Bf-109F was in existence?
> View attachment 207070



Why? I will not say 'because I've started this thread'  
The He-100 (and the Fw-187, too, and this one does not fit in this thread in the 1st place) has many threads covering it in this forum, so listing it here would unlikely bring anything new. Maybe some slugging between the partisans and opponents of the plane? Sure enough, the revelation of the new data grants a thread that would cover these, dealing exclusively with the He-100.
Of course, the Bf-109F _was_ in existence in 1940, btw. So, skipping the known birds might get some fresh stuff here, with those two out of the picture.


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2012)

How many Me-109F were produced during 1940?


----------



## DonL (Jul 25, 2012)

There is only the He 112 left available Tomo.

I have said more then one post in this thread something about the He 112 and that it had much in common with the Ki 61.
Also that to my opinion it had much more performance potential with the DB 601!

Realy I can't see that the FW 190 would be that good with a DB 601A (1000-1100PS) and I have my serious doubts, that german engine development can be accelerated. At 1939-40 the germans worked hard on the development of a water pressure cooling for their engines (both Junkers and DB). The introduction of the water pressure cooling was the significant reason of the performance win between 1940 till 1941 with the DB 601E at the end of the development and 1350PS. But I have doubts that it can be introduced earlier!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> How many Me-109F were produced during 1940?



I'm sure that Bf-109 buffs will provide us with a credible answer.



DonL said:


> There is only the He 112 available Tomo.



Maybe my message did not went through. A 'designer' can pick an engine, weapon layout, airframe layout, and then 'design' himself some fine fighter. Also, the 'stae of the art' remains - no laminar flow wings, no fan cooled radial engines, etc. - those are out for 1940.
The thread is not about the planes that were around in 1940, that were available for the LW, but how would an ideal fighter looked like if you were in charge.



> I have said more then one post in this thread something about the He 112 and that it had much in common with the Ki 61.
> Also that to my opinion it had much more performance potential with the DB 601!



Fair enough. I like the Ki-61 myself (it did have some relations with the He-100?), and a plane of such a layout would not be very much on the mark for the LW of the 1940. My changes would include the 8 LMG weapon set, and maybe the canopy from the He-112.



> Realy I can't see that the FW 190 would be that good with a DB 601A (1000-1100PS) and I have my serious doubts, that german engine development can be accelerated. At 1939-40 the germans worked hard on the development of a water pressure cooling for there engines (both Junkers and DB). The introduction of the water pressure cooling was the significant reason of the performance win between 1940 till 1941 with DB 601E at the end of the development and 1350PS. But I have doubts that it can be introduced earlier!



The fighter uses the engines historically available. That means DB-601A, or anything Germans were producing during winter of 1939/40 until the end of 1940. My pick is, obviously, the DB-601A. A wing-mounted weapon battery should ensure easy re-engining with other engines available, maybe with the Jumo 211 for export versions?


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2012)

That's being rather short sighted.

Development of the belt fed MG151 began during 1935. At least one pre-production weapon was used during the Spanish Civil War as it was captured in a shot down aircraft. The MG151 will reach mass production status only about a year after the Fw-187.

Why design the Fw-187 fuselage for a second crew member who will be out of a job in one year? It would be less trouble to design a larger magazine for the MG/FF cannon. Or else put six of these relatively lightweight weapons in the Fw-187 nose and fire them one pair at a time. During 1940 the interim weapons get replaced by four MG151. Which get modified to MG151/20 during 1941 or 1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 25, 2012)

The repeated appearance of the Fw-187 in the thread covering the single engined fighters is beyond me.


----------



## davebender (Jul 25, 2012)

Are we allowed to continue RLM funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940 rather then cancelling funding as happened historically?

Are we allowed to fund the Genshagen DB601 engine factory @ 50 million RM as originally planned rather then scaling it back to 20 million RM as RLM did historically?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2012)

And of course the Germans learned _ absolutely NOTHING_ from developing the DB 601 series from 1937 to 1940 that they applied to the DB 603 when they resumed development? 

See: http://www.enginehistory.org/German/DB/Chart01.jpg

For an idea of how the DB 600-605 progressed. 

It is safe to assume that the airframe designers, while not given full details, were kept somewhat in the know about expected developments/progress. An airplane expected to go into _first service_ in 1940 could expect higher powered engines in the near future. The Problem with the 109 was that 1200-1500hp engines of 1941-42 were only in the dream stage when it was designed. It had to make do with 700hp engines for several years until the promised 1000hp engines showed up.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> Are we allowed to continue RLM funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940 rather then cancelling funding as happened historically?
> 
> Are we allowed to fund the Genshagen DB601 engine factory @ 50 million RM as originally planned rather then scaling it back to 20 million RM as RLM did historically?



Sorry, but no. 
The cards (DB 601, Jumo 211, single row radials if you really want them, MG/FF, MG15, even the MG17) are dealt, you just need to play them well.


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

Historical 1940 DB601 engine production was barely adequate to support the Me-109 and Me-110 aircraft programs. So this specification means your 1940 German Uber fighter aircraft will be powered by a 1,200 hp Jumo 211 engine.

Mission impossible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2012)

So cut the 109 and 110 programs back some. Since the 109E and the 110 couldn't do the job that was needed at the time cutting their production by 25-50% shouldn't be that big a deal.


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

Not going to happen in the historical setting. Ju-88 and Me-109 were the two highest priority German aircraft programs. Me-110 was a favorite of Milch and Goering. Restoring full funding for the DB601 engine and/or DB603 engine would be a much easier sell.


----------



## DonL (Jul 26, 2012)

> Maybe my message did not went through. A 'designer' can pick an engine, weapon layout, airframe layout, and then 'design' himself some fine fighter. Also, the 'stae of the art' remains - no laminar flow wings, no fan cooled radial engines, etc. - those are out for 1940.
> The thread is not about the planes that were around in 1940, that were available for the LW, but how would an ideal fighter looked like if you were in charge.



So far so good, but I'm not a designer or engineer. I think I can understand different a/c's with different intentions, but I think we all learned from the real flying a/c's.

Honestly I think you can't create a german "über" fighter at 1940 because one engine had not enough performance for all roles.

The Bf 109E was clearly one of the best air supermarcy fighter of this days, with very good aerodynamics, to my opinion good to average armament, high speed and very good climb performance. The Spitfire was equal in every way but better in turning and on the sticks.

For german missions at 1940 especially BoB the Bf 109 E had it's flaws and to my opinion a Spitfire on the german side and a Bf 109 E on the british side had the absolut total same results as in reality. The kill ratio would be the same the other way round. And we are talking about the two best fighter a/c's of 1940!

Also I think a He 112 is a compromise because it was larger, so it could carry more fuel, perhaps better armament, but would be the performance with the DB 601A enough to be realy better then the Hurricane and equal to the Spitfire? I have my doubts!

Good examples are the P40 and the A6M. The P40 had the same intentions then the Bf 109E and the Spitfire but was significant larger (also larger then the He 112) with a lot more fuel, but to my opinion a Tomahawk has not a single chance against the Bf 109 E or the Spitfire in a real battle over a longer term of time (equal to BoB). The same goes for the A6M! The Zero would be in real trouble to fight the Spit and the Bf 109 E at Boom and Zoom tactics and at high speed.

To create a a german "über" fighter for the mission of BoB you are in need for a two engine fighter (at 1940), without BoB the Bf 109E and the Spitfire were the absolute state of the art at 1940 for a short ranged air supermarcy fighter.

@ Dave



> Are we allowed to continue RLM funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940 rather then cancelling funding as happened historically?



I have realy doubts that a DB 603 would be production and introduction ready at 1940!
The DB 603 was a direct development of the DB 600 without fuel injection and without water pressure cooling! All this stuff was a continuous development and at 1939 the german engineers were hard working on the pressure water cooling! A Db 603 at 1939-40 for a/c's would be without pressure water cooling and *perhaps* with something about 1400PS but nothing more. And I have my doubts that also with a forced development since 1937 (no advertisement of the Bomber B engine) it would be production ready at 1940.

You should read von Gersdorff to this theme!


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

So do I. 

1941 is more likely for a production ready DB603 engine. But what's wrong with that? It's a better engine then the BMW801 and mass production ready a year sooner.


----------



## DonL (Jul 26, 2012)

Nothing, here we totaly agree, but I would say better then the Jumo 222 because it would be production ready and available 1941!

But please let us discuss this issue at an other thread, here I was only refering to the year 1940!


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

There are no guarantees when creating new technology. A fully funded DB603 engine has potential to make the 1940 cut off. So if a single engine is required the DB603 is worth a try even if the 1940 version performs no better then 1941 versions of the BMW801 engine. What other choice does Germany have?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Historical 1940 DB601 engine production was barely adequate to support the Me-109 and Me-110 aircraft programs. So this specification means your 1940 German Uber fighter aircraft will be powered by a 1,200 hp Jumo 211 engine.
> 
> Mission impossible.


 


davebender said:


> Not going to happen in the historical setting. Ju-88 and Me-109 were the two highest priority German aircraft programs. Me-110 was a favorite of Milch and Goering. Restoring full funding for the DB601 engine and/or DB603 engine would be a much easier sell.



As said above, you are in charge.



DonL said:


> So far so good, but I'm not a designer or engineer. I think I can understand different a/c's with different intentions, but I think we all learned from the real flying a/c's.
> 
> Honestly I think you can't create a german "über" fighter at 1940 because one engine had not enough performance for all roles.
> 
> The Bf 109E was clearly one of the best air supermarcy fighter of this days, with very good aerodynamics, to my opinion good to average armament, high speed and very good climb performance. The Spitfire was equal in every way but better in turning and on the sticks.



For things possible with DB-601A, we can take a look at MC.202 and Ki-61 - even in 1943 those were never listed as easy preys by allied pilots. Even the 109F-0/-1/-2, basically the aerodynamically cleaned-up Emils can show us that better was possible, on about the same engine power.



> For german missions at 1940 especially BoB *the Bf 109 E had it's flaws* and to my opinion a Spitfire on the german side and a Bf 109 E on the british side had the absolut total same results as in reality. The kill ratio would be the same the other way round. And we are talking about the two best fighter a/c's of 1940!



One of the reasons for starting this thread 



> Also I think a He 112 is a compromise because it was larger, so it could carry more fuel, perhaps better armament, but would be the performance with the DB 601A enough to be realy better then the Hurricane and equal to the Spitfire? I have my doubts!



The 'ideal fighter' should be tailored for the needs of the LW. For an single engined fighter, that includes winning out the air superiority over enemy held teritorry - the task the Emil had problems to do if the airspace of the interest was, say 250 km away. 



> > Good examples are the P40 and the A6M. The P40 had the same intentions then the Bf 109E and the Spitfire but was significant larger (also larger then the He 112) with a lot more fuel, but to my opinion a Tomahawk has not a single chance against the Bf 109 E or the Spitfire in a real battle over a longer term of time (equal to BoB).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## davebender (Jul 27, 2012)

Put drop tanks into mass production early. That would help more then tinkering with Me-109 design.

If we cannot produce the Fw-187 then Germany should produce the Me-110 in much greater quantities so it isn't always fighting outnumbered. This will require an increase in DB601 engine production.


----------



## davebender (Jul 27, 2012)

The Fw-190 can be powered by a DB601 engine too and I suspect it would be as good or better then the Mc.202 and Ki-61. For instance the Fw-190 and Ki-61 carry a similiar quantity of internal fuel. 

This option requires an increase in DB601 engine production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2012)

One of the "requirements" for the Me 110 that is often forgotten is that it had to carry a long range radio. In fact the same radio used in the He 111. You not only had the weight and bulk of the radio ( not that bad actually) but it needed a dedicated operator. Unless that requirement is removed no single seat fighter is going to totally replace the 110 regardless of number of engines. 

The 109 design should _NOT BE TINKERED WITH_ it should be _*REPLACED*_.


----------



## davebender (Jul 27, 2012)

The Me-109 was relatively effective yet dirt cheap to mass produce. Exactly what you need when the war effort requires 50,000 single engine fighter aircraft. 

The He-100 was probably the only contemporary fighter aircraft that could rival the Me-109 for low production cost. I don't see that as an overall improvement.


----------



## DonL (Jul 27, 2012)

> The 109 design should NOT BE TINKERED WITH it should be REPLACED.



To think in terms what was real developed and flying?! Only the He 112 (with the requirements of this thread)!



> For things possible with DB-601A, we can take a look at MC.202 and Ki-61 - even in 1943 those were never listed as easy preys by allied pilots. Even the 109F-0/-1/-2, basically the aerodynamically cleaned-up Emils can show us that better was possible, on about the same engine power.



What is this for an argumentation at 1940?
Wether the Ki61 nor the MC 202 could be compared the Bf 109 E3/4 at 1940!
The Ki 61 had no DB 601 A from 1940 with *no* water pressure cooling and at the Macci had the worst armament and was as short legged as the Bf 109E3/4!



> The 'ideal fighter' should be tailored for the needs of the LW. For an single engined fighter, that includes winning out the air superiority over enemy held teritorry - the task the Emil had problems to do if the airspace of the interest was, say 250 km away.



Oh realy?! Sorry for the sarcasm but the enemy fighter was the Spitfire what is at the defensive role and only the performance of the Spitfire counts, all other fighter a/c's are none to less important at 1940 if we compare to BoB as the most important battle!



> Think you're chosen a wrong example.
> The early P-40 (P-40B) was every bit as good as the European duo (and better performer than the Hurricane I?), it was the later versions of the Spit and 109 that left the P-40 in the dust. The P-40B in LW hands means far greater escort/freijagd footprint, than it was possible when using the 109E, even without drop tank used. The P-40B flying at 15-20000 ft has also a significant tactical advantage over the defending fighter trying to gain the necessary altitude, more so since it was a very god diver. The armament of the P-40B is also far better suited for long range jobs, than those of the Emil.



No I have choosen exactly the right example, because the P40 has the requirements you are thinking should be needed for a german fighter, but to my opinion a *1940 Mai to June* produced Tomohawk would be toast; minced meat; etc to both the Bf 109 E and Spitfire in every role and especially if the Spit and Me are at the defensive role.
The JG 27 had the Bf 109 E7 till September 1941 at the desert and weather the Tomohawk or the Kittyhawk could realy match with the JG 27! All other claims are myths, please read sources which has done researches on the officialy loss lists. An April 1940 produced Tomohawk had no *single* chance to be a succeed escort fighter against this two birds!



> Zero was really no diver, but superb combat range would've given RAF some dire moments. The armament issue is also present here (drum fed cannons, a pair of LMGs).



I think that a A6M Model 11 would be toast too at August 1940 over England against the Bf 109E , Hurricane or Spitfire.
The A6M was worst at the sticks above 400 km/h where the Spit and Me had there best performance. And you should think about the reality that german fighters always to favor boom and zoom tactics, because no *single* fighter of germany at WWII was a turn fighter!
The Zero would be out speeded out climbed and attacked from altitude the same as the P40 with no realy chance to have an adaquared answer. The air war at ETO at 1940 was totaly different and in a totaly other leage as the war at pacific at the same time or one year later!

Your whole argumentation based on 1941 but not on *1940*!

And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!


----------



## Milosh (Jul 27, 2012)

> And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!



Sorry DonL but the Bf109F-1 was operational in Oct 1940 with Stab/JG51. I./JG51 received F-1s in early Nov 1940. The first known loss was on Nov 11 1940, Oblt Georg Claus (_Staffelkapitan_ of 1./JG51) in WNr.6536 failing to return from an engagement of the British coast.


----------



## DonL (Jul 27, 2012)

Ok! Sorry!
My sources are only refering to the Bf 109 F-2!
But November 1940 is not BoB and only two month of 1940!

I think if there would be a chance to introduce to Bf 109F earlier then reality the german LW had done it!
We are in charge at this thread but I don't see how the develpment could be much more accelerated!
Also the Bf 109 E7 and the Bf 109F1 both are basing on the DB 601N, which is very different to the DB 601 A!


----------



## riacrato (Jul 27, 2012)

Bf 109 F introduced ducted (boundary layer conrolling) radiators, I don't know if it was possible to introduce them earlier or not, but its an evolutionary step over the previous generation (which again was another evolution over the C / Ds chin radiator). Imo it's stupid to imply the latest evolution of an airframe could be available at any time. They are results of studies and tests and more studies and more tests and that takes time. Just like with an engine.

Neither MC.202 nor Ki 61 were available 1940, nor was the MC.202 particularly grand compared to the E. Certainly not a major improvement and in some ways a step backwards.


----------



## davebender (Jul 27, 2012)

Speaking of radiators...

What type did Dr. Tank prefer during the late 1930s when designing aircraft such as the Fw-187 and Fw-190? If RLM had accepted the 1937 Focke Wulf proposal for a DB601 powered Fw-190 what type radiator would it have?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2012)

The other planes mentioned point out that it was possible to have better performance from the same engine than the 109E had. They may be later in timing but there is no change in the laws in the laws of physics or aerodynamics that would have prevented them from being developed earlier. It is not like asking for a 425mph plane with 800 liters of fuel and four 20mm guns powered by the DB601. A prototype MC 202 was flying in 1940 so while it was not available as a service type it did not depend on any late discoveries in aerodynamics for it's performance. There may have been things wrong with it but such things as cost of construction ( or manner of construction) have little to do with aerodynamic shape. Given some time and a different factory set up the construction may have been able to be simplified much like the Ki 61 was. 

I would also note that the Spitfire had almost the same drag as a 109F in spite of it's larger wing. This can be seen by comparing fuel consumption figures at various speeds for the MK V ( higher drag than a MK IA or II) and the 109F with the two planes fuel consumption being within a few percent of each other. 

It was possible to build a lower drag airframe than the 109E in 1940 that was larger. It may not have climbed as well but speed and turn could both have been better. or traded for range or armament.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> T
> I would also note that the Spitfire had almost the same drag as a 109F in spite of it's larger wing. This can be seen by comparing fuel consumption figures at various speeds for the MK V ( higher drag than a MK IA or II) and the 109F with the two planes fuel consumption being within a few percent of each other.
> .



Please can you show me the data, i thinked the difference was not useless


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2012)

I did a comparison a while ago in a rather long thread that compared the 109 to the Spitfire (maybe? many threads that start about other things turn into 109 vs Spitfire debates) I will try to find it. Data was taken from the 109F-4 data sheets for cruise and from a page in one of Alfred Prices books that was supposed to copy recommended speed/altitude cruise for the Spitfire using various rpm/boost settings and giving the fuel burn for each.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 28, 2012)

i've a digital copy of pilot notes for Spit V (i think is not all, too few page) is reported 67 galls for hour at setting for max rich continuos (+7 lbs and 2650 rpm) and 84 galls for hour at setting for climbing (1 hour limit, +9 lbs and 2850 rpm)


----------



## riacrato (Jul 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> They may be later in timing but there is no change in the laws in the laws of physics or aerodynamics that would have prevented them from being developed earlier.


 
And by that logic, I see no reason Germany could not have fielded the Me 262... no, the Eurofighter Typhoon... in 1940.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

Couldn't do that even if supplied with blueprints and a set of production jigs. Airframe and avionics contain too many components that are impossible to duplicate during 1940.

Me-262 and Jumo 004 engines are possible though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2012)

riacrato said:


> And by that logic, I see no reason Germany could not have fielded the Me 262... no, the Eurofighter Typhoon... in 1940.



OK maybe I exaggerated a little, but you don't need laminar flow wings or a Meredith effect radiator like on a P-51 to do a whole lot better than the 109E. AS is proven by the 109F. The MC 202 din't used any advanced aerodynamic tricks did it? Please compare speed and power of the "E" to the Spitfire and the P-40 and consider their size and weight. P-40 can't climb for beans but at over 3/4 ton heavier and with a wing about 33% bigger than the 109E the "E" sure isn't impressing me with it's aerodynamic efficiency.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 28, 2012)

DonL said:


> What is this for an argumentation at 1940?
> Wether the Ki61 nor the MC 202 could be compared the Bf 109 E3/4 at 1940!
> The Ki 61 had no DB 601 A from 1940 with *no* water pressure cooling and at the Macci had the worst armament and was as short legged as the Bf 109E3/4!



1st and foremost, sentences ending with full stops would more likely to succeed convincing the other party in the debate that your points are of greater merit. Unlike the sentences ending with exclamation mark 
IIRC the pressure water cooling was introduced from DB-601E, not the 601N and earlier. The comparison of the foreign figters vs. the Emil was there to show that Emil, for all of it's virtues, was not the pinnacle of the DB-601A-N powered fighters. Struts supporting the stabilators, fixed tailwheel, non streamlined front end, edgy canopy, un-balanced armament - there was plenty of items to improve. And most of them were improved, in Germany proper, in 1940, while foreign fighters were also far more streamlined machines than Emil. And there was no great new technology applied on those fighters.



> Oh realy?! Sorry for the sarcasm but the enemy fighter was the Spitfire what is at the defensive role and only the performance of the Spitfire counts, all other fighter a/c's are none to less important at 1940 if we compare to BoB as the most important battle!



Sure enough, you know that Spitfires were far less numerous fighters from the BoB trio? 
Further, a fighter that can chase Spitfire until it reaches, say, Conventry, is what was good for the LW. And it was not available.



> No I have choosen exactly the right example, because the P40 has the requirements you are thinking should be needed for a german fighter, but to my opinion a *1940 Mai to June* produced Tomohawk would be toast; minced meat; etc to both the Bf 109 E and Spitfire in every role and especially if the Spit and Me are at the defensive role.



Here we disagree. See above - a fighter with 150 US gals is what was needed for LW in BoB, not a fighter with 100 gals.



> The JG 27 had the Bf 109 E7 till September 1941 at the desert and weather the Tomohawk or the Kittyhawk could realy match with the JG 27! All other claims are myths, please read sources which has done researches on the officialy loss lists. An April 1940 produced Tomohawk had no *single* chance to be a succeed escort fighter against this two birds!



LW of the 1940 have had it almost all - seasoned pilots, 4-finger tactics, Freijagd concept (until it was invoked), numbers, capable planes. They did not have the fighter with big footprint, that would prevent RAF from retreating and striking back. In N. Africa, they have the increased footprint fighter (barely), they lack the numbers, but they still have the tactical edge. RAF/RAAF/SAAF have, mostly, only the numbers, but not overwhelmingly. No wonder LW racked scores.



> I think that a A6M Model 11 would be toast too at August 1940 over England against the Bf 109E , Hurricane or Spitfire.
> The A6M was worst at the sticks above 400 km/h where the Spit and Me had there best performance. And you should think about the reality that german fighters always to favor boom and zoom tactics, because no *single* fighter of germany at WWII was a turn fighter!



Since the A6M was a tough game even for the Spit V, let alone for the Hurri, perhaps it would not be such a toast? Of course, the RAF was supported by far better early warning system than it was case for Australia (Darwin), so their fighters should be able to climb in timely manner?
No need to remind me about the boom'n'zoom applied by LW pilots, we all know that 



> The Zero would be out speeded out climbed and attacked from altitude the same as the P40 with no realy chance to have an adaquared answer. The air war at ETO at 1940 was totaly different and in a totaly other leage as the war at pacific at the same time or one year later!



While I can agree that Zero would be slower than the Spit, it took time for people to build a fighter to outclimb the Zero. And, since it would be flying at 15-20000 ft when crossing the Channel, the tactical advantage is already there (so we can trade climb rate for some armor?) - as experienced during the Darwin air raids. The air war int the PTO was very like the ETO - Axis forces trying to bomb the other into submission.



> Your whole argumentation based on 1941 but not on *1940*!



No, not really.



> And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!


 
Covered by Milosh.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> i've a digital copy of pilot notes for Spit V (i think is not all, too few page) is reported 67 galls for hour at setting for max rich continuos (+7 lbs and 2650 rpm) and 84 galls for hour at setting for climbing (1 hour limit, +9 lbs and 2850 rpm)


OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.

Bf109F-4 at 1000meters

315kph/196mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/26.4imp gal, 101 miles per 100lbs of fuel
425kph/264mph for a fuel burn of 215liters/47.3imp gal, 76 miles per 100lbs of fuel

Spitfire MK V at 2000ft/606 meters
.
327.4kph/203mph for a fuel burn of 140.9liters/31imp gal, 89.8 miles per 100lbs of fuel
377.4kph/234mph for a fuel burn of 159liters/35imp gal, 91.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel
411.3kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 83miles per 100lbs of fuel

Bf109F-4 at 3000meters

370kph/230mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 109.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
465kph/289mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 85.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 10,000ft/3048 meters.

362kph/225mph for a fuel burn of 132liters/29imp gal, 106.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
452kph/281mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 91.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Bf109F-4 at 5000 meters

400kph/248mph for a fuel burn of 145liters/31.9imp gal, 106.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
505kph/314mph for a fuel burn of 250liters/55imp gal,,, 78 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 20,000ft/6096 meters. 

423kph/263mph for a fuel burn of 164liters/36imp gal, 100 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
483kph/300mph for a fuel burn of 209liters/46imp gal, 89.3 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Bf109F-4 at 7000 meters

410kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 121.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
510kph/317mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 94 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Bf109F-4 at 9000 meters

490kph/305mph for a fuel burn of 185liters/40.7imp gal, 102.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
540kph/336mph for a fuel burn of 220liters/48.4imp gal, 95.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

Spitfire MK V at 30,000ft/9144 meters.

455kph/283mph for a fuel burn of 186.4liters/41imp gal, 94.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
539kph/335mph for a fuel burn of 214liters/47imp gal, 97.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

I doubt the MK V Spit was lower drag than the MK I or II while we know that the 109F had lower drag than the 109E. 

Granted this is more a measure of the total propulsive efficiency of the planes than a true measure of drag but I figure the work done ( fuel used ?) averaged over a large enough set of conditions should come somewhat close.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

Germany had no pre-war plans to fight Britain. So why would they design aircraft for that purpose during 1937?

However if range/endurance is your priority then why not build an aircraft with 1,100 liters of internal fuel such as the Fw-187? And if you/RLM don't like the Fw-187 then why not build the Me-110 in larger numbers so it doesn't have to fight badly outnumbered most of the time?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Germany had no pre-war plans to fight Britain. So why would they design aircraft for that purpose during 1937?



But Germany did have plans to invade the Soviet Union.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

Contingency plans prove nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA still has contingency plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean we intend to execute those plans. They are for emergency (or retaliatory) use only.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Contingency plans prove nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA still has contingency plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean we intend to execute those plans. They are for emergency (or retaliatory) use only.



How about Gen. Wever's "Ural bomber" the Ju 89. Just a name I suppose.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 29, 2012)

Range was never a European thing and it showed in many designs. The 109 and Spitfire were both designed to be underpowered so we're designed to be very light on fuel and it wasn't a design feature anyway. America is far bigger and thinking of pacific combat meant more range.

More fuel meant a big heavy aircraft which would have been a slug with an engine like the Kestrel Goshawk or Jumo 210.

Twins had more range as they could be physically bigger so the Bf 110 was very much forward thinking as the weaknesses in range of the 109 was answered by the 110. I must say that I believe one needs to give the 110 far more kudos as a design and as a concept than is given.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

The Luftwaffe didn't have aircraft with longer ranges due to one word....."doctrine". The Germans were never going to build one in the late thirties because they didn't envisage a scenario where they would need one.

The RAF didn't have fighters with longer range because they were designed as interceptors to counter the nightmare bombing scenario that was prevalent in the minds of politicians and senior military men during the 1920/30s. They were designed to defend against bombers coming across the Channel or North Sea in conjunction with a Command and Control system which is the model for all modern systems.They did that very well.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cimmex (Jul 29, 2012)

Sorry, I do not understand the whole sense of this thread. Why in 1940 Germany should want a new fighter. The Bf109E was one of the best planes in the world. The design of the F model is already finished and production is already prepared. Please try to imagine a view of 1940 and not from today.
cimmex


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Sorry, I do not understand the whole sense of this thread. Why in 1940 Germany should want a new fighter. The Bf109E was one of the best planes in the world. The design of the F model is already finished and production is already prepared. Please try to imagine a view of 1940 and not from today.
> cimmex



Yes,but its shortcomings became all to evident in 1940 during the BoB.
The Spitfire's shortcomings were similarly highlighted the following year.
These failings had little to do with the design of the aircraft but rather their inability to perform roles for which they were not intended.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## cimmex (Jul 29, 2012)

“*Yes,but its shortcomings became all to evident in 1940 during the BoB.*”
You are right of course but this showed up in fall 1940, to have a suitable fighter in 1940 you have to start development many years before without that knowledge.
Ok those “what ifs” are not my world, I’m more interested in (technical) facts, have fun...
cimmex


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

I tend to agree. Decisions were,and are,made for all sorts of military and political reasons.The results were that in 1940 the Luftwaffe was operating the Bf 109 E as it primary single engined fighter.
That's how it was.Different decisions may have led to something different though it is unlikely to have changed the final outcome of the conflict. I do not subscribe to the view that wars (not battles) are won by narrow margins (what ifs like a drop tank on the Bf 109, or real differences like the availability of 100 octane fuel for the RAF etc).
Hindsight is a wonderful luxury.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 29, 2012)

Incorrect.

Germans did have a doctrine for a long range fighter.

It was called the Bf 110.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

And what exactly was the Bf 110 designed to do?

As a "zerstorer" it fitted with the Luftwaffe doctrine exactly. It would be a huge leap to describe the Bf 110 in 1940 as a long range air superiority fighter or escort fighter in the way we would later describe the P-51.
It was forced into this role (maybe not strictly "long range") in 1940 and didn't do too well.

Between May and September 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 57% of its initial strength in single engined fighters. For twin engined fighters this figure is a staggering 94%. I wouldn't have wanted to fly a Bf 110 over Britain. The percentage of operationally ready crews gives a clue as to your likely fate. In July 1940 this stood at 84% but by September had fallen to 60%.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 29, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.
> 
> I doubt the MK V Spit was lower drag than the MK I or II while we know that the 109F had lower drag than the 109E.
> 
> Granted this is more a measure of the total propulsive efficiency of the planes than a true measure of drag but I figure the work done ( fuel used ?) averaged over a large enough set of conditions should come somewhat close.



thanks, maybe i not understand what's the source for Spit V data?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 29, 2012)

stona said:


> Between May and September 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 57% of its initial strength in single engined fighters. For twin engined fighters this figure is a staggering 94%. I wouldn't have wanted to fly a Bf 110 over Britain. The percentage of operationally ready crews gives a clue as to your likely fate. In July 1940 this stood at 84% but by September had fallen to 60%.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



RAF had something like 900 s-e fighters in the beginning of July and lost about 1100 only during BoB, a hundred or two more since May.. that's loss rate well over 100%.. so you would not like to fly Spitfires and Hurricane either...? But yet propotionally losses were heavy for destroyer arm.

Small note of operational ready crews. Einsatzbereit in German from translation original... not operationally ready means crew still new, and was spending less than 5 (or 10, I don't recall exact) operational sorties since combat carrier begun, this was definition for "Einsatzbereit" when they were considered truely ready to fly against enemy.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

My post was using statistics to show the relative vulnerability of the Bf 110 compared with the Bf 109.

RAF percentage losses are not a valid comparison. The only targets for the Luftwaffe during the BoB (with a few very minor exceptions) were the RAF's single engined fighters.

The targets for the RAF were primarily the Luftwaffe's bomber force.

We have to be very careful quoting raw statistics and attempting comparisons in a different context.

The exact definition of "operationally ready" is not important either as I am quoting two figures in which the definition is the same making the comparison perfectly valid.

Statistics,statistics and lies 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 29, 2012)

The P-51 first flew in 1940 so had a 5 year head start with new technology and new doctrines.

The Bf 110 was designed when the RAF main fighter was the Bristol Bulldog! 

The 110 may or may not be rubbish...but if I am a crewmen in a Blenhiem or Wellington in daylight surrounded by 110 then crying won't help you and praying will do you no good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> However if range/endurance is your priority then why not build an aircraft with 1,100 liters of internal fuel such as the Fw-187?



And that is a twin so a single engine plane should have 550 liters? 145 US gallons? _WHAT A CONCEPT!_


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> thanks, maybe i not understand what's the source for Spit V data?



The figures are from an Alfred Price book "Spitfire" which seems to be a combination of two previous books. The Figures are supposed to be from a August 1942 document by the Air Tactics dept of the Air Ministry as a guide for optimum engine settings to use when over enemy held territory. The numbers I used were the optimum settings for boost and rpm (high boost and low rpm) high arm and low boost could use around 5 gallons more per hour for the same speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

The Basket said:


> The P-51 first flew in 1940 so had a 5 year head start with new technology and new doctrines.
> 
> The Bf 110 was designed when the RAF main fighter was the Bristol Bulldog!
> 
> The 110 may or may not be rubbish...but if I am a crewmen in a Blenhiem or Wellington in daylight surrounded by 110 then crying won't help you and praying will do you no good.



While the P-51 benefited from new technology I am not at all sure there was a new doctrine _when_ it was designed. The perceived _need_ for a single engine escort fighter was still several years away.

Many countries first monoplanes were designed when the the Bristol Bulldog was the RAF main fighter, in fact some of the second generation were almost on the drawing boards when the Bulldog left service, it doesn't mean that anybody really thought the new planes were going to fight Bulldogs  

The 110 does get a bad Rap as several other countries designed and built twin engine fighters in the same "category", although in lesser numbers. Since a single engine fighter could not have the range ( at the time) a twin was the only answer ( a twin, in spite of it's handicap being thought better than _NO_ fighter). 

The French had several, the Japanese had the KI 45 ( started in 1937) and tried to follow it. The Italians had a few. The US had the Airacuda ( mercifully not many).


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

The Basket said:


> The 110 may or may not be rubbish...



Noone said or implied that the Bf 110 was rubbish. 
It can be considered a successful aeroplane.It did struggle,even in 1940,against the RAF's single engined fighters. 
It's service life may have been extended by the failiure of the Luftwaffe to acquire a suitable replacement but it did well until the end after its transformation into a night fighter.That's a role I'm sure was not foreseen when the design was on the drawing board.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jul 29, 2012)

stona said:


> And what exactly was the Bf 110 designed to do?
> 
> As a "zerstorer" it fitted with the Luftwaffe doctrine exactly. It would be a huge leap to describe the Bf 110 in 1940 as a long range air superiority fighter or escort fighter in the way we would later describe the P-51.
> It was forced into this role (maybe not strictly "long range") in 1940 and didn't do too well......
> ...



Thats exactly what it was designed for - a long-range fighter. The RLM specification for 1934 was for a heavy long-range strategic fighter - as Goering wanted.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Thats exactly what it was designed for - a long-range fighter. The RLM specification for 1934 was for a heavy long-range strategic fighter - as Goering wanted.



Yes, a "zerstorer" which can be interpreted as heavy fighter. 

The original RLM specification you refer to called for an internal bomb load so the intention was not for a long range fighter in the sense we would understand it of an American or British fighter.

John Vasco,who knows a thing or two about the Bf 110 has written.

"The RLM also took the view,at this time (late 1935) that the Bf 110 mock up lent itself to a bomber configuration.This clearly shows that even before the maiden test flight of the Bf 110,Luftwaffe thinking had envisaged the aircraft not only as a machine that could clear a path for bomber formations,but which would also undertake duties as a ground attack aircraft in support of German ground forces."

That fits perfectly with German air doctrine of the 1930s. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (Jul 29, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> While the P-51 benefited from new technology I am not at all sure there was a new doctrine _when_ it was designed. The perceived _need_ for a single engine escort fighter was still several years away.



One advantage of the P-51 is that the designers can see aircraft like the Spitfire and 109 and see what is good and what is bad. They basically said the P-40 was rubbish and we can do better. This a huge advantage and only hindsight which they had the luxury of, could you do that. Mitchell designed the Spitfire because he knew no better other than to go for speed. The protoype 109 flew with a 600hp engine, the P-51 1100hp and the P-47 2,000hp! That is the problem right there!

American fighters were usually bigger than European aircraft. Even the P-40 was bigger than a 109 and Spitfire. So more room for fuel even if only bigger was just the way they did stuff.

I mentioned the Bulldog because that was the main fighter and the main benchmark of its day. Its design was the blueprint since WW1 and the Germans main Luftwaffe fighter, the He 51 was desegned exactly the same. Fixed undercarriage, open cockpit, biplane with 2 guns. Anything....even the Bf 110 is going to seem like an X-Wing against a He 51 and so hide any weaknesses that will show up later...ie...it does 330mph and whats wrong with that? For a 1930s big twin....absolutely nothing.


----------



## DonL (Jul 29, 2012)

> The original RLM specification you refer to called for an internal bomb load so the intention was not for a long range fighter in the sense we would understand it of an American or British fighter.



This is clearly wrong!
The first advertisement was long range fighting and zerstoerer and without an internal bomb bay! And this advertisement was from Wever and Wimmer.

The second advertisement of the zerstoerer concept (Milch, Goering and Kesselring) at 1939-40 with the Arado 240 and the bf 210 had the internal bomb load but not the first advertisement with the Bf 110.

At the LW were heavy conflicts about the zerstoerer concept from the beginning!
Wever, Wimmer and later Udet favour more a heavy fighter concept, this is the reason why udet ordered the FW 187, but Goering; Milch and Kesselring favoured the Bf 110 and the zerstoerer concept.

As history has shown the later second advertisement with internal bomb bay was nothing but crap, wasting money, time and manpower! 



> And that is a twin so a single engine plane should have 550 liters? 145 US gallons? WHAT A CONCEPT!



You should consider which timeline, the rapid developments from all "important" country's and the "new"learning.
Nobody of the designers had experience with the development of this new fighter generations.
And the Bf 109E was in service since the beginning of 1939.

It is some kind of funny to disqualify the FW 187 with arguments of internal fuel and the second engine, also the Bf 109E with it's aerodynamics, because both were from 1938 (flying) and sevice 1939 (Fw 187 A0 and Bf 109E), but on the other hand to argue with a'c's which were perhaps on the drawing board but wether in service nor even produced.

It is a fact that no heavy fighter with 1100 internal fuel at 1939-40 could ever match with the aerodynamics and performance of the FW 187 with a DB 601A. Also it is a fact that all mentioned a/c's in this thread as an alternative for the Bf 109E weren't produced in numbers at May to August 1940 and that the german developed at 1940 the Bf 109F which went in service late 1940. And no mentioned a/c was better or equal to the Bf 109F in aerodynamics and performance at the same timeline (P40, A6M, Macci 202).


----------



## Milosh (Jul 29, 2012)

> It is a fact that no heavy fighter with 1100 internal fuel at 1939-40 could ever match with the aerodynamics and performance of the FW 187 with a DB 601A.



The P-38 first flew in Jan 1939.

I would say the Westland Whirlwind would have given the Fw187 a good run for the money.


----------



## DonL (Jul 29, 2012)

@ Milosh

To my very personal opinion I don't believe that the P38 would be a match for the FW 187 (with continuous development).
If you look at the real data's and estimated data's from FW, the P38 was outclassed at speed and climb performance and clearly at wing loading.

Also I have my doubt's that a Westland Whirlwind could match with a FW 187 with 2 x DB 601A.

When was the P38 in service?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

The Basket said:


> One advantage of the P-51 is that the designers can see aircraft like the Spitfire and 109 and see what is good and what is bad. They basically said the P-40 was rubbish and we can do better.



True but more on that later. 



The Basket said:


> This a huge advantage and only hindsight which they had the luxury of, could you do that. Mitchell designed the Spitfire because he knew no better other than to go for speed. The protoype 109 flew with a 600hp engine, the P-51 1100hp and the P-47 2,000hp! That is the problem right there!



I wold note that the _FIRST_ prototype of the P-40 (Hawk 75) first flew in May 1935 with an experimental Curtiss engine of a supposed 900hp. It was replaced in succession by a 650hp P&W R-1535 and a 675hp Wright Cyclone. I believe the wing airfoil and plane form remained unchanged until the end in 1944? North American didn't _have_ to look at the 109 and Spitfire (although I am sure they did), they could look at the 5 year old Curtiss fighter and the 4-5 year old Seversky fighter and even the 1 year old P-39. 



The Basket said:


> American fighters were usually bigger than European aircraft. Even the P-40 was bigger than a 109 and Spitfire. So more room for fuel even if only bigger was just the way they did stuff.



one reason for the _bigger_ was for the fuel. Was the plane fitted with more fuel because it would fit or did the fuel fit because it was designed to fit from the start? 
The Curtiss Hawk/P-36 carried 151-162 gallons in three tanks from the beginning. Two tanks in the wing center section and one overload tank behind the cockpit. Just like the P-40. (what a surprise) Self sealing tanks cut into the capacity (which on the original P-40 was up to 180 gallons) 

I once read an account of a P-40 squadron that deployed from the west coast to the east coast by air. Because of weather, break downs, malfunctions and fueling stops it took almost 2 weeks to get the squadron back together again. Mechanics, supplies and other support went by train. Flight is by VFR only which limits days/hours for flight. Distance from Southern Maine (Portsmouth Navy yard) to Miami is about the same as Gothenburg, Sweden to Marseille and from LA to Jacksonville FL is 2146 miles while it is only 1739 miles from Dublin to Moscow. American planes needed some range just to deploy around the country.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 29, 2012)

DonL said:


> @ Milosh
> 
> To my very personal opinion I don't believe that the P38 would be a match for the FW 187 (with continuous development).
> If you look at the real data's and estimated data's from FW, the P38 was outclassed at speed and climb performance and clearly at wing loading.
> ...



When was the DB601 Fw187 in service?


----------



## The Basket (Jul 29, 2012)

The 109 was seeing combat and that was a good judge of what is right. I am not saying that the Mustang is a copy but an anti copy. Look at the weakness and mistakes of current fighters and don't do it again. 

I do think American things are bigger because they are. It helps as it means bigger aircraft can hold bigger fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

Plain a simple the Germans dropped the ball. 

1934 (roughly) the Germans start work on the 109 and British start on the Hawker Hurricane.
1935, The first 109 flies in May and the First Hurricane flies in November.
1936, First flight of Spitfire in March. In June the Hurricane is ordered into production along with the Spitfire. 
1937 sees the first deliveries of production 109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires, it also sees the British issue specification F.18/37 which leads to the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon. orders are also placed for 2 Westland P.9s. Germans start design process on FW 190
1938. sees some of the First 109E prototypes under test in Jan/Feb with initial E-0 and E-1s under going acceptance tests in NOV. Back in March the British had ordered 4 prototypes of the new Hawker fighter. October sees the first flight of a Whirlwind. 
1939. Production of 109E gets into stride. end of the year sees work ( on paper?) for the "F"? First flight of the Tornado (with Vulture engine) is in Oct. First flight of FW 190 is in June but needs new cooling system for the BMW 139 engine.

The Germans had the oldest of the aircraft. By 1938-39 it needed a successor on the way, not a supplement and not "tweaks". They did a good job with the "F" but that should have been holding the line for the 209/309/whatever. Granted some of the British designs didn't work that well but at least they were trying for something new in 1938/39 and not _expecting_ the Hurricane-Spitfire to go on forever.


----------



## DonL (Jul 29, 2012)

What's with the FW 190?
It was on the way since 1938-1939.


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2012)

> Germans did have a doctrine for a long range fighter.
> It was called the Bf 110.



Me-110 production numbers were too low to fill that role.

*USA Long Range Fighter Aircraft*
US Warplanes
2,970 x P-38J.
3,923 x P-38L.
12,608 x P-47D.
1,988 x P-51B.
1,750 x P-51C.
8,100 x P-51D.

*1940 Me-110 Fighter Production.*
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1,006.
Less then 100 Me-110 fighter aircraft produced per month and most were diverted to the night fighter force by mid 1940. I think it's safe to say U.S. 8th Air Force on average received more long range day fighter aircraft per month then the Luftwaffe received during all of 1940.

Germany must produce several hundred Me-110 day fighter aircraft per month during 1940 (in addition to recon and night fighters) to have any chance for success as a bomber escort.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 29, 2012)

What does TOTAL US production of several long range aircraft have to do with Me 110 production JUST during 1940 ?
Over 6000 Me 110 were produced total.


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2012)

Those aircraft were produced during 1943 to 1945. Add them up and divide by 2 1/2. You get about 1,000 long range U.S. day fighter aircraft per month.

Germany will need about half that many Me-110 day fighter aircraft per month during 1940 if they want to win the BoB.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 29, 2012)

Totally unrealistic, apples to oranges.
Seeing as how Germany's average per month of ALL aircraft produced in 1940 was about 650 per month, what is your point?

Why would building more of a aircraft that didn't do too well in the BoB, win the BoB ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

DonL said:


> What's with the FW 190?
> It was on the way since 1938-1939.



As a "supplement" for the 109, not a replacement.


----------



## DonL (Jul 29, 2012)

> As a "supplement" for the 109, not a replacement.



I agree!

But as we know today there was no replacement with performance!

The only "replacement" with performance were the FW 190D-9 and Ta 152 with bigger engines at 1944.
All other replacements from Messerschmitt don't have the performance.

That's one of the reasons that I'm that fan of the FW 187 and push it that much, because it was the only fighter a/c which has clearly better "estimated" performances with the bred and butter engines DB 601/605!

There was no prototype or other development the whole war from germany, especially a single engine fighter with the DB 601/605 which could match with the performance of the Bf 109 F-4 (to me the best Bf 109). The Bf 109G was clearly a step back and only the G10/14 which were the "prototypes" of the K could match with the performance of the F-4.
The He 112 would be interesting as I described because it was larger but also an a/c from 1935!

Also the Messerschmitt a/c's have the problems with the sticks at high speed, which was much better at the FW a/c's, which were all very good and comfortable, even at highest speed to the sticks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

This sort of brings us around in a circle to the beginning of the thread.

The Germans needed a _replacement_ for the 109. 
They needed it flying in 1940 ( even if not service in large numbers if in service at all). 
While the "F" was a large improvement on the "E", even with the same engine, it failed to improve several aspects of performance ( range by much, and armament). 
A larger, more aerodynamic air frame was possible without using either laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51. As evidenced by the other axis fighters powered by the 601 and by the Spitfire and even the early P-40s. 

Granted a heavier fighter will have less climb than a 109 but could a somewhat better armed (even if not double the armament), somewhat longer ranged (even if not _really_ long ranged) have been an asset to the Luftwaffe in 1940 (maybe) and 1941/42/43 ?


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2012)

German pilots that flew Me-109s and Me-110s during 1940 thought their aircraft performed just fine. Who are we to second guess pilots that flew these aircraft in combat?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2012)

They thought they were just fine because they didn't have anything to compare them to. How many had flown anything else? Performing just fine over Dover or London is not Performing just fine over Bristol or Birmingham (let alone Liverpool)

Many US pilots thought the Buffalo was pretty good, right up until.........

And there was at least one German pilot who was at least a little frustrated by the 109s performance.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 30, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> They thought they were just fine because they didn't have anything to compare them to. How many had flown anything else? Performing just fine over Dover or London is not Performing just fine over Bristol or Birmingham (let alone Liverpool)
> 
> Many US pilots thought the Buffalo was pretty good, right up until.........
> 
> And there was at least one German pilot who was at least a little frustrated by the 109s performance.



You mean Galland,- in his book “the first and the last” he explained very well his intention of this statement and in the same book he rated the speed of the Bf109 as always about 10km/h higher than the contemporary Spitfire version.
cimmex


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The figures are from an Alfred Price book "Spitfire" which seems to be a combination of two previous books. The Figures are supposed to be from a August 1942 document by the Air Tactics dept of the Air Ministry as a guide for optimum engine settings to use when over enemy held territory. The numbers I used were the optimum settings for boost and rpm (high boost and low rpm) high arm and low boost could use around 5 gallons more per hour for the same speed.



it's possible compare consume for higher speed?, if i understand the drag influence is higher at higher speed


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 30, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Plain a simple the Germans dropped the ball.
> 
> 1934 (roughly) the Germans start work on the 109 and British start on the Hawker Hurricane.
> ......
> The Germans had the oldest of the aircraft. By 1938-39 it needed a successor on the way, not a supplement and not "tweaks". They did a good job with the "F" but that should have been holding the line for the 209/309/whatever. Granted some of the British designs didn't work that well but at least they were trying for something new in 1938/39 and not _expecting_ the Hurricane-Spitfire to go on forever.



The Germans had the oldest aircraft - and also probably the best in 1939 as soon everyone experienced... I am always worn of this sort of arguement. Yes, Hurricane and 109 was conceived at around same time, but they did NOT represent the same level of engineering and design levels. 109 was lightyears ahead in aerodynamic, construction and production technologies, just as it was somewhat ahead to even the Hawker's successor, the Spitfire too. Which is why it could be successfully adopted for new requirements and remain in production for so long and the Hawker fighter could not. 

That is not a detriment to the Hawker design team, they intended to do just that, make an interim fighter design that could take advantage of existing British a/c industry production technology and capacity. To argue on this basis that the 109 was just as outdated as the Hawker without taking into account the fundemental differences in design is flawed logic imho.



Shortround6 said:


> The Germans needed a _replacement_ for the 109.



I disagree. They did not, unless it was a jet. The many wannabee replacements that could not surprass the 109 overall, even within Mtt's own house show that. The design was sound and stood the test of time. 

The earliest possible replacement could be a (non boosted to keep things real) a Fw 190D in 1943 with either Jumo 213s or equivalent DB 603. Both engines were available. But this would require scrapping the Me 410 / Ju 188 etc. and leaving the LW w/o new attack type aircraft. Plus also 109s could be also fitted with 603/213, probably again with greater performance and would be a viable alternative for fighter application, since they are cheaper.

And that sums it up very well BTW. Performance and Price was a combination that made the 109 so successfull from the very beginning.



> They needed it flying in 1940 ( even if not service in large numbers if in service at all).



It WAS flying and it was called the 109F...



> While the "F" was a large improvement on the "E", even with the same engine, it failed to improve several aspects of performance ( range by much, and armament).



I disagree again - specifically the F had 2.5 times the range of the old E and about 1.66 - 3.9 times the armamement... so while you say the F wasn't that much of an improvement over the previous E, it quite simply factual wrong, so is your conclusion.



> A larger, more aerodynamic air frame was possible without using either laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51. As evidenced by the other axis fighters powered by the 601 and by the Spitfire and even the early P-40s.



Problem is none of the above you mention were any more aerodynamic, in fact the opposite is true. P-40 aerodynamics?!    Why replace an aerodynamically very efficient airframe with a less capability? 

Just looking at the MC 202 shows the flaws of the arguement... its contemporary to the 109F in development, the armament was limited two just two HMGs, no ability to carry larger bombs under the fuselage like the 109 (so much for heavier armament) practically the same amount of fuel, the same or less range etc AND was slower AND took three times more to produce than one 109. It wasn't a 'larger' airframe either - unless you count a whopping 0.7 sq. m. of wing area increase as such. What the MC 202 did was essentially introducing was a fuel tank system of three fuel tanks that made it grossly complex, took up much more space than needed, eliminated the best spot (motor cannon) for armament, introduced two tiny but flammable fuel tanks in the wings. It was a mess internally.



> Granted a heavier fighter will have less climb than a 109 but could a somewhat better armed (even if not double the armament), somewhat longer ranged (even if not _really_ long ranged) have been an asset to the Luftwaffe in 1940 (maybe) and 1941/42/43 ?



IMHO the 109F that was all that (and in 1940 too) shows best you do not need a 'heavier fighter' for this task.


----------



## davebender (Jul 30, 2012)

> The earliest possible replacement could be a (non boosted to keep things real) a Fw 190D in 1943 with either Jumo 213s or equivalent DB 603. Both engines were available. But this would require scrapping the Me 410 / Ju 188 etc


RLM cancelled funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940. Without this disastrous decision the DB603 engine could almost certainly be in mass production during 1941. Right on time to power the new Fw-190.

However even if Germany produces the Fw-190C from 1941 onward they still need low cost Me-109s to bulk out fighter numbers. The Me-109 was ideal for medium / low altitude combat from crude forward area airfields in the Soviet Union. JG52 flew Me-109s for the entire war and they are the most successful fighter wing in history (over 10,000 kills).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2012)

Oh man, where to start. 



Tante Ju said:


> The Germans had the oldest aircraft - and also probably the best in 1939 as soon everyone experienced... I am always worn of this sort of arguement. Yes, Hurricane and 109 was conceived at around same time, but they did NOT represent the same level of engineering and design levels. 109 was lightyears ahead in aerodynamic, construction and production technologies, just as it was somewhat ahead to even the Hawker's successor, the Spitfire too. Which is why it could be successfully adopted for new requirements and remain in production for so long and the Hawker fighter could not.



I will grant that the 109 was ahead of the Hurricane in construction and production technologies. Aerodynamic is more questionable, the 109 did use more "gimmicks". The Spitfire was not the Hurricanes successor, they were ordered into production the same month. The Hurricanes successor was the Typhoon/Tornado. Like the 109, it was not intended to keep the Spitfire around for 10 years or more, and like the 109 it was the failure of of some of the successors and the adaptability of both ( and desperation at times) that kept them in production for so long. 



Tante Ju said:


> That is not a detriment to the Hawker design team, they intended to do just that, make an interim fighter design that could take advantage of existing British a/c industry production technology and capacity. To argue on this basis that the 109 was just as outdated as the Hawker without taking into account the fundemental differences in design is flawed logic imho.



The 109 was outdated in part because of the initial requirements. Armament of 2 rifle caliber machine guns _OR_ 1 motor cannon. It's small size meant it was not as adaptable as some other aircraft. This part of the penalty paid by being among the first. Needs and requirements change and some times the first of a new generation are locked into a form that cannot be changed (as well as later models of that generation can be) to meet the new needs and requirements. In some cases it is just luck. 



Tante Ju said:


> I disagree. They did not, unless it was a jet. The many wannabee replacements that could not surprass the 109 overall, even within Mtt's own house show that. The design was sound and stood the test of time.



I see. Mtt's own house had achieved perfection, or close to it, for the single engine piston fighter in the mid/late 30s and _NOBODY_ could do any better because Mtt's own house failed to do so???? 
It did not stand the test of time. It went from being a very good all round fighter ( as good or better than anything else at the time) to a specialized point defense interceptor. 



Tante Ju said:


> Plus also 109s could be also fitted with 603/213, probably again with greater performance and would be a viable alternative for fighter application, since they are cheaper.



OK, I am not an aircraft engineer but putting those engines in a 109 might be just a bit difficult. Another 150-160kg not including the larger cooling system and bigger propeller? How big is the counter weight in the tail? 

While the 213 might "fit" (roughly the same height and width and only 225-230mm longer) the 603 is another story. 70mm wider, 120mm taller and 450mm longer? maybe if you take out the fuselage guns???



Tante Ju said:


> It WAS flying and it was called the 109F...



Well we are back to the subject at hand and not wild dreams from the bunker 

The "F" powered by the same engine as an E-4/N certainly shows that the "E" was hardly the last word in aerodynamic refinement. Which is rather what this thread is about. Could another plane have been made that perhaps traded some of the "F"s performance for greater range and heavier armament in 1940/41? 



Tante Ju said:


> I disagree again - specifically the F had 2.5 times the range of the old E and about 1.66 - 3.9 times the armamement... so while you say the F wasn't that much of an improvement over the previous E, it quite simply factual wrong, so is your conclusion.



Can you please direct me to sources that show the "F" had 2.5 times the range using the same fuel load and using the same throttle settings or the same cruising speed? 

I really like the bit about the armament too. ONE 20mm gun with 60 rounds and TWO 7.9mm mg with 500rpg are 1.66 times the firepower of TWO 20mm guns with 60rpg and TWO 7.9mm mgs with 1000rpg? 

More later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> Problem is none of the above you mention were any more aerodynamic, in fact the opposite is true. P-40 aerodynamics?!



Keep laughing, I was comparing the P-40C to the 109E. P-40C had an Allison V-1710-33 which had 1040hp for take off (5 min) and 1040hp at 14,300ft ( some sources say 15,000ft) 4333 meters (5min). The 601Aa had 1175PS at sea level for take off (1 min) and 1045PS at sea level (5 min) and 1050PS at 4100 meters (30 min).The P-40C is about 1600lbs heavier (27%) and has 69 sq ft more wing area (33%) yet the two planes are within just a few MPH of each other at both sea level and around 15,000ft. 
The P-40C can't climb worth beans and has several other attributes that are not the equal of the 109E but when it comes to streamlining and drag the 109E, considering it's smaller size, is rather behind the P-40C and the P-40 is using a wing from 1935. 



Tante Ju said:


> Why replace an aerodynamically very efficient airframe with a less capability?



I think you have that backwards, Why _NOT_ replace an aerodynamically very _inefficient_ airframe with a _MORE_ capable one?



Tante Ju said:


> Just looking at the MC 202 shows the flaws of the arguement... its contemporary to the 109F in development, the armament was limited two just two HMGs, no ability to carry larger bombs under the fuselage like the 109 (so much for heavier armament)



Considering that ALL of the mentioned aircraft were brought into the discussion to prove that an airframe, using the same engine as a 109E, could be built having superior performance to the *109E* without using laminar flow wings or a radiator like the P-51, I am not sure how the fact that the MC 202 wasn't as good as the 109_*F*_ shows the flaw of the argument, The 109F was also used as an example of a better aircraft than the *E* using the same engine. 
BTW the Italian 12.7mgs were not very good and were very heavy for their power, they weigh more than 20mm MG/FF (minus drum) and each round weighs about 82 grams( average) compared to the 162-182 grams of a 20mm MG/FF round. With up to 400rpg for the 12.7s the Italian armament, while not as effective, is not as _light_ as you are inferring. Some of them also carried a pair of 7.7mm machine guns with 500rpg. Total weight of guns and ammo exceeds that of the 109E-3.
BTW, while the MC 202 could not carry a "larger" bomb under the fuselage (large being a 250kg bomb?) some could carry a a 160kg bomb under reach wing (320kg total).

We are trying to compare aerodynamic form, Perhaps the Italians or japanese or whoever could have done a much better job of production engineering their aircraft But such engineering doesn't affect things much in wind tunnels or flight tests. It is imortant in considering the _overall_ capabilities of an aircraft type but it is a smoke screen when trying to compare specific performance attributes and the reasons for them. 





Tante Ju said:


> IMHO the 109F that was all that (and in 1940 too) shows best you do not need a 'heavier fighter' for this task.



On the contrary, it does show you need a heavier fighter in 1940. The 1940 versions of the 109F had crap for armament. Not a real fault of the 109 itself, The programs for the MG 151 and Mg 131 were running behind schedule, as was the program for the DB 601E. Even when they did reach production, or especially when they reached production, a single 20mm cannon through the propeller (with a pair of 7.9mm machine guns) wasn't exactly first class armament. It worked, of sorts, but lets not keep kidding our selves that it was really world class.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 31, 2012)

I disagree about the Spitfire. Later models could still match performance wise any other fighter...even new designs.

Of course with shorter range and small bomb loads.

The 109 was simply too cheap and too easy to make to drop. And it could still be competitive in later marks too.

The 190 was just around the corner which answered all the 109s weaknesses so I say the best fighter may have been the Fw 190 operational in 1940. 

You can either go Yak 3 or P-47....and I think most Europeans would go Yak.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> it's possible compare consume for higher speed?, if i understand the drag influence is higher at higher speed



Comparison at high speed from one fighter to another ( especially allied to German aircraft) get increasingly inaccurate. At cruising speeds the plane engines are running in lean condition, trying for best specific fuel consumption. As speeds increase the mixture goes to rich with excess fuel being used both to cool the intake charge ( on non direct fuel injection planes) and cool the inside of the cylinders ( both types of planes??). A Spitfire V could use 150 Imp gal an hour at 16lbs boost ( actually for only 5 minutes?) but a lot of that fuel was not being used for power, it was being used as engine coolant. A Merlin 45 making 1515hp has a SPC of 0.742lb/hp/hour which is way different than the .50 or under it can get while cruising. Without knowing how much is being used for cooling purposes trying to compare drag by comparing fuel used at high speed gets much more inacccurate than at cruising speeds.


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

Someone besides me understands wartime economics. 8) 

Unfortunately popular histories of the war rarely consider such matters.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Someone besides me understands wartime economics. 8)
> 
> Unfortunately popular histories of the war rarely consider such matters.



You forgot about politics which in this case can be a bigger player than common sense and economics.


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

Politics tend to fall by the wayside when a nation is fighting for survival as was the case for 1940 Germany. Peacetime military production is an entirely different matter.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Politics tend to fall by the wayside when a nation is fighting for survival as was the case for 1940 Germany. Peacetime military production is an entirely different matter.


 Who in 1940 Germany thought they were fighting for their survival ? The reason so many projects of that time period got underfunded or cancelled was because too many people in the 3rd Reich leadership though the war was as much as won, and there was no need to spend money on future projects that would mature after the war was over.

Politics was very much alive in 1940 Germany.


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

> The reason so many projects of that time period got underfunded or cancelled was because too many people in the 3rd Reich leadership though the war was as much as won


I don't think so.

Chancellor Hitler had no previous political or foreign policy experience. Nor did he have previous experience running a major university or corporation.

The Wehrmacht was better off but not much better. The Luftwaffe was created from scratch. For all practical purposes so was the German Navy. The Heer had a 100,000 man professional core to train millions of draftees from 1935 onward.

IMO important German projects were underfunded or cancelled because national leaders were mostly green as grass. They lacked experience necessary to differentiate between essential, nice to have and complete waste of money (i.e. H class battleships).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2012)

War time economics is also about getting the most bang for your bucks, Which is not always provided by the cheapest possible weapon in each category. While the troops don't need BMWs and Mercedes giving them Yugos and Trabants isn't much better than giving them nothing if the other side has Fords and Chevys. 
If you need 2 or 3 "cheap" weapons to do the job of 1 more expensive weapon they are not so cheap anymore. Throw in the cost of training the troops and maintaining them in the field (food, water, shelter) and maintaining/feeding the weapons (fuel, parts, ammo) and "cheap" weapons can become very, very expensive. 
Winning wars is very expensive, sometimes bankrupting, loosing wars is even more expensive. 

Good news, you saved $20,000 per airplane.......Bad news, you lost the war.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Politics tend to fall by the wayside when a nation is fighting for survival as was the case for 1940 Germany. Peacetime military production is an entirely different matter.



Lets look at it this way...your 1940 fighter had to be developed in the 1936-38 time frame.......no threat then and Messerschmidt had the favor of the party. Oh bad luck.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 31, 2012)

The much over-looked fact of the matter is that by 1939 the nazi's had bankrupted Germany.
Hence (admittedly amongst other reasons) the war began in 1939 and not the planned 1942-43 timescale which had been previously expected (and, I believe, even assurances to close allies - Mussolini - about this were given).

Germany had gotten into such a dire economic state that looting other countries exchequers was the only way to fund itself......which knocks on to helps explain a lot of the cancelling as many projects as they thought they could easily pursuading themselves that it was all as good as over in 1940.....and that the supposedly very primitive Russians would be an easy push-over with what they already had.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 31, 2012)

109 was shooting down aircraft like them nine pins.

Hardly a bad machine. If you look at the performance in BoB of the Emil....apart range.....you give it high score.


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

1930s Europe was a powder keg waiting to explode. The situation was much more tense then pre-WWI Europe. That's why Germany began large scale rearmament during 1935.

2 May 1935. Franco-Russian military alliance.

16 May 1935. Russo-Czechoslovak military alliance.

14 July 1935. Mass demonstrations in Paris.
Approximately 30,000 march for right wing organizations.
The left wing demonstrators are estimated at 300,000 to 500,000.

1936 – 1938. Czechoslovakia constructs border defenses (4 fortress complexes) facing Germany.

Early 1936. Soviet Armed forces.
1.3 million military personnel.
5,000 tanks.
100,000 trucks.
150,000 artillery tractors.
112 submarines.
3,500 military aircraft.
…..Soviet military spending quadrupled between 1936 and 1940.

16 Feb 1936. A communist controlled “Popular Front” alliance takes control of the Spanish government. The Comintern repeatedly states that they intend to outlaw the right and to convert Spain into the Soviet vision of a “people’s republic” with total leftist domination. Left wing vigilantes clash with right wing vigilantes causing thousands of casualties. Spanish police forces openly assist the communist side in these fights.

26 April and 3 May 1936. French legislative elections. A communist "Popular Front" comes to power.
This was the last French legislative election until 1945. 

18 Jul 1936. The Spanish military goes to war against the communist government in Madrid.

Soviet military assistance to the Spanish communist government. Russia received $500 million in gold as compensation. Soviet aircraft and tanks were conducting combat operations by October 1936. Total Soviet assistance to the communist forces greater then combined German and Italian assistance to nationalist forces. 
30,000 International Brigade soldiers. These were organized, trained and equipped by the NKVD.
648 aircraft. Plus 772 Soviet pilots.
350 x T-26 and BT-5 light tanks. Complete with Soviet tank commanders.
Large quantities of small arms, artillery and ammunition.

7 Sep 1936. The Popular Front (i.e. communist dominated) government of France approves an additional 14 billion francs for the French military, to be spent by 1940. ¼th of this money was for army mechanized forces (i.e. increasing offensive capability).

16 Oct 1937. The Sudete German Party (2nd largest in Czechoslovakia) is violently suppressed.

14 Nov 1937. National elections cancelled in Czechoslovakia. 

1 Mar 1938. Revolution in Austria against the single party rule of Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg.

9 Mar 1938. Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg announces a national plebiscite to determine a possible merger with Germany. However the election is rigged as only Yes ballots (supporting the existing government) are provided.

11 Mar 1938. Germany sends Austria an ultimatum in response to the plan for a rigged plebiscite. The plebiscite must be cancelled and Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg must resign.

12 Mar 1938. The German army enters Austria unopposed. Austria becomes a state within the 3rd Reich, something they have been wanting to do since the break up of Austria-Hungary in 1918. There is no serious opposition to this union within Austria or Germany.

22 Mar 1938. Sudeten Germans withdraw from the national government of Czechoslovakia.

10 Apr 1938. Austrian national plebiscite. 99% vote for union with Germany.

19 – 20 May 1938. Political disorders break out in Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak army is mobilized. Britain and France express support for the Czechoslovak government.

25 Jul 1938. Runciman mission to Prague. Britain dispatches a fact finding mission to Czechoslovakia. Lord Runciman’s report supports the German claims.

26 Jul 1938. British Lord Runciman goes back to Czechoslovakia to serve as mediator between the national government and the Sudeten Germans.

12 Aug 1938. Germany mobilizes 750,000 soldiers as a show of force. This is a reply to the Czechoslovak army mobilization.

26 Aug 1938. Britain mobilizes their navy as a show of force.

7 Sep 1938. France mobilizes 1 million soldiers as a show of force.

12 Sep 1938. Germany demands that Sudeten Germans be given the right of self determination. The Czechoslovak government declares martial law and begins additional political crack downs.

18 Sep 1938. Anglo-French conference in London. They decide that Czechoslovakia should allow self determination for the Sudeten Germans.

20 Sep 1938. Czechoslovakia rejects the Anglo-French-German proposal for self determination.

21 Sep 1938. The government of Czechoslovakia backs down and agrees to self determination for national ethnic minorities. This includes ethnic Poles and Hungarians in addition to the Sudeten Germans.

24 Sep 1938. The government of Czechoslovakia orders a complete army mobilization. This is a reply to German demands that the plebiscites be conducted under international supervision no later then 25 Nov 1938.

29 Sep 1938. Munich conference concerning Czechoslovak plebiscites. Germany, Italy, Britain and France reach agreement. Czechoslovak military forces are to evacuate the areas in question by 10 Oct 1938. This would allow plebiscites to be conducted under conditions arranged by an international commission.

29 Sep 1938. Polish ultimatum to Czechoslovakia. They want to annex Teschen. The region had been in dispute since 1920.

30 Sep 1938. The government of Czechoslovakia backs down and accepts the Munich agreement of 29 Sep 1938.

2 Oct 1938. Polish army occupies Teschen.

6 Oct 1938. Zilina Agreement. Slovakia becomes an autonomous province within Czechoslovakia..

8 Oct 1938. Carpatho-Ukraine becomes independent of Czechoslovakia in accordance with self determination.

2 Nov 1938. Border disputes between Slovakia, Poland and Hungary settled. Germany and Italy mediate the solution.

11 Dec 1938. The National Socialist Party of Memel receives 90% of the vote.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 31, 2012)

Dave

You must surely know that Hitler was the real threat.
Almost every one of those points was merely either an excuse with no impact on nazi Germany (until nazi Germany decided to get involved - Spain would be a good example of this......and which was subsequently ruthlessly exploited for the nazi war-machines benefit) or of his own making.
It is well documented that far from seeing threats all around him Hitler actually thought the western powers were corrupt, weak decadent that he would force his expansionist policies through regardless, ignoring their feeble protests.

Similarly the revisionist claim that Germany's war in Russia was a premptive strike is made nonsense by Hitlers own well documented 'You need only kick in the door the whole rotten edifice wll come tumbling down' remarks before the attack.
Just as he is quoted as having been cheated of his war over Czechoslovakia - and his complaints about Gorings 'flower wars'.

The fact that he was so staggeringly wrong proves nothing but his own grossly poor disasterous judgerment.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1930s Europe was a powder keg waiting to explode. The situation was much more tense then pre-WWI Europe. That's why Germany began large scale rearmament during 1935.



So, nothing at all to do with Hitler's ambitions?

Hitler's rise to power was smooth, democratic and non-violent?

You don't think the Soviet Union's military build up was in part response to German re-armament, and part to do with continuing border fights with the Japanese and tensions with the Chinese?

That British re-armament was in reponse to events on the continent, particularly in Germany?

Similarly with France?

Germany was threatened by fixed defences on their border with Czechoslovakia? I wonder why Czechoslovakia felt the need to up its broder defences with Germany?

Do you think if the Royal Navy and the French Army hadn't mobilised as "a show of force" in 1938, in resposne to the German army mobilising, that Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938?

You point out instances where Germany protested at unfair elections or plebiscites. Don't you think that is the pot calling the kettel black, since Hitler banned other political parties in 1933 (after coming to power) and the following elections in 1933, 1936 and 1938 were far from free and fair?



> 11 Dec 1938. The National Socialist Party of Memel receives 90% of the vote.


 I wonder why?

Do you think, also, that had the French not been in political turmoil during the years 1936 to 1940 that they, with a bit of leadership, could have successfull invaded Germany in 1939 and put a stop to the war?


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I once read an account of a P-40 squadron that deployed from the west coast to the east coast by air. Because of weather, break downs, malfunctions and fueling stops it took almost 2 weeks to get the squadron back together again. Mechanics, supplies and other support went by train. Flight is by VFR only which limits days/hours for flight. Distance from Southern Maine (Portsmouth Navy yard) to Miami is about the same as Gothenburg, Sweden to Marseille and from LA to Jacksonville FL is 2146 miles while it is only 1739 miles from Dublin to Moscow. American planes needed some range just to deploy around the country.


A concept that allowed American fighters later to penetrate deep into enemy territory and take the fight past the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) something the early European fighters were only marginally able to do.



> Needs and requirements change and some times the first of a new generation are locked into a form that cannot be changed (as well as later models of that generation can be) to meet the new needs and requirements. In some cases it is just luck.


Astute observation. A couple of good historic examples are the HMS Dreadnought and the F-117 Nighthawk. Both were revolutionary in concept but technology quickly overtook them and they were operational for only a short period of time.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2012)

My apologies for not having read all the posts. To my mind, there is no such thing as the ideal or perfect fighter in the context of mid to late 30's development. What needs to be looked at was the LW principal doctrines and how best to achieve that. 

Even though in hindsight we have the obvious setback in the BoB to overshadow our thinking, in point of fact, the LW was not designed for that purpose of gaining front wide long range penetration air supeiority. It was very much a tactical force, tied to short ranged rapid redeployment to provide direct aircoiver and ground support to its ground forces. Like it or not, thats what the LW excelled at, and thats what it needed to develop equipment wise. in the context of the LWs primary mission, it had no need of a long range deepe penetration air superiority fighter. It neeed high performance, heavy armament and lastly good protection. IMO the 109 was as near to perfect to achieving that mission profile as could be asked for. 

Only if the basic battle doctrines of the LW are disposed of and a new doctrine written for the LW can the idea of a more broad spectrum fighter be considered as superior equipment. For what the LW was equipped to do, I dont think thats realistic and therefore, not needed


----------



## The Basket (Aug 1, 2012)

I think we all agree the Germans should have had a new fighter prototype airborne in 1940 whose intention was direct replacement for the 109...ready in numbers 1943 to replace the Gustav.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 1, 2012)

just for clear the Franco-Soviet and Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty were defence alliance (from article 2 of F-CCCP treaty "In the event that, in the circumstances described in Article 15, paragraph 7, of the League of Nations Pact, France or the U.S.S.R. may be, in spite of the genuinely pacific intentions of the two countries, and subject of unprovoked aggression on the part of a European state, the U.S.S.R. and France will immediately lend each other reciprocal aid and assistance.")

The spanish Popular front was not controlled from communist, the spanish communist party was small and with limited influence it take 17 seats of 285 of Front (in a 473 Chamber).

The french popular front had a much larger presence of communist party (this take 15% vote and 72 seats in a 610 members Chamber) but PCF not take part to government only socialist and radical ministers. the Blum government lived only 1 year.


adding in the spanish civil war there were yes 30 or 35,000 internationalist that were not equipped and trained to nkvd, the internationalist were not all comunist, some probably were bad boy for the nkvd. But german and italy send around 95,000 men.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2012)

parsifal said:


> My apologies for not having read all the posts. To my mind, there is no such thing as the ideal or perfect fighter in the context of mid to late 30's development.



True but I am not sure there is ever an ideal or perfect fighter, the users always want something more. Speed, ceiling, range, armament, something always drives the _next_ requirement. What everybody was/is searching for is the best compromise using the available power/technology. In the late 1930s what was "ideal" with a 700hp engine was not was was "ideal" with a 1000hp engine and far from "Ideal" with a 1300-1400hp engine. 




parsifal said:


> What needs to be looked at was the LW principal doctrines and how best to achieve that.
> 
> Even though in hindsight we have the obvious setback in the BoB to overshadow our thinking, in point of fact, the LW was not designed for that purpose of gaining front wide long range penetration air supeiority. It was very much a tactical force, tied to short ranged rapid redeployment to provide direct aircoiver and ground support to its ground forces. Like it or not, thats what the LW excelled at, and thats what it needed to develop equipment wise. in the context of the LWs primary mission, it had no need of a long range deepe penetration air superiority fighter. It neeed high performance, heavy armament and lastly good protection. IMO the 109 was as near to perfect to achieving that mission profile as could be asked for.
> 
> Only if the basic battle doctrines of the LW are disposed of and a new doctrine written for the LW can the idea of a more broad spectrum fighter be considered as superior equipment. For what the LW was equipped to do, I dont think thats realistic and therefore, not needed



I am not at all sure that this is true. The idea that the Luftwaffe was a tactical force "tied to short ranged rapid redeployment to provide direct aircoiver and ground support to its ground forces" is a one of long standing but I wonder how much of that is formed by looking back at it. It is true that they stopped the "Ural" bomber but the Ural bomber was years ( and a generation or TWO of engines) from being a practical reality. The He 111 was a lousy tactical bomber, especially in the early step front versions, but about as good a "long range bomber" as anybody else had in the late 30s. It wasn't much behind what anybody else had in numbers in 1940 either. Given "typical" European distances and what was possible with a pair of 1938-40 engines ( how many other countries hand more than a handful of 4 engine bombers in USE?) The Luftwaffe had about as much _reach_ as any other European nation. While the 110 _started_ as a kampfzerstorer the intent and requirement was changed to just zerstorer before the first ever flew. 
The provision of the blind bombing systems also seems strange for a tactical air force. How much time was needed to set up the "beam" systems and how much use would they be in supporting ground forces? 

I am certainly not saying the entire Luftwaffe was a strategic force. Just pointing out some inconsistencies with the idea that the Luftwaffe was purely a tactical force.


----------



## riacrato (Aug 1, 2012)

SR6, seriously, how was the He 111 a "lousy" tactical bomber for 1940 or any time prior?


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

Me-209
Me-309
Me-155 (land based variant without arresting gear).
If the Me-109 were replaced during 1943 it would probably be one of these aircraft.

DB605A is the only engine available in quantity during 1943.
DB603 and Jumo213 will be available in quantity (or can be made available) during 1944. DB605D engine will also become available during 1944. 

Given these conditions which aircraft would you choose to replace the Me-109 on the production line during 1943?


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

It's my understanding this proposed Me-109 successor had a lot in common with the Me-155. Perhaps Messerschmitt used the cancelled Me-155 CV fighter aircraft design as a starting point.

Modified Me-109G fuselage.
New wing with wide track landing gear.
Galland / Erla canopy.

1943 production aircraft would be powered by DB605A engine. However unlike Me-109, the Me-209 had growth potential to accomodate a DB603 or Jumo 213 engine.

I suspect Me-155 / Me-209 has a much better chance for wartime production then the Me-309 which employed an entirely new airframe. 


*Me-309*. Nice looking aircraft with advanced features but I cannot see it entering mass production under historical circumstances.


----------



## riacrato (Aug 1, 2012)

I highly doubt an Me 209 powered by a DB605 is going to convince anybody. Even if your only intent is to bring a fighter with growth potential into existance, the question arises: Why add another airframe to the arsenal that can't do anything the Fw 190 can do?

Germany's fate for a post Bf 109 fighter stands and falls with the DB603 and Jumo213. There are plenty of valid airframe choices available and probably even the maligned Me 309 is one (not much primary sources available on this one it seems). The most obvious, logical and in the end chosen one being the Fw 190 . The Me 209 would've very likely chosen if not for the existance of the Fw 190. But the Fw 190 D and Ta 152 won the competition fair and square.


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

Funding the DB603 engine program so it enters mass production during 1941 would certainly make things easier. However RLM Chief Tomo Pauk doesn't appear to like the engine any better then Milch. Nor does he like the twin engine Fw-187.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 1, 2012)

davebender said:


> Funding the DB603 engine program so it enters mass production during 1941 would certainly make things easier. However RLM Chief Tomo Pauk doesn't appear to like the engine any better then Milch. Nor does he like the twin engine Fw-187.



One the other side of the coin;

If the RLM would have allowed the other German fighter already in LRIP in 1939 to go into full production (which is superior to the 109E in many regards) there was already a logical progression planned. This was later submitted as competition to the TA152 fighter. I like the DB603 engine which is perfect because it was designed for the DB603M.

Of course on the He100 I would have adopted the Japanese solution for the oil cooler and used the rest of the cooling surfaces for the engine. The Ki61 EX was successful in its testing for the Ki-64.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 1, 2012)

Go joint with Soviet or Italian or Japanese allies.

A German MiG-3 or maybe C.205 Veltro or a quick look at the Ki-61 maybe.


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

400 liters. Me-109.
535 liters. Fw-190.
770 liters. Me-309.
1,100 liters. Fw-187.

How much internal fuel do the He-100 and He-112B carry?


----------



## Denniss (Aug 1, 2012)

He 112B with Jumo 210G is listed as having 230kg of fuel, that's about 310l. Even less than early Bf 109.
He 100D is listed as having 300kg, same as Bf 109 E an later.

There's no such thing like a Me 209-II - that's a wiki invention. The designation was just used for two different aircraft.
The second Me 209 first flew after the Me 309, in very late 1943. Impossible to get it in service in 1943. Both 209/309 failed because they were (far) more expensive and were either not faster or less maneuverable (or both) than the most recent 109G.


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

Do you have estimated production cost (in RM) for the Me-209 and Me-309?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2012)

riacrato said:


> SR6, seriously, how was the He 111 a "lousy" tactical bomber for 1940 or any time prior?



I guess it depends on your definition of a "tactical bomber". B-17s were used as tactical bombers on occasion. The He 111 is about the same class of bomber as a Vicker's Wellington. If you think the Wellington was a good tactical bomber then I guess the He 111 is too. They all can bomb tactical targets but compared to something like an A-20 it is a little lacking for low level attacks. Top speed at sea level is around 200 mph( give or take 15mph depending on model and weight). Gun armament for ground attack is a little lacking in many models. The step front models had three 7.9mm machine guns, Nose, top and ventral "dustbin". Only the nose gun is really useful for strafing and it is fed by 75 round drums. This makes a Blenheim look good with it's one fixed belt fed gun. Or a Fairey Battle 

Liquid cooled engines? 
The He 111B with DB 600 engines ( with carburetors, 30 of them in Spain in Feb 1937?) is supposed to have had a range of 1030 miles with a 1653lb bomb load. A rather strange ability for a tactical aircraft in 1937. 

I have no doubt that He 111s were used against tactical targets but that doesn't really make it a tactical bomber. Even later versions with a gun out the front of the Gondola ( two forward firing guns?) are not what one would choose if one had a choice. 

The He 111 did somethings rather well and might have contributed even more had it been given more development and so much time and effort wasted on the bomber "B" program.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> 400 liters. Me-109.
> 535 liters. Fw-190.
> 770 liters. Me-309.
> 1,100 liters. Fw-187.
> ...



The V series capacity was 369 liters according to historical archives, the A series production aircraft are reputed to be 420 liters but I don't have documents indicating this. However fuel capacity doesn't indicate the whole story. Heinkel document D.Bl.1220 dated 31 may 1939 states that V-4 with 369 liters will range to 1050km at 8km at a cruise speed of 510kph. The Bf109E will only range 698 km at 408 kph on the same engine and throttle settings. This is very similar to the situation between the P-51B and the Spitfire IX with essentially the same engine and throttle settings the P-51 would cruise about 50 - 70 mph faster.

Taking a lead off of Shortround6 I complied a fuel consumption table between the Bf109 and He100;
Bf109E-3 at 1000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 505)

265kph/165mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/192 lbs, 86 miles per 100lbs of fuel
417kph/259mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/330 lbs, 78 miles per 100lbs of fuel

He-100 at 1000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED = 566)

365kph/227mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/192 lb, 118 miles per 100lbs of fuel
512kph/318mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/330 lbs, 95 miles per 100lbs of fuel
_____________________________________________________________________
Bf109E-3 at 3000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 535)
300kph/186mph for a fuel burn of 135liters/216 lbs, 86 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
443kph/275mph for a fuel burn of 207liters/328 lbs, 82 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

He-100 at 3000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED= 627)

428kph/266mph for a fuel burn of 135liters/216 lbs, 122 miles per 100lbs of fuel
512kph/318mph for a fuel burn of 207liters/328 lbs, 103 miles per 100lbs of fuel

_____________________________________________________________________
Bf109E-3 at 5000meters DB601A (MAX SPEED= 566)
350kph/217mph for a fuel burn of 150liters/240 lbs, 90 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 
454kph/282mph for a fuel burn of 180liters/282 lbs, 100 miles per 100lbs of fuel. 

He-100 at 5000meters DB601M (MAX SPEED= 670)

480kph/298mph for a fuel burn of 150liters/240 lbs, 124 miles per 100lbs of fuel
560kph/347mph for a fuel burn of 180liters/282 lbs, 123 miles per 100lbs of fuel

If one were to put this in practice, plan a ferry mission with both aircraft to take off from the same airfield cruise climb to 5000m at 1,23 ata and to cruise at the economical setting of 0,77 ata. A 30 minute reserve is held on board. Distance credit is given for the climb but not for the decent. The Bf109 will have 400 liters and the He100 will have 369 liters. Which will cruise the furthest? 

Bf109 - Take off and climb to 5000m at an avg 270kph, time to alt is 6.3 minutes-28 liters and 33 km. with the remaining fuel less reserves is a flying time of 1.8 hr at 350 kph for a total of 651km.

He100 - Take off and climb to 5000m at an avg 300kph, time to alt is 5.3 minutes-24 liters and 28 km. with the remaining fuel less reserves is a flying time of 1.7 hr at 480 kph for a total of 851km.

If the He100 had 420 liters it would have ranged to 1014 km.


----------



## riacrato (Aug 2, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess it depends on your definition of a "tactical bomber". B-17s were used as tactical bombers on occasion. The He 111 is about the same class of bomber as a Vicker's Wellington. If you think the Wellington was a good tactical bomber then I guess the He 111 is too. They all can bomb tactical targets but compared to something like an A-20 it is a little lacking for low level attacks. Top speed at sea level is around 200 mph( give or take 15mph depending on model and weight). Gun armament for ground attack is a little lacking in many models. The step front models had three 7.9mm machine guns, Nose, top and ventral "dustbin". Only the nose gun is really useful for strafing and it is fed by 75 round drums. This makes a Blenheim look good with it's one fixed belt fed gun. Or a Fairey Battle
> 
> Liquid cooled engines?
> The He 111B with DB 600 engines ( with carburetors, 30 of them in Spain in Feb 1937?) is supposed to have had a range of 1030 miles with a 1653lb bomb load. A rather strange ability for a tactical aircraft in 1937.
> ...


The He 111 is first and foremost a medium bomber. I doubt many in the 1930s saw medium bombers to be used only for strategical or tactical use. The medium bomber certainly is capable of both but naturally geared more towards the tactical role.

You said however, the He 111 was lousy in that role. Which is by all means far from the truth. Its performance in any of the theaters it was used as such (Poland, France, Balkan, Norway, Africa, Barbarossa…) cannot be called "lousy" at all.

And lowlevel battlefield support is not the only role in tactical aerial warfare and in the doctrine of the LW not what Kampfgeschwaders were typically meant to do. The lack of fixed guns doesn't indicate anything nor does it make the bomber lousy. It's a thing of preference, that's all. Liquid cooled engines? Yes liquid cooled engines, what's wrong with them? The Ju 87 and IL-2 did quite well with those in a tactical role didn't they? Sea level performance? Please.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 2, 2012)

Sr6 that you call tactical bomber, from your description, i call ground attack plane in this i'm agree He 111 is not a good attack plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2012)

OK, then what is a 'tactical bomber'?

One that flies "tactical missions"? 

B-17s and Lancasters flew tactical missions on occasion, are they tactical bombers? 

Heavy, medium and light bombers are classifications that changed meaning with both country and time. Finding precise definitions is difficult. AS I have noted before, the Fairey Battle was NOT intended as a "tactical" bomber although it was a "light bomber".

The British Whitley and the Wellington were "heavy bombers" in the late 30s when there were no British 4 engine bombers. The Wellington got "demoted" to medium later even as it got bigger engines and more capability. The Whitley may have gotten 'demoted' or perhaps later people just assumed that twin engine bombers (unless powered by "monster motors") were "mediums". Does anybody doubt that the British twin engine bombers were intended for "strategic bombing". 

So where does the He 111 fall ? Was it a general purpose bomber, the best the Germans could do with a pair of 750-900hp engines (when designed). Or was it specifically designed to support the army, even if not in direct battle over the front, by interdiction mission behind the front? How far from the front were these interdiction missions supposed to be? 


BTW the He 111 was about 2,000lb lighter at Max take-off than a MK I Whitley.


----------



## davebender (Aug 2, 2012)

> Heinkel document D.Bl.1220 dated 31 may 1939 states that V-4 with 369 liters will range to 1050km at 8km at a cruise speed of 510kph. The Bf109E will only range 698 km at 408 kph on the same engine and throttle settings


He-112B was more expensive to mass produce.
He-112B carried less internal fuel.
German test pilots liked both aircraft.
Me-109 airframe did not reach maturity until Me-109F entered service. He-112B also had room for further development.

IMO RLM made the right decision by chosing the Me-109 over the He-112B for mass production. As of 1937 they don't know exactly how the Me-109 and He-112B airframes will perform when fully mature. However more internal fuel and lower production cost are decisive advantages over the long term.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> He-112B was more expensive to mass produce.
> He-112B carried less internal fuel.
> German test pilots liked both aircraft.
> Me-109 airframe did not reach maturity until Me-109F entered service. He-112B also had room for further development.
> ...



You are correct in your statements about the he112. However I was discussing the He100 which is a completely different aircraft. It used less major components and was easier and faster to produce designed with mass production in mind. The He112 was not.

Forget the He112, Heinkel GmbH did and concentrated everything on the He100. It is interesting to note that the speed record aircraft had a lot in common with the standard He100 airframe but the Me209 was just a lash up not resembling the Bf109 at all.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 2, 2012)

Heinkel tried to sell the He100 design whole over the world but nobody was really interested. No good sign for a good fighter.
cimmex


----------



## davebender (Aug 2, 2012)

Fair enough but the He-100 had issues also.

He-100 does not have a universal engine mount. It requires the DB601. With the benefit of hindsight that's not a problem. However 1939 Germany cannot predict the future. What if Junkers has a technical breakthrough and produces an Uber 1,500 hp version of the Jumo 211 engine during 1941? Me-109 could take advantage of the new engine but the He-100 cannot.

He-100 carries only 350 liters of internal fuel. To make matters worse it's in vulnerable wing tanks. Me-109 carries 400 liters of internal fuel in a fuselage tank protected by a laminated dural armor bulkhead.

Heinkel spent far too much time and effort attempting to make the evaporative cooling system work. They were still tinkering with the system during 1939. It was a technical gamble that failed.

The Japanese Ki-61 shows what the He-100 could have been if Heinkel had made different design choices. But would such an advanced airframe be production ready during 1939? I tend to doubt it. 

IMO it's more likely the Heinkel Ki-61 clone would be competing against the Me-309 during 1942 for a long range fighter contract. Both are good designs so that would be an interesting competition. However these long range aircraft would not be competing against the short range and dirt cheap Me-109.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> He-100 does not have a universal engine mount. It requires the DB601. With the benefit of hindsight that's not a problem. However 1939 Germany cannot predict the future. What if Junkers has a technical breakthrough and produces an Uber 1,500 hp version of the Jumo 211 engine during 1941? Me-109 could take advantage of the new engine but the He-100 cannot.
> 
> He-100 carries only 350 liters of internal fuel. To make matters worse it's in vulnerable wing tanks. Me-109 carries 400 liters of internal fuel in a fuselage tank protected by a laminated dural armor bulkhead.
> 
> ...



1. The He100 shared the same type of engine mount with the Ki-61. The He-100 can interchange the engine readily with the 601Aa (+100PS at CA), 601N (+200PS at CA) and 601E (+300PS at CA). With the Db601E, computer modelling puts the aircraft in the region of 450 mph.
2. By universal engine mount you mean to attach a new engine you need different size engine bearers to the firewall? Heinkel's solution reduced a lot of weight but still provided the same measure of structural support. Heinkel had plenty of experience with the Ju-210/211 engines and Heinkel's installation in the He112 look better aerodynamically than the same engine installed in the Bf-109B/C.

3. The He-100 prototypes carried 369 liters, and some books report the erroneously labeled 'D' model with 420 liters and like I stated I can't confirm that. In 1939 and early 1940 everyone's fighters shared no tank protection but the German's were ahead in this technology as their bombers were protected at that time. Also many WWII fighters had wing tanks and from a fire point of view, in the wings is better than in the fuselage. As a historical reference the Bf-109 did not receive a self-sealing tank until after the BoB and the laminated bulkhead was removed with the Bf-109G's production to save weight.

4. The cooling system did eventually work. The TsAGI reports indicate that they flew He100 WkNr 3006 quite a lot and their chief test pilot Suprun put on a spectacular air show with it. The Japanese transfered the system to a Ki-61 for testing and had 35 successful flights. The He119 was also successful so I think the Heinkel guys finally got a handle on it. Also it was discovered that the system could take battle damage to the evaporators and still provide a level of cooling as it was a leaky system anyway as opposed to a pressurized radiator system which if it develops a leak your history. 

5. Yes the Ki-61 is an interesting speculation considering it was based on the He100. The Heinkel design team also had a 10.8m span wing in the works at the same time they made the interchangeable small span wing for the speed record. That would provide for more fuel and an increase in armament. Personally I would have opted for five MG151/15...one engine mounted and four in the wings like the FW190 configuration.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 2, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> OK, then what is a 'tactical bomber'?
> 
> One that flies "tactical missions"? .......
> .



a tactical bomber is a bomber that flying tactical mission and use bombs as alone or near only as attack weapons, this is only my opinion


----------



## davebender (Aug 2, 2012)

My definition.

An aircraft that can deliver firepower accurately enough for use as Close Air Support and has significant armor protection against ground fire. Such aircraft must fly low and slow when attacking so fighter escort is essential. 

Ju-87 is probably the best early war example. By 1943 there were quite a few competitors but the updated Ju-87D was arguably still the best of the bunch until the post-war Skyraider.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 2, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Heinkel tried to sell the He100 design whole over the world but nobody was really interested. No good sign for a good fighter.
> cimmex



It was the He112 he tried to flog but end the end only produced 68 aircraft. The He100 on the other hand, Russia wanted more than the six they got and the jigs being shipped to Japan were sunk in route. They however received their DB601's and three He100's. Also in 1938 the Japanese delegation to Heinkel obtained a set of engineering drawings. I think the events of 1940 put an end to sales.


----------



## davebender (Aug 2, 2012)

Hungary had a choice to produce the newer He-100 but opted for the He-112B instead. That does not speak well for the He-100.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> Hungary had a choice to produce the newer He-100 but opted for the He-112B instead. That does not speak well for the He-100.



Could you cite the source for that.

Actually, Hungary could not do the deal for the He112 because they had run out of money and the German Foreign Office did not want to antagonize Romania seeing the trouble over the Transylvania issue (and they favored Romania who got He112 aircraft.) ....they still got three aircraft though (they purchased three Bf109D and three HE112B-1)

Heinkel had started negotiations for licence manufacture at Manfred Weiss Aircraft Engine Company but it was late 1939 and we know what happened next. Kind of put a damper on sales.


(What a great idea that would have been, they could build the planes and the engines)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> a tactical bomber is a bomber that flying tactical mission and use bombs as alone or near only as attack weapons, this is only my opinion



By this definition a tactical bomber is practically any airplane that can carry bombs. 

While a tactical bomber does not _need_ to strafe it is a useful addition in capability. On the other hand the extra fuel tanks and larger wing needed to fly 500-1000km radius missions _DO_ detract from a planes usefulness in tactical roles. 
Do tactical bombers bomb from level flight at 2000-5000 meters or should a tactical bomber be capable of either low level bombing or glide bombing even if it cannot dive bomb?
If you were designing ( or issuing specifications for) a "tactical bomber" as opposed to a "strategic bomber" or even a general purpose bomber, what you would ask for?

Increase speed at low level? 
Heavier weapons load at expense of fuel (range)? 
Ability to use shorter or cruder airstrips? 
Increase protection?
other?

The Do 17, while it could not carry the payload of a He 111, was reputed to be more maneuverable and better suited to low level flying. Would it be a better "tactical bomber" than the He 111?


----------



## davebender (Aug 3, 2012)

Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hungary wanted to and apparently they preferred the He-112B over the He-100. Romania and Spain also opted for the He-112B rather then the He-100. Why would that happen if the newer He-100 design was considered superior?


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 3, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> By this definition a tactical bomber is practically any airplane that can carry bombs.
> 
> While a tactical bomber does not _need_ to strafe it is a useful addition in capability. On the other hand the extra fuel tanks and larger wing needed to fly 500-1000km radius missions _DO_ detract from a planes usefulness in tactical roles.
> Do tactical bombers bomb from level flight at 2000-5000 meters or should a tactical bomber be capable of either low level bombing or glide bombing even if it cannot dive bomb?
> ...



not all the plane that can carry bombs are bomber.

maybe usefull but so you've a attack plane (or what it's the difference to a attack to a bomber). range maybe need also in tactical mission, airports are no everywhere or agible.
yes usefull things for a tactical bomber.
All are usefull.

Maybe but the limited load and limited choice of load maybe go in favour of 111, however i think that 88 take the place as tactical bomber best of 111


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2012)

The demarkation between "strategic" and "tactical" is blurred. I think better terms are 'Light", "Medium" and "heavy".


Examples of the blurred demarkation between tactical and strategic is the mosquito. It was both a tactical and a strategic bomber, as wll a a CAS aircraft. It carried as much bombs a a B-25 at range, and bombed all manner of targets. so what is it. You cannot call it a "tactical bomber, or a strategic bomber, or a ground support aircraft, without doing a dis-service to the other two categories. If however, you refer to it as it should be, a "Light" bomber, these difficulties fall away. b-17 becomes a heavy bomber and b-25 or wellington becomes a medium bomber. Each of these categories have characteristics that act as strgths and weaknesses for the type.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Hungary wanted to and apparently they preferred the He-112B over the He-100. Romania and Spain also opted for the He-112B rather then the He-100. Why would that happen if the newer He-100 design was considered superior?



Had the two been built side by side I would agree with that but the He112 rolled out in 1935 was already blooded and production models delivered and the first he100 prototype was barely out of the hanger in 1938. The Wiki He112 article implies a political decision and not on the merits of the aircraft. In other sources there seems to be a lot of rivalry between Hungary and Romania and because of that the RLM sided with Romania. But Poland was attacked and that pretty much ended any sales.

On Wiki it is a good starting point for research to get you going in the right direction but I treat it like the SALT missile treaty..........Trust but Verify!!!


----------



## davebender (Aug 3, 2012)

RLM cannot take sides in diplomatic disputes. That's what the German Foreign Secretary is for.

Hungary and Romania had a border dispute created by the Versallies Treaty. Slovakia, Poland and Hungary also had border disputes when the artificial state of Czechoslovakia disolved. These disputes were mediated by the governments of Germany and Italy before they boiled over into shooting wars.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2012)

> These disputes were mediated by the governments of Germany and Italy before they boiled over into shooting wars.



tell me you are joking right????


----------



## DonL (Aug 3, 2012)

> These disputes were *mediated* by the governments of Germany and Italy



Ähm
Sometimes I'm speechless!

Mediated is to my opinion the wrongest phrase you can choose for this issue!
Aggressively blackmailed would be a much better description.

I don't want this thread to go political but I can understand the reaction from parsifal and it is irresponsible to write somthing as above.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

parsifal said:


> The demarkation between "strategic" and "tactical" is blurred. I think better terms are 'Light", "Medium" and "heavy".



Unfortunately those categories are equally flawed. 

The Fairey Battle, Bristol Blenheim and Mosquito were all "light bombers" at some point in their careers. 

The Bristol Blenheim (again), Handley Page Hampden, Vickers Wellington have all been referred to, at times as medium bombers. 

The Armstrong Whitley, Short Stirling, Handley Page Halifax, Avro Lancaster were all heavy bombers. 

The Bristol Beaufort and Blackburn Botha, were called torpedo bombers and were never put in a "light, medium, heavy" category. 

There seems to be some confusion as to the Avro Manchester, some sources saying the original specification was for a "medium bomber" but I think most every body agrees the result was a "heavy". 

While the Vickers Warwick was built to the same specification it seems to have been considered a heavy, but then at times the Wellington seemed to float in and out of the heavy class depending on date, who was speaking/writing and perhaps the needs of a press release. 

As an interesting "factoid" (at least to me) the MK I Whitley ( a Heavy bomber) had a max take-off weight of 23,300lbs, The MK II and III had a max take-off of 24,430lbs. A MK XVI Mosquito ( _LIGHT_ bomber) had a Max take-off of 25,000lbs?

Granted this took a few years.

And this is just for the British, trying to figure out other counties light, medium and heavy bombers can get really confusing 

Another extreme case. Take-off weight for a Y1B-17 was 34,880 pounds normal loaded, 42,600 pounds maximum, 7 years later the A-26B ( attack plane or light bomber?) went 22,362 pounds empty, 26,000 pounds loaded, 41,800 pounds maximum ( with water injected engines) . Figures are from Joe Baugher's web site but the loaded figure does not make sense.

The A-26B held 800 gallons in the nacelle and wing tanks for about 4800lbs of fuel. 27,162lbs with no oil, no crew, no ammo, and no bombs? Max fuel included a 125gal protected tank in the bomb bay and an unprotected 675 ferry tank in the bomb bay for a total of 1600 gallons of fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

A few notes/thoughts on the He 100.

I see no reason it could not have been upgraded to later models of the DB 601 engine as far as the engine mount goes. The bigger problem is cooling. For every increase in propeller HP a corresponding increase in heat rejection to cooling medium and oil almost always occurred. Granted this could be solved by fitting a small auxiliary radiator ( or a bigger one than under the late He 100s) but this alters the drag and affects the projected performance numbers. 

According to some sources there were 2/4 fuel tanks in the wings. At least photos and drawings showing four fuel fillers are available. Photos also exist a one or more He 100s with a fuel filler behind the cockpit indicating a fuselage tank. What may be questionable is if any of these tanks were self sealing and what the increase in weight and decrease in fuel capacity would be if they were fitted with protection. 

Armament in 1940 was crap. later versions (1941?) may benefit enormously from the MG 151 and/or MG 131, both programs were apparently running late so the armament problem is not Heinkel's fault alone. The larger wing ( 4 gun?) may also have helped with a minimal performance loss. Changing wing sizes usually changed the speed performance less than some people anticipate. However, gun ports, barrels, and shell casing slots may screw things up more than many people think. 

I am not sure about the advantage of the He cooling system in regards to battle damage. I see no reason to doubt the idea that it could take hits better than a conventional radiator. The problem as I see it is that the likely hood of hitting the cooling system is an order of magnitude greater than hitting a conventional radiator. While planes did go down from a single ( or two) bullet hit/s to the radiator/oil cooler, how many returned with a dozen of more hits in the wings or tail surfaces that hit nothing important? or even a 20mm cannon hit or two? On the He 100 those non-critical hits become holes in the cooling system/s. I don't know how many holes equal one hit in a conventional radiator but hits cannot be shrugged off forever.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 4, 2012)

For the engine oil the solution on the Ki-61 test bed utilizing a conventional radiator which frees up the aft evaporators to add cooling capability. The auxiliary radiator fitted to the V-4 through the production models was retractable and was used while on the ground or in the climb.

The wing had four tanks as shown. They are not self-sealing but then in 1939-early 1940 period you'd hard pressed to find someone that has besides the German bombers. And the effectiveness of early attempts at fuel protection is debatable. An example of fuel reduction and weight increase can be shown on tank protection on the P-40. The unprotected system capacity was 180 gallons and was 170 lbs. With late war high quality protection the capacity was reduced to 135 gallons and weighed 420 lbs.

Heinkel had already fitted a loaned MG151 to the engine mount to confirm its engineering but I don't know if it was trialed. This was always the problem of waiting for technology to catch up with planning.

I agree that turning the evaporators into Swiss cheese would have the same effect as holing a radiator. Each evaporator was independent from the others and they were sectionalized. So the section with the hole would vent steam but not the whole evaporator. The steam was not under pressure from the engine except that from heat expansion. The process of steam loss from damage is slower than a radiator so the pilot would have more time to sort out options. I guess it would be a function or how many hits per the area of the cooling components.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2012)

There was a good fighter somewhere in the He 112 but where? I cant blame the Luftwaffe for taking the Me 109 over the 112.

Sometimes you pick what is good there and then. No point waiting for the 112 to mature because by 1940 you could still be waiting!

And it still will be an ageing design. The He 100 was certainly a design which should have gone into limited production to see what it was capable of then maybe ramped up as time went on.

But we get back to the original question...was the Bf 109 so bad?

1944? Yeah...perhaps...1940...nope. I don't see how one can blame designers for getting it wrong 9 years in the future.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 4, 2012)

No it wasn't bad for 1940, the 109 was the best you could do on 1000 HP for a fighter of standard designs and the He100 was thinking out of the box to squeeze the maximum performance from 1000HP. It wasn't until later in 1940 that engines were becoming available delivering more HP.

It is just conjecture about trying to speed up engine or gun development, the planners and manufacturers were hindered by politics, lack of money and resources (and possibly technology) They also don't have our advantage of Monday morning quarterbacking.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 4, 2012)

The Germans simply did not have the resources available to them that USA had. Which means they had to put eggs in one basket. However bad that basket was.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> There seems to be some confusion as to the Avro Manchester, some sources saying the original specification was for a "medium bomber" but I think most every body agrees the result was a "heavy".



The Manchester was designed and built to specification P.13/36. The P signifies it as a specification for a _medium bomber_.


From our friends at Wiki Air Ministry Specifications



> Each specification name usually followed a pattern. A leading letter was usually present to identify the aircraft purpose. The codes used included B for "heavy bomber", e.g., B.12/36, *P for "medium bomber", e.g., P.13/36*, F for "fighter", e.g., F.10/35, and A for "army co-operation", e.g., A.39/34. The second part was a number identifying it in sequence and then after the slash, the year it was formulated, so in the example given above, B.12/36 signifies a specification for a heavy bomber, the twelfth specification of all types issued in 1936.






Shortround6 said:


> While the Vickers Warwick was built to the same specification it seems to have been considered a heavy, but then at times the Wellington seemed to float in and out of the heavy class depending on date, who was speaking/writing and perhaps the needs of a press release.



The Vickers Warwick was built to B.1/35 for a twin engined _heavy_ bomber (according to the Warwick Wiki page, twin engined medium bomber according to the Air Ministry Specifications page).

The Short Stirling and Supermarine 316 were designed to B.12/36 for a heavy bomber. Interestingly a Warwick with Vulture engines was included under this specification.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 23, 2012)

DonL said:


> To my opinion the He 100 is a dead horse and very much overrated because of the philosophy to join the smallest possible cabin/fuselage with the "biggest" engine.
> This philosophy has not much room for development and space for a perhaps more powerful engine with the need of more space for cooling.
> The He 100 was an extreme of this philosophy but to my opinion the Bf 109 suffered also from this philosophy but on a less extreme way.



The Yak-3 was also built with that philosophy in mind AFAIK (well, not exactly, yet I think it's close enough). But why did this work where other attempts failed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2012)

It "worked" because it limited in it's mission and because the Russians had other aircraft available to do some of the missions it could not perform. The later Yak-9s had longer range ( some much longer) and could better handle the big 37 and 45 mm guns. 
I am not sure if the Yak-3 carried bombs or not.
It was a great fighter for what it did, but most other countries were not interested in such a specialized aircraft at that point in the war.


----------

