# Germany's ideal late war fighter



## wiking85 (Sep 12, 2012)

What would be the best fighter for Germany to focus on for daylight operations during 1944-5?


----------



## ShVAK (Sep 13, 2012)

Me 262. Engine reliability sucks and it wasn't a great dogfighter but it would've been (and WAS) the bane of Allied bomber formations, could run on lower quality fuel that grounded piston engine fighters by the end of the war, and carried a decent bombload (about 2000 lbs worth in A-2a model). Also had great potential as a night fighter. If the LW had equipped wings with sufficient numbers the Allies might've had to field the Meteor or maybe even rush early P-80's into the ETO to have anything comparable.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 13, 2012)

I don't think there is one ideal fighter, there almost never was.

But Me 262 + Fw 190 D seem to me the almost ideal combination. Me 262 to go after the bombers and the Fw 190 D (and C) against the fighters and as a fighter-bomber. I choose the Fw 190 D and C over the Ta 152 family simply because they are basically moderate conversions of an existing airframe, so production transition is easier. Maybe it is worthwhile to continue Fw 190 D production while slowly transitioning to the Ta 152 (as historically happened), but it's a close call.

Realistically, given the circumstances, a continued production of the Me 109 airframe/DB 605 combination is necessary though. So a decently sized number of Me 109 G-14AS, G-10 and K-4 (whatever is easiest for the factory in question, but K-4 being the optimum) will accompany the transition.

Contrary to popular believe, I think they got it mostly right in the end, planning wise. It only took them too long to figure it out and the war was over (thank god). I can see the reasoning behind a He 162 and I think it's a worthwhile stop-gap, but would (of course) not have gone for it given the hindsight that the war was to be ended 6 months after the order was placed. The Do 335 should've been shelved, even though it pains me to say that because it's such a cool aircraft.


----------



## zoomar (Sep 13, 2012)

I'd go with the Fw-190D/Ta-152 as the main priority to crank out as many as possible. At least equal to the best allied piston-engined fighters, reliable, rugged, and versatile. Also of far greater use on the Eastern front than any jet. Second would be the Me-262 to serve as the chief bomber destroyer. High speed and fantastically well armed for the task. As noted by others, the 262 was not overwhelming in fighter vs fighter combat, it was much more succeptable to battle damage, and the jumo 004s were very unreliable. I don't get the reason for the He-162 other than to make Heinkel happy and satisfy Nazis who wanted to see Hitlerjugend die the martyr's death. In capable hands, the 162 might have been slightly better in fighter-vs-fighter combat than the 262, butcapable hands would not have been behind the wheel. As a bomber destroyer capable of eluding escorts in quick, straight passes thru the formation, maybe poorly trained kids could do this, but its two 20mms lacked the punch to do much damage.


----------



## stona (Sep 13, 2012)

zoomar said:


> I don't get the reason for the He-162



Cheap,quick and easy to build,largely from "non-strategic" materials. That and desperation.
Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 13, 2012)

Cheap, effective and reliable enough for the final year of WWII. However you need to start design work during 1943. Any aircraft program which begins 10 September 1944 is going to be too little too late.


----------



## ShVAK (Sep 13, 2012)

zoomar said:


> I'd go with the Fw-190D/Ta-152 as the main priority to crank out as many as possible. At least equal to the best allied piston-engined fighters, reliable, rugged, and versatile. Also of far greater use on the Eastern front than any jet. Second would be the Me-262 to serve as the chief bomber destroyer. High speed and fantastically well armed for the task. As noted by others, the 262 was not overwhelming in fighter vs fighter combat, it was much more succeptable to battle damage, and the jumo 004s were very unreliable.



I think the 262 would've been mostly fine if it simply ignored the fighters and focused on making passes on the bomber formations as it did historically. Fast in, fast out. If the 262 got into a protracted turning match with any of the late-war fighters it would've been toast, but with a speed advantage in excess of 100 mph it didn't much matter if the plan was interception. 

With dive brakes (as Eric Brown recommended) the 262 would've been more effective in its attack runs, being able to use the gunsights and not simply spraying 30mm shells in the general direction of a B-17 would've helped kill ratios, could've improved low speed maneuverability as well assuming it didn't put a lot of stress on the airframe. A little more armor might've helped too but at the cost of performance and materiel. The point was to simply avoid dogfights at all costs with a 262 (or any early jet v. a piston-engine fighter), just like the USN Hellcat/Corsair pilots avoided mixing it up with Zeros at low speed. 

The Jumo 004 on the other hand was always going to be a problem, but reliability was an issue with all of the early jets and compensated by the ability to use less refined fuel. If the German planners had any sense they would've been cranking out as many 262's and engines as possible by early '44 abandoning piston engine fighters (or at least the Bf 109) for all but the most specific roles, and they might've figured out how to correct the 004's foibles or at least mitigate them by then. Thank god they didn't.

The Ta-152 was a good fighter, no doubt, and certainly more useful than the 262 fighting the VVS but seeing as most dogfights on the Eastern Front started at 20K altitude and lower and the Ta was optimized as a high altitude fighter its extra performance over the D-series Fw190 and late war Bf 109's would've been of little benefit. Now if it can carry more bombs than an F-series Fw190 and still maintain an edge than it would've been worth it.


----------



## Balljoint (Sep 13, 2012)

The problem with any engine, piston or jet, is that by late in the war Germany had lost access to at least one critical link. With piston engines the weak link was quality fuel. With jets it was high temperature alloys, i.e. tungsten and such. By the time the Jumo 004 was called upon, alloying metals –I think Sweden was the prior source- were no longer available.

As with so many things, Germany had no workable solution.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Sep 13, 2012)

On the other hand Jumo 004Bs were dirt cheap to produce and designed for rapid engine change. So change engine(s) after each mission. Send used engines back to depot for inspection and repair.


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2012)

Was the Me 262 a good bomber killer? Flying very fast relative to the targets and carrying large calibre weapons with a slow rate of fire made actually hitting the target tricky to say the least. It had very bad acceleration so slowing down simply made it vulnerable by robbing it of the one advantage it had,speed. It's most effective anti-bomber weapon may have been the R4M rockets,I'm thinking of examples like the March 18th operation by III./JG 7 when 37 Me 262s claimed a dozen of the 1000 or so attacking bombers using the rockets. 

The Luftwaffe needed a good bomber killer and a good air superiority fighter and I'm not sure that the Me 262,remarkable though it was,fits either bill. Our view of it has been skewed by Galland's opinion to a large extent.

I think they already had the aircraft in their inventory in the Fw 190 D stop gap which would give way to the Ta 152 and late series Bf 109s and Fw 190 As. What they didn't have was the experienced combat pilots to fly them.

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 14, 2012)

Mk 108 was not a slow rate of fire weapon 600+ rpm is not few for a 30mm


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> Mk 108 was not a slow rate of fire weapon 600+ rpm is not few for a 30mm



You are right,but it is _relatively_ slow. The chances of hitting the target are not good. This thread is not about the armament but a slow rate of fire,low muzzle velocity and all the associated problems, compounded by the limited time that the pilot had to aim and fire made it difficult for a fast moving Me 262 to get an accurate shot at a bomber.

Maybe that's amongst the reasons for the German attempts to develop systems involving rockets and aerial mortars.

Other Luftwaffe options could engage at a lower speed being far more manoeuverable and having much better rates of acceleration to escape.
There's plenty of gun camera footage showing these types of attack,excluding the head on attacks which were also extremely difficult to execute.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

Fw-190D production began during August 1944. Like the historical He-162 which began production during January 1945 that's too late to matter. 

Dare I suggest the Fw-187 powered by DB605 engines and armed with four MG151/20 cannon as a bomber interceptor? The aircraft (powered by DB601 engines) could have been operational during 1940.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> Fw-190D production began during August 1944. Like the historical He-162 which began production during January 1945 that's too late to matter.
> 
> Dare I suggest the Fw-187 powered by DB605 engines and armed with four MG151/20 cannon as a bomber interceptor? The aircraft (powered by DB601 engines) could have been operational during 1940.



At a time when fuel supplys are low, that's exactly what the Luftwaffe needs, a fighter that burns twice as much high octane gas per mission.


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

They will get a lot lower if the Luftwaffe fail to protect hydrogenation plants from Allied bombers during the spring of 1944.

With the possible exception of Me-262 powered by Jumo 004A engines I can scarcely think of a better German bomber interceptor (than Fw-187) that could be in service by January 1944.


----------



## stona (Sep 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> Fw-190D production began during August 1944.



Original question.

"What would be the best fighter for Germany to focus on for daylight operations during 1944-5?" 

So through '44 I'd focus on the latest versions of the Fw 190 A and Bf 109 G,into '45 the Fw 190 D/Ta 152 and Bf 109 K.

The Me 262 is an obvious contender along with other aircraft in development like the Do 335. Noone seems too keen on rocket powered interceptors and I don't blame them. 

I'm assuming the original poster was after realistic options not pie in the sky stuff about an aircraft cancelled years previously. The Luftwaffe was hardly going to focus on it in 1944. Your beloved Fw 187 may or may not have been the universal panacea the Luftwaffe needed or it may have been a donkey.We'll never know _because it never went into series production _.

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2012)

Galland wanted (in early 1944) all Fw 190A and follow on D as well as Me 262 for 1944 focus. I can't fault his logic in concentrating on two types at that stage of the war. The primary challenge to the FW 190A series in early/mid 1944 is that they were forced to compete at altitudes above their critical altitudes while the Allied fighters were perfectly suited to 25K operations to accompany 8th and 15th AF daylight missions.


----------



## Balljoint (Sep 14, 2012)

stona said:


> Was the Me 262 a good bomber killer? Flying very fast relative to the targets and carrying large calibre weapons with a slow rate of fire made actually hitting the target tricky to say the least. It had very bad acceleration so slowing down simply made it vulnerable by robbing it of the one advantage it had,speed. It's most effective anti-bomber weapon may have been the R4M rockets,I'm thinking of examples like the March 18th operation by III./JG 7 when 37 Me 262s claimed a dozen of the 1000 or so attacking bombers using the rockets.
> 
> The Luftwaffe needed a good bomber killer and a good air superiority fighter and I'm not sure that the Me 262,remarkable though it was,fits either bill. Our view of it has been skewed by Galland's opinion to a large extent.
> 
> ...



Capable pilots were the LW’s greatest deficiency late in the war. Me 262s were very effective in the Jagdgeschwader 44 where Galland had collected many of the remaining veteren elite pilots. This group would have done well with piston or jet versions of the already-mentioned fighter.


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

This problem was caused by aviation fuel shortage which was made much worse by destruction of hydrogenation plants during 1944.

It's a vicious cycle. If the Luftwaffe want to remain effective they must protect their hydrogenation plants from both day and night bombers. Otherwise it makes little difference what aircraft types they produce.


----------



## bob44 (Sep 14, 2012)

I like to think about what could have been within Germany. 
Germany's best late war fighters, probably the Me262, Do335, and the Ta152.
But like everyone has stated, lack of fuel, pilots, building materials was a big factor. Also, from what I have read, infighting between the aircraft manufactures and within the high commands, put a wrench in the works. 
I believe, even if Germany would have concentrated on developing these aircraft in numbers, early enough in the war, the Allies would have countered with their better aircraft in greater numbers. Might have prolonged the war, but ultimately, Germany would loose by attrition.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> This problem was caused by aviation fuel shortage



The inability to train replacements was hindered by shortages of fuel. The shortage of experienced aircrew was caused by the allied air forces killing or otherwise incapacitating them.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 15, 2012)

Germany had a multitude of good airframe designs. Production of those designs was constrained by engine availability. 

Fw-190D is an excellent example of this. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine program and Fw-190s powered by DB603 engines can probably be in service by early 1941. You will also have DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter aircraft during 1942.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 16, 2012)

stona said:


> You are right,but it is _relatively_ slow. The chances of hitting the target are not good. This thread is not about the armament but a slow rate of fire,low muzzle velocity and all the associated problems, compounded by the limited time that the pilot had to aim and fire made it difficult for a fast moving Me 262 to get an accurate shot at a bomber.
> 
> Maybe that's amongst the reasons for the German attempts to develop systems involving rockets and aerial mortars.
> 
> ...


And presenting themselves to the thick defensive fire and the escorts flying above. Didn't work and got them slaughtered in droves. Essentially this tactic is responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944 more so than anything else (my opinion).

I respect your opinion but I actually have the exact opposite view on the MK 108: I think the popular view is skewed in that it was far more effective even in the anti-fighter role (especially in combination with the Me 262), than we perceive. If you look at some of the aces that flew the Me 262 you'll see a large number of s/e fighter claims. Surprisingly many if you keep in mind that in the west it was mainly used to attack bombers.

Schall: 11 fighters / 6 bombers
Rademacher: 5 fighters / 11 bombers
Eder: 8 fighters / 14 bombers
Rudorffer: 3 fighters / 9 bombers

Over these four it's 27 fighters to 40 Bombers, so about two fighters for every three bombers claimed, not by accompanying Bf 109s or Fw 190s, but by the Me 262s themselves. Overall the ratio will be lower I guess, but not as one sided as one might think.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2012)

Sometime back on a 262 thread, I was able to determine that 11 8th AF fighters were either destroyed or probaby destroyed by Me 262s. I don't know how that matches with LW claims as certainly RAF and 9th AF must have lost some to the 262. It does occur to me that 9th and RAF were operating far more near the deck than 8th AF escorting bombers.


----------



## stona (Sep 16, 2012)

riacrato said:


> And presenting themselves to the thick defensive fire and the escorts flying above. Didn't work and got them slaughtered in droves. Essentially this tactic is responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944 more so than anything else (my opinion).



I agree,but it was the tactic often used.

There are many problems with Luftwaffe claims at this late stage of proceedings as we all know,particularly from autumn 1944 onwards when the claims system had been abandoned completely. 

I don't doubt that a few Me 262s flown by the few remaining experienced and successful pilots would enjoy considerable success. These men would have been successful whatever (within reason,maybe not a Go 145!) they were flying.

The average pilot,on both sides,had a great deal of difficulty hitting anything in air to air combat and by 1944 the Luftwaffe's average was well below that of the allies. Their chances would be reduced even further when flying a weapons system like the Me 262. 

I suppose ultimately it is another debate that ends up chasing its own tail. The Me 262 could be an effective aircraft in the hands of an expert,almost any competitive fighter could be. We come back to the perennial problem,the Luftwaffe simply didn't have those men available anymore.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> Germany had a multitude of good airframe designs. Production of those designs was constrained by engine availability.
> 
> Fw-190D is an excellent example of this. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine program and Fw-190s powered by DB603 engines can probably be in service by early 1941. You will also have DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter aircraft during 1942.



Back with that old idea? And just what performance would such an aircraft have? We might look at the Mig-1/3 for a comparison, similar sized engine in a similar sized air-frame. You don't get 1943 engine performance in 1940/41. You want more than one 20mm and a pair of 7.9mm Mgs you take the performance hit.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 16, 2012)

I didn't want to start a debate over claims vs kills (hence I used the word claims), but claims for bombers are likewise exaggregated. One might speculate the nature of air combat makes claims versus large bombers more accurate, but by how much? Even if they are twice as accurate (which could be about right?) the fact still stands more than a few fighters were claimed by the Me 262 pilots so they must've felt confident they could attack them successfully, given the right tactics (speed and surprise). I overall agree two decent 20mm like Hispano Mk.V or MG 151/20 would be superior to one MK 108 in the anti-fighter role. But if you bounce a P-51 type of fighter with 50-100mph advantage four MK 108s firing a one second burst don't sound like the worst option to me, given the alternatives at the time.

Edit: Also iirc a kill on a bomber in LW terms could also mean it was just shot out of a formation. I am not sure if that is relevant for the Me 262 scores i quoted but if so it would skew the results in favour of bomber claims.


----------



## davebender (Sep 16, 2012)

P-51 wasn't all that durable. A single 3cm mine shell hit anywhere on the aircraft would probably cripple it.

Of course P-51s and other high altitude fighter aircraft should be attacked only in self defense. It's the bombers you need to disrupt.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 16, 2012)

That's the point. Four relatively fast firing MK 108s, centrally mounted, will put a lot of 30mm shells towards the target. So I reckon in a bounce, the typical distance to the target is fairly low and at the beginning of the attack and very low at the end of it. During that time the four cannons will have put out so many shots that the chances of one hitting the enemy are quite good.


----------



## ShVAK (Sep 16, 2012)

If I did the math right, at a rate of 650 rounds/min a single Mk 108 is kicking out around 11 30mm rounds per _second._ 

Multiply that by 4 and a 3-second burst equals 132 rounds from centrally mounted Mk 108's. The accuracy may be poor past 600 yards but with a cone of fire like that, any Mustang that gets blindsided by a 262 is going to get shredded, considering even a B-17 could only stand about 4-6 hits from HE shells before succumbing.


----------



## davebender (Sep 16, 2012)

IMO four MG151/20 cannon would probably be better for well trained pilots. However by 1943 most pilots were rookies, regardless of nationality. The 3cm Mk108 cannon is an ideal rookie weapon. R4M FF rockets are better yet. Putting a rack of R4M FF rockets under the wing of every Me-109G during 1944 might do Germany more good then early introduction of the Fw-190D.


----------



## cimmex (Sep 16, 2012)

The R4M was available first in spring 1945
Cimmex


----------



## davebender (Sep 16, 2012)

That's what happened historically. 

Technology necessary to create a folding fin aircraft rocket was available years earlier. If the Luftwaffe increases funding for FF rocket development there's no reason it couldn't be mass produced a year earlier. Someone in high places just needs to realize the potential of such a weapon.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 16, 2012)

The problem is that there is no ideal late war fighter. What Germany needed was the D-9s, G-10s, Ks in January, 1944, in mass.


----------



## bob44 (Sep 17, 2012)

> The problem is that there is no ideal late war fighter. What Germany needed was the D-9s, G-10s, Ks in January, 1944, in mass.




Yes. Very true. Germany needed good fighters in mass. Also, perhaps, Germany needed to change their strategy a bit. Go after the fighters first, regain air superiority, then deal with the bombers. Concentrate on producing a good or great fighter, in mass, then worry about making bombers/destroyers/night fighters/recon ect.


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

> Concentrate on producing a good or great fighter, in mass, then worry about making bombers/destroyers/night fighters/recon ect.


30,000 Me-109s plus 20,000 Fw-190s. How many more do you want? By 1944 Germany had more fighter aircraft then fuel for operations and pilot training.


----------



## stona (Sep 18, 2012)

bob44 said:


> Yes. Very true. Germany needed good fighters in mass.



As alluded to above,she needed good pilots en masse.

Steve


----------



## bob44 (Sep 18, 2012)

Yes, and good pilots.


----------



## kettbo (Sep 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> IMO four MG151/20 cannon would probably be better for well trained pilots. However by 1943 most pilots were rookies, regardless of nationality. The 3cm Mk108 cannon is an ideal rookie weapon. R4M FF rockets are better yet. Putting a rack of R4M FF rockets under the wing of every Me-109G during 1944 might do Germany more good then early introduction of the Fw-190D.



yes, multiple rockets vs bomber boxes...


----------



## davparlr (Sep 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> R4M FF rockets are better yet. Putting a rack of R4M FF rockets under the wing of every Me-109G during 1944 might do Germany more good then early introduction of the Fw-190D.


 
I would think that this would significantly degrade the performance of the fighters, especially since the pre-late 1944 German fighters were marginal in the first place.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I would think that this would significantly degrade the performance of the fighters, especially since the pre-late 1944 German fighters were marginal in the first place.



It's a trade off of performance for increased armament and armour. Cannon gondolas and hundreds of kilograms of armour (191.6 Kg _extra_ over the standard fighters 145.7 Kg on a Fw 190 A-8/R2) didn't do much for performance either.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

Only until they are fired which should happen at the beginning of the engagement. Then you've got a lightweight Me-109G with hub cannon and two cowl MGs for self defense against bomber escorts.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

davebender said:


> Then you've got a lightweight Me-109G with hub cannon and two cowl MGs



And the underwing racks.







Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

I doubt those racks add much drag or weight.

In any case wooden wing racks were just a temporary solution. Proper rocket pods which attached to wing hard points were in the pipeline. The pods could be dropped if necessary, just like anything else attach to hardpoints. That's necessary for safety as WWII era FF rockets sometimes got stuck or miss fired.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 24, 2012)

For me it is obvious that the IDEAL late-war fighter would have been the Volksjager... 
I am not talking about the He 162 as such, but a principle Volksjager, one which would arrive in 1944. The advantages are this: easy to build, faster than any allied escort fighter, strong cannon armament and requiring low-grade fuel. 
Ideally, the Volksjager would also be easy to maintain and easy to fly. My personal favourite would be the Lippisch P.20



or the Blohm und Voss P.212.







davebender said:


> Cheap, effective and reliable enough for the final year of WWII. However you need to start design work during 1943. Any aircraft program which begins 10 September 1944 is going to be too little too late.


Totally.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 24, 2012)

I read ed that Lippisch P-15 was given the go for production.


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2012)

> easy to build, faster than any allied escort fighter, strong cannon armament and requiring low-grade fuel.


He-162 easily meets those specifications. I doubt any other emergency fighter program proposal would be superior. In any case the program must begin before 10 September 1944 to have any chance for success. 

Why not have Speer kick the program off within a few months of becoming Armaments Minister? Start development during the summer of 1942 with a mass production date of January 1944. 18 months to develop the aircraft and build production facilities. Aviation gasoline was in short supply by 1942 so the aircraft must be powered by something else.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2012)

Johnbr, the Lippisch P.15 was never accepted for production. It remained a paper project. In fact, I think I have found out that it is actually a Lippisch redesigned Heinkel He 162. As such it's a mixture of the Me 163 and He 162.



davebender said:


> He-162 easily meets those specifications. I doubt any other emergency fighter program proposal would be superior. In any case the program must begin before 10 September 1944 to have any chance for success.
> 
> Why not have Speer kick the program off within a few months of becoming Armaments Minister? Start development during the summer of 1942 with a mass production date of January 1944. 18 months to develop the aircraft and build production facilities. Aviation gasoline was in short supply by 1942 so the aircraft must be powered by something else.


Well, the B&V P.211 was the first winner of the competition but in the end the He 162 was accepted because Heinkel had tricked the RLM into believing they had actually advanced further in the design. Their P.1073 design was however very different: it was a twin-engined fighter jet. 
Be that as it may, I do agree that the He 162 design would have been sufficient for the Volksjager project. The resulting fighter of course suffered from too many defects, rushed as it was. In this fictitious/alternative Volksjaeger program more time would have been made available, maybe a year from design plans to first operations. 
I wouldn't go so far as to have it start as 1942. It is a nice idea but too fantastic. Let's keep things realistic: your plans would make no sense as, one, there were no devestating American bomber offensives in 1942. And two, jet engines were still far away from active service. For sure you can imagine a priority shift to metallurgics for jet engines designs, but this would lead us too far. Let's keep it realistic: a simple single-engined jet fighter (He 178 style) designed in 1943. There were several jet fighter designs in 1943 by Messerschmitt, Focke Wulf, ...

Kris


----------



## davebender (Sep 27, 2012)

Then stick with the Me-262. I think the airframe was more or less production ready during 1943. Messerschmitt was just waiting for RLM to place the Jumo 004 jet engine into mass production.

The Jumo 004A engine passed several 100 hour endurance tests during 1943. Some western front Jagdgeschwader could be equipped with Me-262s prior to the February 1944 "Big Week" bombing campaign. It all depends on engine production choices made by RLM.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 29, 2012)

Yeah, I like that idea. The Jumo 004A was rejected because it used too many rare alloys. But a limited production run might have been a good choice. (Though I did read once there were also technical problems with the Jumo 004A that were resolved with the 004B).

But the idea is to have an easily produced easily maintained fighter jet. The Me 262 is clearly a heavy fighter. 

Also choosing the HeS 030 would be the perfect engine for such a small fighter! 
Kris


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2012)

There were technical problems with many wartime produced aircraft engines. Fw-190, P-38 and B-29 bomber come to mind. Wartime needs trump normal safety standards.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 29, 2012)

I read that the P-15 was given the go in a old usa report it even said were it was to be made.The perfect engine would have been the He-30.The He-30 was desiged to put out 2650lb's.Specifications

General characteristics
Type: Turbojet
Length: 2.72m
Diameter: 0.62m ()
Dry weight: 390kg (860lb)

Components
Compressor: Axial 5-stages
Combustors: 10 Cannular chambers
Turbine: Axial 1 stage
Fuel type: Gasoline
Oil system: pressure scavenge return

Performance
Maximum thrust: 860kp (1,896lb)the production was to put 2650lb's
Overall pressure ratio: 3:1 Pressure ratio
Power-to-weight ratio:


----------



## Civettone (Sep 30, 2012)

HeS 030, talk about a wonder weapon, there is one! 

If you take a look at the Lippisch P.15, and you compare it with the Me 163C and the He 162, it becomes clear that it was Lippisch proposal to improve the Heinkel He 162 with design features of the Me 163. We know it as the Lippisch P.15 which means that there was never an official RLM designation. As such it is very unlikely it was approved for production. Unlike the FW Ta 183, another paper project, for instance.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2012)

I'm under the impression the Me-262 and its jet engines were dirt cheap to mass produce. 

Producing the Me-262 with Jumo 004A engines would increase production cost but it will be operational about 18 months sooner. It's up to the Luftwaffe commander to decide if that trade off is worthwhile.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 30, 2012)

Lippisch P-11 Delta was given the go and I have never is a official RLM designation.The P11 V1 was made the usa found the fuselage but not wings the V2 was lost in a raid.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 10, 2012)

In the document says it was to be built by WNF.A 1/25 model was taken by usstaf for examination.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2012)

It makes little difference which fighter jet Germany decides to produce. Most of them were vastly superior to existing prop driven aircraft.

Jet engines were the key component which determines when Germany can place a jet fighter aircraft into mass production. So IMO we should be discussing engines rather then airframes.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 11, 2012)

Germany's ideal late war fighter? Easy!

1)	Built from propaganda speeches and building rubble.
2)	Fueled by blind obedience.
3)	Flown by minimally trained Weiner-Pups. (Which Germany had a curious excess of at this stage in the war.)


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 11, 2012)

davebender said:


> It makes little difference which fighter jet Germany decides to produce. Most of them were vastly superior to existing prop driven aircraft.



This is something I just can't accept.
Even the Me 262 (along with the Arado Ar 234 the only German jet to see anything even close to a proper flight test program) was not so superior that it guaranteed invulnerability a huge kill margin every time.

Germany had some interesting research ideas going on of that there is no doubt but that is still years off of fielding properly tested designs which have been through a proper test schedule (and I'm talking structurals, weapons, fueling and all the rest as well as simply having an interesting outline shape).
Not to mention a proper evaluation of appropriate tactics, maintenance operational procedures.
All of which take years to implement properly.

The fact is by the end of 1944 Germany was so badly damaged (in terms of infrastructures) that German industry could have wheeled out a squadron of F 15 Eagles and it would have made little or no difference to the wars outcome.
Yes I exaggerate but this constant glossing over the practical obstacles to (then) advanced types seeing widespread use is IMO rather silly.


----------



## stona (Oct 11, 2012)

I agree with "Gixxerman" above.

Getting new types from prototype to service involves huge amounts of development,both of the aircraft and the logistics and infrastructure to support it. Even in late war Germany,cutting every corner that could be cut and then some,this took much longer than many seem to appreciate.
Some of the types being discussed were not even close to the prototype stage. Some were merely mock ups and literally years away from entering service.

There is a parallel tendency for people to want to add armament and armour or change engines,even on aircraft that were successfully in service,without taking account of just what such a program entails. It's easily written but hard to achieve. There are few exceptions and they are noteable for being exceptions.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2012)

Changing an engine or changing armament on a prototype or a couple of "test" airplanes as "proof of concept" is one thing. Doing a properly "engineered" installation is another. Least amount of ballast needed, proper access for maintenance, proper cooling under a variety of conditions. And perhaps even more important, the design and construction of the different jigs and fixtures needed for mass production. Most of the work on the jigs and fixtures cannot begin until the actual changes are finalized in the test program. A jig for the location and drilling of the radiator mounting holes is pretty much useless if the radiator is changed or even moved and inch in regards to the datum line or locating holes for the jig. 

Russian "mass production" without proper jigs and fixtures often lead to low serviceability in the field because not only did parts from different factories not fit properly but at times parts from the same factory were not interchangeable and needed to modified to "fit".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Mar 16, 2018)

My suggested best fighter would be the Jumo 222 equipped TA-152. There were 3 versions of the TA-152 planned. The smaller wing faster version for mid/low altitude which would be ideal for the eastern front, and the H version to reach the anticipated B-29 bombers. The ME-262 was far advanced with engines improving with time (that the Luftwaffe fortunately didn't have). If the effort that went into the V2 program was transferred to jet engine development, the end of the war would have been more costly (nothing would have changed the outcome).  The ME-262 was mostly inhibited with quantity. 100+ ME-262s intercepting bombers would have been a disaster for the bombers. Head on and rear attacks by the ME-262 was an effective tactic because of speed. Remember it took only three 30mm hits to down a bomber on average. A 1/2 second burst puts 10 times as many rounds down range as is necessary to bring a bomber down. Head on, the slow moving 30mm round falls 1/2 as fast. (The closing speed determines effective drop so ballistics are not so bad). The vertical mortars developed near the end of the war would have increased the head on attacks effectiveness 10 fold.
Would this have changes anything? Sure, the war would have gone on another 6 months (Maybe). Even before D-day, the axis was running out of resources (people, fuel, food), and the allies were continuing to get stronger.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2018)

For 1944-45: one jet engine, two cannons, slightly swept wing.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 17, 2018)

Thinking laterally; the best would be an enhanced pilot training system to man the (whatever fighter) with high quality pilots.

With such a system then, even relying solely on Me109s, the Luftwaffe would get better results than IOTL. 

Now as to where you magic the fuel from I have no cunning plan.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2018)

"... For 1944-45: one jet engine, two cannons, slightly swept wing .."
I agree in principle but, given the slow spool-up of turbines, at that time, witness the need for 262's protected by Doras on landings and take-offs, I would hesitate to put all my defensive eggs in the "one-jet platform" or _any_-jet fighter platform for that matter. Kurt Tank's 190 platform was a very good one, responding to design pressures better than Herr M's 109 platform did, IMO. 
But the pilot training issue is the _only_ issue that really matters ... given Germany's condition.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... For 1944-45: one jet engine, two cannons, slightly swept wing .."
> I agree in principle but, given the slow spool-up of turbines, at that time, witness the need for 262's protected by Doras on landings and take-offs, I would hesitate to put all my defensive eggs in the "one-jet platform" or _any_-jet fighter platform for that matter. Kurt Tank's 190 platform was a very good one, responding to design pressures better than Herr M's 109 platform did, IMO.
> But the pilot training issue is the _only_ issue that really matters ... given Germany's condition.



Sevearl things to note.
1st - Doras used to protect Me 262 on take off and landing = it is winter of 1944/45 = Allies have undisputed air superiority over all of Germany. My proposal is that Germany produces 1-engined jets already in early 1944, in time when Tempests, Spitfires and and P-47s can't harras them over Germany proper, while P-51s and P-38s can't be everywhere. We can still use Fw 190As or Bf 109Gs to protect airstrips in Western Germany, need be. Going with 1-engined jobs instead of 2-engined means LW can have more of them in short time. 1-engined job will use much less fuel than 2-engined one, it's smaller size means it is harder to spot and hit.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2018)

All true ... but how many missions are your jets good for without engine change ... 3 - 4? 
I believe the scarcity of critical metallurgicals (turbine blades, etc.) is not favorable to turbine improvements.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> All true ... but how many missions are your jets good for without engine change ... 3 - 4?
> I believe the scarcity of critical metallurgicals (turbine blades, etc.) is not favorable to turbine improvements.



IIRC the Jumo 004, versions in 1944, lasted for 25 hours. That will give 25 missions of 1 hour each. Number of replacement engines needed for 1-engined A/C will tend to be half of what a 2-engined force will need, for same number of A/C.
Germans got around the lack of rare metals with development of hollow blade turbines, those were coming of the line in 1945, however.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2018)

I cannot argue against the prioritization of turbines ... the economics, the fuel, the simplicity ... and the one engine jet (when you're fighting over home) is a natural choice given the situation at the time ... both the rocket program and the jet program, unfortunately, lent themselves to slave labor ... also a reality in Nazi Germany at the time.
I want to_ visualize _your preference, tomo,


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2018)

Please remember that the "engine life hours" are sort of a maximum. They are no guarantee that an engine will last that long. 
_IF _an engine makes that long it service it is to to be pulled for overhaul regardless of how well it is running at the moment. 
"design" life and "service" life could often be very different things.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 18, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> I cannot argue against the prioritization of turbines ... the economics, the fuel, the simplicity ... and the one engine jet (when you're fighting over home) is a natural choice given the situation at the time ... both the rocket program and the jet program, unfortunately, lent themselves to slave labor ... also a reality in Nazi Germany at the time.
> I want to_ visualize _your preference, tomo,



Unfortunately, slave labour will be used in Nazi Germany disregarding what weapon system is in production.
There was an itersting proposal by the company Blohm & Voss. A 1-engined fighter was to be produced around steel construction, that comprised from tubes and profiles. Lower/front tube served also as intake tunnel, central part contained fuel tank (500 L). Inner part of the wing was also from steel, housing fuel tanks (450L total there). Main U/C was modified unit from the Bf 109. Wood was also used extesively. Wing was square, with just one wing rib shape used. Thickness 12%, if I've measured it right at the pdf file.
(holz = wood, stahl = steel)






Shortround6 said:


> Please remember that the "engine life hours" are sort of a maximum. They are no guarantee that an engine will last that long.
> _IF _an engine makes that long it service it is to to be pulled for overhaul regardless of how well it is running at the moment.
> "design" life and "service" life could often be very different things.



Agree all the way. Perhaps - if it is known that max life is pin-pointed at 25 hours, have the engines removed after 20 hours, send them to the overhaul facility, and install new engines?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2018)

Regarding labor you are of course correct ... the Blohm & Voss design is truly frightening in it's simplicity .... having said that .. there's something very 'Soviet' in that concept fighter ... like Kutushka


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 18, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> Regarding labor you are of course correct ... the Blohm & Voss design is truly frightening in it's simplicity .... having said that .. there's something very 'Soviet' in that concept fighter ... like Kutushka



I don't know what is 'Kutushka'...
People at Blohm & Voss criticised Heinkel due to not incorpoating greater % of non-strategic and 'cheap' materials when those were developing the He 162! Wood was used only for the wings on the 162.
B&V proposal (airframe only) was to be produced from steel (58%), wood (23%), 'light metals' (duralumin? 13%) and 'rest' (6%).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2018)

... I noted the use of steel. Katushka = Stalin Organ


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Agree all the way. Perhaps - if it is known that max life is pin-pointed at 25 hours, have the engines removed after 20 hours, send them to the overhaul facility, and install new engines?



Trouble is some of the engines were crapping out in service in 10 hours or less.
Please note that this is not anti-German. British and American jets both during the war and in the first couple of years after the war were, _on average,_ coming nowhere near their "nominal" engine lives.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ironnet (Mar 18, 2018)

Single jet engined version of Me-109 could be interesting. Soviets converted piston engined yak-3 fighter to yak-15 with a jumo 004 copy. Only problem would be the range, probably cockpit can be placed one meter back in order to make room for a central fuel tank but this approach kind of defeats the purpose to put it into mass production ASAP. I don't know if a similar conversion could be possible with something like mostly non-strategic material built Go-149, probably too light airframe for intended jumo-004s or BMW 003 (HeS 8 might have work), and not designed for higher speeds. But it's interesting that soviets managed Yak-3 conversion to jet, yet in a real emergency Germans didn't tried something similar. They thought Me-109 TL but that aircraft required two engines.

Another approach might be using external rocket boosters on existing propeller driven aircraft instead of designing something like Me-163. Preferably big solid fuel rockets for a fast climb to altitude but I don't know if this idea is feasible.

PS. I read Germans spent 16.000 flak rounds on average to take down one bomber during last months of war. That amounts to 40 tons of propellant even if you don't count exposives inside the projectile. If you use 250 kg. per one booster, you can build 160 booster rockets with it. How many more bombers could be shot down with rocket boosted fighters? Rockets could be placed on central bomb rack for example.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 18, 2018)

> ... I noted the use of steel. Katushka = Stalin Organ



Hi Mike, would have been an impressive sight watching one of these firing, let alone a barrage.
Just a wee bit of info: Катю́ша Cyrillic spelling, phonetic English: Katyusha, after a popular song. Katyusha is also a diminutive of the name Yekatarina.

The name 'Stalin's Organ' came from the layout of the rocket launcher behind the cab:




Katyusha

This one on a postwar Zil truck at the Korean War Memorial, Seoul.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Mar 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble is some of the engines were crapping out in service in 10 hours or less.
> Please note that this is not anti-German. British and American jets both during the war and in the first couple of years after the war were, _on average,_ coming nowhere near their "nominal" engine lives.


I had a rather lengthy conversation with an ace (27 kills ?) who flew the Me-262. He said they could make only 2 flights on the engines before a change was required, maximum air time per flight 55 minutes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2018)

"The name 'Stalin's Organ' came from the layout of the rocket launcher behind the cab.."
Thought it was the sound of barrage.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 19, 2018)

I think the Dornier 335 was the missed opportunity for 44 and 45. The technology was in place, it was political that the plane was not mass produced. It could have been placed in production in 43, with 335's meeting the Bomber in 44 streams during the day and night.


----------



## Felix448 (Mar 22, 2018)

I´d come to this conclusion:

The 190 (Dora for the most part) was necessary as a good standard, was the aircraft people were transitioning to after initial training and made the way for the already planned Ta 152. The FW 190 was able to dogfight present allied fighters and was more or less an allrounder. It´s task was also to protect airfields on which the Me 262 was stationed, especially as the 262´s were attacked while being on or near the ground for the most part. Proceeding without any prop fighter simply wouldn´t have been a good idea, especially concerning the east.

The 262 was the perfect tool to fight bombers at that time, as many stated earlier already. The speed / energy advantage compared to piston fighters was high and armed with 4 x 30mm cannons (and probably R4M rockets) it was more than capable to take out every bomber within a very small amount of time. What held the 262 down, apart from bad engine reliability and necessary improvements to the airframe (Remember the first 262 still had a tailwheel in the beginning and even getting off the ground was dangerous.), was that high command wanted the 262 to be the long anticipated "Blitzbomber"... This was impossible because there was no way to simply install a bomb sight, additionally the aircraft was easily overspeeding in a dive. Using it as an actual bomber required a vast amount of design changes and everybody knew that the 262 was planned as an interceptor from the beginning. Bombing was practiced with the Me 262 and a total failure (as expected from most). Also, 262 production was very limited as the 109 and 190 were favorered.

The third aircraft would´ve been the Arado 234, coming to production a bit later than the 262 but would´ve been the actual "Blitzbomber" the guy in the leader position actually wanted to have. The Ar 234 would´ve been able to bring bombs quickly to the frontline and didn´t have to fear anti-aircraft guns as much due to the shear flying speed. It could´ve been a good ground support aircraft and as the 262 didn´t require high-quality fuels.


----------

