# Bf-110 successor



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2012)

The Bf-110 was to be replaced with Me-210. The 210 program almost ended in tears, the redesign saved it. The plane eventually evolved in Me-410 (DB-603 on board); the Hungarians were producing for them Luftwaffe the Me-210Ca (DB-605 on board).
How would you run the successor show? How the '210' and '410' would've looked; any kind of 'plan B' (reasonable upgrade of the 110 in case something goes wrong with successor)? The more roles the successor can do well, the better


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 29, 2012)

Hi Tomo,

Your subject made me check out the data on both the bf110 and the me210. I never noticed that the BF110g2 was actually faster than the Hungarian me210c. Both were using the DB605.
Makes the me210 look like a perfect waiste of time, money and effort.

I think the arado ar240, the Heinkel 219 and the Focke Wulf 154 would have made acceptable alternatives if given the chance.


----------



## Juha (Mar 29, 2012)

Simply keeping Willy out from hindering the 210 design development, so after initial problems it would have evolved to 210 A-1 (lang), ie more or less like 210 Ca-1 but with 601F engines, much faster.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 29, 2012)

The RLM wanted a 110 which carry bombs, internal in fuselage. They redesigned the 110 with a bomb bay, that become the 210.

And while Willy did mess up with the 210 - largely because he invested millions in jigs and did not want to waste that money - the RLM was also responsible, ordering the aircraft into production before proper testing was done.


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 29, 2012)

Juha said:


> Simply keeping Willy out from hindering the 210 design development, so after initial problems it would have evolved to 210 A-1 (lang), ie more or less like 210 Ca-1 but with 601F engines, much faster.
> 
> Juha



Are you sure that your 210 A-1 with 601F will be faster than the Hungarian 210c's with the 1475 hp db605?


----------



## davebender (Mar 29, 2012)

Split the program. Two different aircraft for two different missions. They can probably share wings and some other components.

*Me-210 Night fighter / Long range recon aircraft.*
.....DB605 engines.
.....4 x MG151/20 mounted in fuselage sides.
.....Rear firing barbettes modified. MG-FF 20mm cannon. Can fire forward @ 65 degree angle for attacking enemy bombers.
.....No bomb bay, dive brakes, bomb sight or structural strengthening associated with dive bombing.
.....Armor protection cut in half to about 200kg.
.....2,430 liters of fuel in wing tanks (same as historical)
.....Fuselage modified as necessary to accomodate radar equipment. It might be a bit wider and/or longer then the historical Me-210C. 
.....If necessary this aircraft can also be used as a daytime bomber interceptor. For that role you delete the radar, employ normal rear firing barbettes and perhaps add some aditional crew protection.

*Me-410A Light Bomber.*
.....Similiar to historical aircraft powered by DB603 engines.
.....If DB603 engines are not available in quantity then build the DB605 powered Me-210C.
.....This aircraft does not get employed as an interceptor. It is a long range light bomber.


----------



## Juha (Mar 29, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Are you sure that your 210 A-1 with 601F will be faster than the Hungarian 210c's with the 1475 hp db605?



A-1 lang wasn't faster than Ca-1 but I meant that A-1 lang would have appeared much sooner

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2012)

The Me-210 (with DB-601F, 2 x 1350 HP) wasn't faster than Pe-2 (2 x 1200 HP), while carrying less bombs. The gun armament was heavier for the 210, though. Rank amateur's 1st post here is on the money re. how viable the 210 was, not only when compared with Bf-110.

How about a design starting from a clean sheet of paper, while upgrading the 110 (just in case)?


----------



## Juha (Mar 29, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The Me-210 (with DB-601F, 2 x 1350 HP) wasn't faster than Pe-2 (2 x 1200 HP), while carrying less bombs...



IMHO 210 A-1 was faster 578km/h vs 506(1943) - 524 km/h(1944) for M-105PF powered Pe-2 according to Gordon's and Khazanov's book and in 1942 M-105RA powered Pe-2 was down to 488km/h from 530km/h in 41. But at the sea level speed very equal 463km/h vs 460(1943) - 465 km/h(1944) for M-105PF powered Pe-2.

Juha


----------



## Denniss (Mar 29, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> I never noticed that the BF110g2 was actually faster than the Hungarian me210c. Both were using the DB605.
> Makes the me210 look like a perfect waiste of time, money and effort.


Do you have a source for this claim ? The Me 210 was a tad heavier but had much cleaner aerodynamics so it should be at least on par with the Bf 110 or faster.


----------



## davebender (Mar 29, 2012)

By mid 1940 most Me-110 units were in the process of converting to the night fighter mission. Everything I have read suggests the Me-110 worked well in that role. So rather then replacing the Me-110 perhaps we should concentrate on modifying it for the new primary mission.

Limited fuel capacity was probably the Me-110s biggest shortcoming as a night fighter aircraft. The Me-210 carried approximately twice as much and it was in wing tanks. Graft the Me-210 wing onto the Me-110 fuselage. The endurance problem would be fixed. Nothing else needs to be changed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2012)

Juha said:


> IMHO 210 A-1 was faster 578km/h vs 506(1943) - 524 km/h(1944) for M-105PF powered Pe-2 according to Gordon's and Khazanov's book and in 1942 M-105RA powered Pe-2 was down to 488km/h from 530km/h in 41. But at the sea level speed very equal 463km/h vs 460(1943) - 465 km/h(1944) for M-105PF powered Pe-2.
> 
> Juha



Of course, you're right, Juha. I was too lazy to check out the book, so went for the Source...with foreseeable result 
Unfortunately for Germans, the high speed of their 210s/410s was barely sufficient on East, and on the slow side in West/MTO. Hence (but not only because of that) this thread.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 30, 2012)

The Me 210 had several advantages over the Me 110
1 More fuel and range.
2 Internal Bomb bay to allow high penetration speed.
3 Remote controlled armament meant the rear gunner could engage targets slightly below and to the side. In a turning fight the attacking fighter tends to end up below the line of fire of the defending gunner. Also a Me 110 rear gunner had a hard time aiming the guns while manouvering and he had no hope of reloading due to the G forces. The power driven barbetts of the Me 210 rectified this.
4 Me 210/410 added dive brakes for dive bombing, it also had a bullet proof glass window near the floor to line up the target. The short nose would have allowed the Stuvi 5B computing dive bombing sight with the BZA computing attachment to be used for shallow slide bombing attacks.

Finally the Me 210 could take the bigger DB603 engine.

Of course we never saw a Me 210 with the DB605AS, AM, ASM or DCM engine which were actually lighter and more powerfull than the DB603s used on the Me 410. Nor did we see the more powerfull engines possible on the Me 410 such as the DB603EM, DB603LA or Jumo 213E-1 all of them in the 2200hp range. There is no doubt this aircraft had room for significant performance increases.


As far as the Me 11o is concerned, I believe modern analysis of losses now show that it had at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB and if given tactical freedom might have actually come out in front. The Me 109G2 managed 370mph, which made it slightly faster than any P-40 fielded and certainly faster than aircraft such as the Beaufighter.


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 30, 2012)

Denniss said:


> Do you have a source for this claim ? The Me 210 was a tad heavier but had much cleaner aerodynamics so it should be at least on par with the Bf 110 or faster.



I must admitt not the most reliable one: good old wiki. If you have beter info, don't keep it a secret.


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

> The Me 210 had several advantages over the Me 110
> 1 More fuel and range.
> 2 Internal Bomb bay to allow high penetration speed.
> 3 Remote controlled armament meant the rear gunner could engage targets slightly below and to the side. In a turning fight the attacking fighter tends to end up below the line of fire of the defending gunner. Also a Me 110 rear gunner had a hard time aiming the guns while manouvering and he had no hope of reloading due to the G forces. The power driven barbetts of the Me 210 rectified this.
> ...


The historical Me-210 was competing with the Ju-88A for the light bomber mission. An excellent aircaft for that role but it wasn't designed to replace the Me-110 night fighter. Perhaps that's part of the reason RLM rejected the Me-210C and instead chose to place the Me-110 back into production.

If you want to replace the Me-110 then you need a purpose built night fighter aircraft powered by readily available DB605 engines.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 30, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> The RLM wanted a 110 which carry bombs, internal in fuselage. They redesigned the 110 with a bomb bay, that become the 210.



Wasn't that actually the Messerschmitt Bf 162?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2012)

The historical availability of really powerful engines (1500-2000 HP) in mid-ww2 reduces options for a great twin-engined fighter for the LW. The readily available engines that offer the good power are DB-601E/F (1350 HP in Notleistung authorised from start of 1942) and BMW-801D (authorised for Notleistung from Oct 1942, cca 1700 HP). The BMW-801 is as good as unavailable, though, the Fw-190 and some twin engined bombers having 1st call. The size of Me-210 is rather big, if we want it to be really fast. 
My proposal would be a DH Hornet-sized plane, no bomb bay, no barbettes (maybe just one on top, rear, for day fighter-bomber duties, Shraege musik for night fighting), crew compartment on extreme front (much like at Me-210/410). That should make the speed at some 600 km/h with DB-601F possible (clean); night fighter at some 550-560 km/h. A tad faster once the DB-605A can run at Notleistung, even faster with DB-605AS/ASM (but keep it for the NFs, since LR escorts would've make easy kills anyway).


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

> My proposal would be a DH Hornet-sized plane, no bomb bay, no barbettes (maybe just one on top, rear, for day fighter-bomber duties, Shraege musik for night fighting), crew compartment on extreme front (much like at Me-210/410). That should make the speed at some 600 km/h with DB-601F possible (clean); night fighter at some 550-560 km/h. A tad faster once the DB-605A can run at Notleistung, even faster with DB-605AS/ASM (but keep it for the NFs, since LR escorts would've make easy kills anyway).


Why do you want to repeat the failed Zerstorer experiment?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2012)

Did the concept "fail" or was it overtaken by technology and later Zorester aircraft just didn't look like the early ones?

Try comparing a Bf 110C to a P-47D. The P-47 is heavier (even empty) has more power and carries a heavier load of guns and ammo. Once the P-47 goes to the 370 gallons of internal fuel it even carries more internal fuel than than the 110. 

1934-36 aircraft and engine concepts had trouble keeping pace with 1940-42 aircraft and engine concepts.


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

There were several superior day fighters during 1939. The Ju-87 and Ju-88 were superior light bombers. The Ju-88 was also superior for long range recon. What did the Me-110 excel at besides the unplanned night fighter role?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2012)

You are mixing things up again. The Zerstorer was not supposed to be a dive bomber or a schnellbomber. That it could not do those jobs is as well as planes designed to do those jobs is not a big surprise and no discredit to the design. Those planes could not do the Me 110s job either. Ju 87s even attempting to escort He 111s or Do 17s??? Please. 

The fact that a 2200-2400hp airplane with a 400sq ft wing could not carry as many bombs as as a 2200-2400hp airplane with a 600 sq ft wing isn't exactly a surprise either. Now stick a few guns in the nose of a Ju 88 with 1200hp engines and see how far you get escorting the He 111s or Do 17s.

The Zerstorer's job was to range AHEAD of the bomber fleets and attack enemy airfields and installations and do it beyond the range of single engine fighters. Close escort was not part of the design. The coming of the radar chain rather ruined the chances of surprise. The requirement to use the same radio as the He 111 used dictated the second or third seat. 

The Zerstorer's job was taken over by more powerful single engine aircraft that simply could not have been built at the time it was conceived. I don't know if 1941-44 radios had more range and were simpler to operate for their weight than 1937-1940 radios.


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

You are describing a fighter sweep. A job which could be performed better by the smaller and probably less expensive Fw-187.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2012)

Yep, except once again you only focus on the parts you want to focus on. The Fw 187 could not carry the required radio and radio operator in th swingle seat version. It also would have been limited to 1/3 the ammo for it's cannon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why do you want to repeat the failed Zerstorer experiment?



I'm not trying to do anything like that.
You can read in the post you're quoting that one of the perceived missions is night fighting. A plane that is Hornet-sized has wing area some 10% greater than your favourite, the Fw-187, or the P-38. Ie. the smallest airframe able to carry the crew of two, radar set and decent armament. Further, Germany lacks a long range, high performance fighter. Unless they don't adopt the radical layout (a-la Do-335, or Ki-64), my proposal is their best bet (the unavailability of 2000 Hp engine really bites the Germans from early 1942 on - they've 'dropped the ball', TM Shortround6 ). The long range fighter can do much for Axis cause in MTO and Eastern front, and can be a better fighter-bomber than the SE fighter. A smaller airframe can put the DB-601/605s into a good use; the larger airframe needs DB-603 or BMW-801 (better to install those in Ju-88/-188/Fw-187/Do-217). BTW, 



> The Ju-87 and Ju-88 were superior light bombers.



when the Ju-88 become a light bomber?


----------



## Juha (Mar 30, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> The RLM wanted a 110 which carry bombs, internal in fuselage. They redesigned the 110 with a bomb bay, that become the 210.
> 
> And while Willy did mess up with the 210 - largely because he invested millions in jigs and did not want to waste that money - the RLM was also responsible, ordering the aircraft into production before proper testing was done.



I'd not be too hard on RLM on ordering 210s before proto flew. There was a war going on and 110 was found wanting in heavy fighter role and there was need for a fast bomber. Other nations made similiar decisions, British had done that in several cases already during its hectic rearmament period just before the war and some of their decisions were dismal failures, for ex Botha. RAF found out that it had over 500 dangerously underpowerd and so unuseable torpedobomber/GP a/c and pushed then to the Training Command were they killed several traineers.


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?


----------



## Juha (Mar 30, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> ...As far as the Me 11o is concerned, I believe modern analysis of losses now show that it had at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB and if given tactical freedom might have actually come out in front. The Me 109G2 managed 370mph, which made it slightly faster than any P-40 fielded and certainly faster than aircraft such as the Beaufighter.



Hello Siegfried
while I agree with most you say on 210. I really doubt that 110 had "at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB". 110 did very well during the Battle of France and had then clearly positive exchange rate vs British fighters, but not during the BoB. British might well have learned something from BoF and might have treated 110 more respectfully during the BoB, after all 110 had very powerful front armament in 1940. 110 had a bad start when during the Channel combat period the participating 110s fought under fighter commanders and of course those decided that 109s did the distant cover and free hunting jobs and 110s got the close escort job and suffered accordingly.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Mar 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?



IIRC most 190A fighters were plummed for only one 300 L dt.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

The Me-110C operated under exceptionally difficult circumstances during the BoB. After Me-109s turned back for lack of drop tanks Me-110s were typically outnumbered at least 5 to 1 by RAF fighters that also had the advantage of ground control radar. I doubt any WWII era fighter aircraft could prevail under those circumstances. Even Me-262s had a tough time when the odds got that lop sided.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2012)

> Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?



LW bothered with Ju-88C in the LR day fighter role, even in MTO (to chase Coastal command planes). The transports from Sicily to Tunis were many times being mauled by Allied fighters. Axis bombers from 1942, if they were to operate at really long ranges (within their capabilities), were not to expect any escort provided. 
Fw-190s were being produced, yet the stated above holds true; while 2 x 79 US gal tanks on the Wurger looks like 'almost P-51 with 2x75 US gals', in practice it was not the case.

So yes, I'd say that LW needed the high performer, with long legs.


----------



## Juha (Mar 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Me-110C operated under exceptionally difficult circumstances during the BoB. After Me-109s turned back for lack of drop tanks Me-110s were typically outnumbered at least 5 to 1 by RAF fighters that also had the advantage of ground control radar. I doubt any WWII era fighter aircraft could prevail under those circumstances. Even Me-262s had a tough time when the odds got that lop sided.



IIRC LW bombers in daytime in 40 over GB usually operated inside 109 range and British CH radars didn't "see" behind, only forward, so when LW clanes crossed the GB coast they disapeared from CH radar screens and the tracking of them was the duty of the Observer Corps, later known as the Royal Observer Corps, so when the 109s turned back, usually with the bombers, they were not under radar surveilance. And I would like to know your source to that 1:5.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

Zerstorer Gruppe
A history of V/(Z)LG I 1939 - 1941
Ludwig von Eimannsberger


----------



## Juha (Mar 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> Zerstorer Gruppe
> A history of V/(Z)LG I 1939 - 1941
> Ludwig von Eimannsberger



Hello Dave
Thanks for the info!

IIRC V./(Z)LG 1 was the worst suffering 110 Gruppe during the BoB. Haven't read the book, so on what the writer based the claim?

Juha


----------



## DonL (Mar 31, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Siegfried
> while I agree with most you say on 210. I really doubt that 110 had "at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB". 110 did very well during the Battle of France and had then clearly positive exchange rate vs British fighters, but not during the BoB. British might well have learned something from BoF and might have treated 110 more respectfully during the BoB, after all 110 had very powerful front armament in 1940. 110 had a bad start when during the Channel combat period the participating 110s fought under fighter commanders and of course those decided that 109s did the distant cover and free hunting jobs and 110s got the close escort job and suffered accordingly.
> 
> Juha



Hello Juha,


after Christer Bergstroms Book Luftstrid över kanalen (2006). In english Battle of Britain (2007)
An analys about Bf 109, Bf 110, Spitfire and Hurricane at BoB.


[+]Bf-109 squadrons achieved 815 kills to ~534 losses= kill ratio 1,52 zu 1
[+]Bf-110 squadrons achieved 407 kills to ~196 losses= kill ratio 2,07 zu 1

[+]Spitfire: 550 achieved kills to 329 losses - kill ratio 1,7 zu 1
[+]Hurricane: 750 achieved kills to 603 losses - kill ratio 1,2 zu 1

Note: The mission of the german fighters was first to hunt/fight british fighters, the mission of the british fighters was first to fight the german bomber.

Note from Bergstrom:
When used as a high altitude escort (Bf 110), not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories.
Long range and an extra pair of eyes was also helpful in air battle, the range enabling to wait for the right moment to strike and the extra pair of eyes increasing the situational awareness of the pilot in an air battle. Wrongly used as a close bomber escort the disadvantages with slow acceleration and climb in comparison with the Spitfire and Hurricane negated the Bf 110s strengths, which was also proven by high losses on several such instances.

Note from Bergstrom:
Bergstrom discussed the significance of the data analysis, including the difficulties, whether Bf-109 and Bf-110 and Spitfire and Hurricane were correctly identified each of the reports. But he comes to the conclusion that at least 25-30% of all losses by the RAF must originate with the Bf-110 armed groups, so that the data structure can be mapped correctly.

The complete book based on primary sources and the datas are not claims but confirmed kills/losses from primary sources.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Brita...239325&sr=1-21

Edit:

As all know I'm not a fan of the Zerstoerer concept and especially the Bf 110/210/410 aircrafts. But till 1940/1941 the Bf 110 was an equal match to the british fighters if it could play her good parts.
No close cover missions and the possibility to attack from altitude.

I think with the FW 190 and the Ju88 there was no real role for the Zerstoerer concept, so to my opinion the FW 187 was the better alternative, because it was the much better fighter (long range fighter), with the possibility to carry a heavy armament and light bombs!
To me the fighter performance is much more important then the heavy armament, because the Ju88 and the FW190 could compensate a not built Bf110/210/410. But nothing could compensate till 1944 a long range FW 187 fighter.


----------



## Juha (Mar 31, 2012)

Hello Don
Well, having argued with Christer many times and knowing that when he tried to argue how accurate 109 pilots claims were he can argue “The twin-engine Me 110 crews with their rear gunners were just as notorious for huge overclaims as any bomber crews of any air force.” On the other hand when arguing that 110s were very effective he usually gave only 110 claims and FC losses forgeting to mention that there had been also 109s around and claiming victories. On the top of all that he had made claims like this: “Cat. 3 is an immediate total destroyed, e.g. missing; Cat. 2 is severely damaged beyond repair and scrapped, i.e. also a total loss.)” So I really don’t take his arguments very seriously.

I don't have anything against 110 and had thought from 70s that it was better heavy fighter than many books in English claim and as I have earlier wrote: "...during early combats in North Africa Vokes filter Hurricane Mk Is and Bf 110Cs/Ds fought a draw, if in their combats there were winners they were usually those who saw their opponents first.

Against Spits 110s were clearly more underdogs but the combats were not necessary entirely one-sided- On 8 Oct 43 7 Spit Mk Vs from 453 Sqn fought against 8 Bf 110G-2s from II./ZG 1 SW of Scilly Islands, end result was 5 110s and 2 Spits lost. [FlyPast 2/97 pp. 42-43]"

In this site Nikademus has given info on later combats and clearly Hurricanes later got upper had as did P-40s, P-38s and to my surprise also Beaufighter, but there was very few 110 vs Beau combats in NA, Beau won 2:4.

Juha


----------



## DonL (Mar 31, 2012)

Thank you Juha for this interesting post.

I have read parts of Bergstroms Book through a friend and at the internet he was quoted as a good and serious reasearcher but after your post I must qualify this new.

I'm also no fan of the Bf 110 and I agree with your summary about the Bf 110 and so my argumentation to built the Fw 187 after BoB instead of the Bf 110 get much stronger.
As I said above with the FW 190, FW 187 and Ju88 the Zerstorer concept is obsolete after BoB/1940, simply because their is no role or mission that the Zerstoerer can do better then the other aircrafts.


----------



## davebender (Mar 31, 2012)

Amen.

Me-210 development was still in the early stages during the summer of 1940. That's when RLM needs to reassess what they actually need based on recent combat experience. And what they need is a purpose built night fighter aircraft powered by readily available DB601/DB605 engines to replace Me-110s and Do-215s currently performing that mission.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2012)

DonL said:


> Hello Juha,
> 
> 
> after Christer Bergstroms Book Luftstrid över kanalen (2006). In english Battle of Britain (2007)
> ...


 


DonL said:


> Thank you Juha for this interesting post.
> 
> I have read parts of Bergstroms Book through a friend and at the internet he was quoted as a good and serious reasearcher but after your post I must qualify this new.
> 
> ...



So what is it: Zerstoerer concept works (Bf-110s fly high fast, on long ranges, dive on defenders, pull up repeat if needed, extra pair of eyes is beneficial over enemy airspace*; it is well suited as a bomber destroyer), or Zerstoerer concept does not work? What do we call a Fw-187 (hypothetical - the one with DB-601s)? What part of the blame should be pointed against the concept, vs. the execution of the concept (= Bf-110 in that role)?

*think I've just described the P-47/-51/-38, obviously without that extra pair of the eyes


----------



## DonL (Mar 31, 2012)

> So what is it: Zerstoerer concept works (Bf-110s fly high fast, on long ranges, dive on defenders, pull up repeat if needed, extra pair of eyes is beneficial over enemy airspace*; it is well suited as a bomber destroyer), or Zerstoerer concept does not work? What do we call a Fw-187 (hypothetical - the one with DB-601s)? What part of the blame should be pointed against the concept, vs. the execution of the concept (= Bf-110 in that role)?
> 
> *think I've just described the P-47/-51/-38, obviously without that extra pair of the eyes



To me tomo pauk, the FW 187 is more heavy fighter then Zerstoerer! Clearly the FW 187 had much more fighter performance then the Bf 110 and was equal in climb, dive, roll rate and level speed to the one engine fighters. The compromise was, that the FW 187 was smaler and had not the possibility of such heavy armament and the payload was a littlebit less compare to the Bf 110, but much better then single engine fighters of these days.

If you built a single seat or two seat FW 187 is counting on the missions. You have the opportunity two built both, but both aircraft had much more fighter performance as the Messerschmitt aircrafts.
For example for sea missions you are in need for a two seater.


----------



## davebender (Mar 31, 2012)

What combat aircraft was Focke Wulf building prior to mid 1941? Building the Fw-187 from 1939 onward would give them experience at mass production of fighter aircraft.

If desired the plant can be converted to Fw-190 production during 1942. However I think a Fw-187 powered by DB601E engines would fly rings around a Fw-190A powered by the early model BMW801 engine. In a fair competition it might be the Fw-190A program that gets canceled.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2012)

How would the Fw-187 fared as a night fighter - (the successor of the Bf-110 need to beat the 110 itself in that role)? Requirements including: second crew member accommodation, comprehensive electronics set, Schraege Musik, heavy frontal firepower, decent fuel tankage.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 31, 2012)

We'll never truely know I fear since the glue never worked well for long, even without the glue factory being destroyed in a raid. 
But I imagine it could've been utilised much like its allied name-sake...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2012)

You are thinking of Ta-154 Moskito?


----------



## cimmex (Mar 31, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> We'll never truely know I fear since the glue never worked well for long, even without the glue factory being destroyed in a raid.
> But I imagine it could've been utilised much like its allied name-sake...



Fw 187 was a metal plane, Ta 154 was wooden
cimmex


----------



## davebender (Mar 31, 2012)

The historical Fw-187A fuselage had a 2nd crew member but was probably too small for for a bunch of radar equipment. We can only speculate as to whether the fuselage interior could be enlarged enough for a night fighter. I suspect Dr. Tank could get the job done if RLM provided funding. 

Firepower wasn't an issue. Except for the 3cm Mk 101 cannon the Fw-187A carried the same nose mounted weapons as the Me-110C. 2 x 2cm MG/FF cannon plus 4 x 7.92mm machineguns.


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 31, 2012)

Cheers Cimmex... that little twin tank escaped my memory


----------



## Denniss (Mar 31, 2012)

The Ta 154 evolved from the Fw 187 just it had to be converted to use wood for many parts. Tank may have developed a larger Fw 187 or all-metal Ta 154 by 1942 if properly tasked and funded by RLM.


----------



## davebender (Mar 31, 2012)

Looks like a completely different aircraft to me. What design features did the Ta-154 share with the Fw-187?


----------



## davebender (Apr 1, 2012)

The Me-109Z could possibly succeed the Me-110 as a night fighter. The radar operator would sit in the starboard cockpit, which could be rearranged a bit. Put four MG151/20 cannon in the center wing section.

I don't know if this is the best solution but the post-war P-82 Twin Mustang has proven that the concept will work.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 1, 2012)

Ju 88 G-6 was seen as nearly perfect night fighter, Do 335 types were nearing completetion, even Me 262 types were flying around. So why bother to develop another one ?


----------



## davebender (Apr 1, 2012)

Me-110 successor was designed during 1939 to 1940 and perfected during 1941 to 1942.

There were no DB603, Jumo 213, BMW801 or jet engines during 1940 (prototypes excepted). That's why 1940 Germany must design a successor to the Me-110 night fighter that will be powered by readily available DB601 or Jumo 211 engines.

Historically RLM funded development of the Me-109Z durng 1942. Same time frame that RLM cancelled funding for the Me-210C.

If RLM cancels the Me-210 two years early (i.e. 1940) it triggers development of something else as a Me-110 night fighter replacement. That replacement could be the Me-109Z. Early prototypes would be based on the Me-109E rather then the Me-109F. Production aircraft (if any) would still be based on the Me-109F or Me-109G.


----------



## zoomar (Apr 2, 2012)

The Bf-109Z is a creative suggestion that uses lots of existing jigs and tools and could have an excellent heavy fighter with or without an extra crew position. Likewize, the Do-335 might fit the bill. I suspect the Fw-187 would not have the growth potential. It was designed as a high performance single seater and the two seat variant always looked to me like an attempt to keep the project alive by squeezing a second crew member into a plane that was never designed for more than one. Had the Ta-154 not had the glue problems, it could have been an outstanding plane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2012)

Wonder how good/bad the metallic, instead of wooden Ta-154 would've performed? Seem like the smallest feasible package for all the NF requirements (2 crew members, radar other electronics, hefty punch).


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2012)

The 109Z looks like a solution in search of a question. While it might have made a decent bomber interceptor with heavy armament, any attempt to stretch it to other roles sound like a desperate salesman's pitch. It was a small airplane for a twin. Little bigger than a normal P-51. It gets it's brochure range by using the second cockpit area as a fuel tank so any hypothetical roles that require a second crew member ( like night fighter) bring you back to a range/endurance only a bit better than a normal 109. The wing loading certainly puts it in the boom and zoom category. Landing and take off would certainly be interesting too.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 2, 2012)

zoomar said:


> The Bf-109Z is a creative suggestion that uses lots of existing jigs and tools and could have an excellent heavy fighter with or without an extra crew position. Likewize, the Do-335 might fit the bill. I suspect the Fw-187 would not have the growth potential. It was designed as a high performance single seater and the two seat variant always looked to me like an attempt to keep the project alive by squeezing a second crew member into a plane that was never designed for more than one. Had the Ta-154 not had the glue problems, it could have been an outstanding plane.



Regarding the Fw 187 I think it would have been possible to make it into an effective night fighter as the Sea Hornet NF 21 night fighter proved which had as slim a fuselage as the Fw 187.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 2, 2012)

A metal Ta 154 would have been lighter, wonder how much though.


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2012)

*Aircraft empty weight.* From various sources.
3,700kg. Fw-187.
5,089kg. Me-110G4
5,440kg. Me-210C.
6,600kg. Ta-154A1.
8,560kg. Ju-88C.
11,200kg. He-219A7.

I think the 6,600kg Ta-154 is at the upper end of the weight scale for acceptable performance with 1,350hp DB601E or 1,340hp Jumo 211F engines. DB603 engines would entirely change the equation. But if you have DB603 engines then you may as well produce the Ju-88G.


----------



## RAGMAN (Dec 18, 2012)

i always wondered how the 110 would have performed with the bmw engines (from the fw 190 ) i dont know if the body had to be redesigned for the different engines though


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2012)

By 1944 versions of the DB605 engine were producing 1,800 hp. That should be enough for the relatively lightweight Me-110 airframe.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 18, 2012)

The BMW 801 would not be suitable for the Bf 110 - CoG would move too far forward. The required ballast to balance this out would neglect all performance gains.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2012)

Why the CoG would've moved too far forward? The 801, while heavier, was shorter than DB-605.

Hi, Dave,
In 1943, the BMW-801 was the German engine featuring both high power and reliability.


----------



## davebender (Dec 19, 2012)

> 1943, the BMW-801 was the German engine featuring both high power and reliability.


Only because RLM refused to produce DB603 engines on a large scale.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 19, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Why the CoG would've moved too far forward? The 801, while heavier, was shorter than DB-605.


If you look at images you'll see how closely attached to or even partly integrated into the wing the DB 601/605 installation was. A BMW 801 would have to be atached more forward. Even the Ju 88 had some CoG problems with the 801 as it was not originally designed for such an engine.


----------



## stona (Dec 20, 2012)

The DB 603 was ear marked for other aircraft than the Bf 110. 
The Bf 110 was planned to soldier on with the DB 605 until production would cease in the second half of 1944. We know that this didn't happen,but the RLM planners who made the decision early in 1943 didn't.
Steve


----------



## Denniss (Dec 20, 2012)

For the planned Bf 110H the DB 605E was envisaged (based on 605DB engine). At last it would have gotten a lot more power and altitude capability.


----------



## davebender (Dec 20, 2012)

That's just another way of saying RLM didn't procure enough DB603 engines to meet demand of aircraft manufacturers.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 21, 2012)

stona said:


> The DB 603 was ear marked for other aircraft than the Bf 110.


 


davebender said:


> That's just another way of saying RLM didn't procure enough DB603 engines to meet demand of aircraft manufacturers.



Isn't that like saying the MoD didn't procure enough Merlin 61s to power a new version of the Hurricane?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2012)

Denniss said:


> If you look at images you'll see how closely attached to or even partly integrated into the wing the DB 601/605 installation was. A BMW 801 would have to be atached more forward. Even the Ju 88 had some CoG problems with the 801 as it was not originally designed for such an engine.



Agreed with much you've said. 
Plenty of people (me included) often forget that Bf-110 was initially fielded with light Jumo-210 engines, the installation of DB-601 being counter-balanced with radiator installed behind CoG.


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2012)

The figures for the percentage of expenditure on flak as a percentage of total military expenditure for 1941 that I quoted come from the USSBS. You'll need to look at Volume 3 "Effects of Strategic Bombing On the German War Economy." The data is towards the end,my page reference for the 2nd (1947) edition is 280 but I can't promise that is correct and I'm not checking now!

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 22, 2012)

unlucky online is available the edition of 1945, About Volume 3 - The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy - War Archives Management System

on page 295 of pdf, table 113 "percentage distribution of the production of weapons and ammunition......" this is well different from total military expenditure
the AA in the weapons go from 14% of 1st quarter of 1940 to 30% of 1st quarter of 1945, in the ammunitons from 18% to 28%


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 22, 2012)

Excellent find, Vincenzo. Thanks for the link, this looks like a very ambitious project to collect and share historical documents!


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2012)

I've replied in this thread.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-bf-110-obsolete-night-fighter-35117-4.html

As I got my wires crossed between two seperate threads earlier.

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 24, 2012)

There is nothing the Me-210 can do which the Ju-288 can´t. There are MANY things, the Ju-288 can do which the Me-210 can´t.
Stop production of the Me-210/-410 and Bf-110 all along with Ju-88A´s, He-111´s and He-177´s and replace them in production by the uniform Ju-288A model.
The Ju-288 and the derated version (cleared for 1,850 hp, 1 hour cruise instead of 2,450 hp designed 10 min take off power) of the Jumo-222A1 and -B1 were ready to go into serial production by mid 1941. A whole factory close to Vienna had been tooled for it´s mass production. The dropping of this engine -along with the Ju-288A was a political decision, not a technical or industrial one to crush the dominance of Junkers.
Even without the Jumo-222, the Ju-288 could have been propelled by other and more readily aviable engines:
Jumo-211J (top speed = 560 km/h, cruise = 515 km/h, take off roll 1300m to clear 20m)
BMW-801G (top speed = 575 km/h, cruise = 540 km/h, take off roll 1200m to clear 20m) -not aviable in quantity
BMW-801A (top speed = 550 km/h, cruise = 510 km/h, take off roll 1230m to clear 20m) 
Db-605A (top speed = 565 km/h, cruise = 518 km/h, take off roll 1250m to clear 20m)
Db-601E/F (top speed = 545 km/h, cruise = 505 km/h, take off roll 1340m to clear 20m)
Db-603A (top speed =590 km/h, cruise = 550 km/h, take off roll 1150m to clear 20m) -not aviable in quantity
Jumo-213

The suggestion is to use Jumo-211J or BMW-801 engines initially, lighten up the airframe a bit (getting rid of the outer wingtanks and limit payload to 3 ton max until a more powerful engine becomes aviable) then switch to BMW-801G or Db-603A to restore all range and load taking capabilities (5 ton max. bombload) and finally introduce the Jumo-213E/F to get a 600 km/h bomber.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 24, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> How would you run the successor show?



By discarding the whole "Zerstörer" idea, that failed already in the Battle of Britain.
Single engined fighters were capable of similar range, as the A6M and the later P-51 proved.
Ju-88 was better night fighter (because the endurance) than the Bf-110.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

Timppa said:


> By discarding the whole "Zerstörer" idea, that failed already in the Battle of Britain.



Not a bad idea with the benefit of hindsight 

The RLM/Luftwaffe just wouldn't let it go. They did adjust the criteria and,late on,start using the terms heavy fighter and destroyer interchangeably..

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Dec 24, 2012)

Ju-288 was somewhat large and (probably) expensive for use as a night fighter aircraft.

Bomber is an entirely different matter but that wasn't a Me-110 role.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 25, 2012)

The Ju288 grew in size with the -B and -C model. The -A model was the same size as the He-219 nightfighter, and considerably smaller than the Do-217J /-N nightfighter. As a matter of fact, the Ju388 was developed into a potent nightfighter despite beeing considerably larger than the Ju-288A.


----------



## davebender (Dec 25, 2012)

He-219 was also a rather large and expensive aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ju-288 and Do-317 were fabulous level bombers. But I'm not convinced they are the best choice for a night fighter aircraft. 

Me-110 was fine through 1942. After that DB603 or Jumo 213 powered Ju-88 was an ideal compromise between low cost, aerial performance and adequate interior space for all the new electronic equipment.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> Ju-288 was somewhat large and (probably) expensive for use as a night fighter aircraft.
> 
> Bomber is an entirely different matter but that wasn't a Me-110 role.



The Bf110 was just a diversion of resources; the Ju88 was really capable of all of that and more. The only thing the Ju88 couldn't do that the Bf110 was tasked for was that of long range escort, which brings up back to the Fw187. 
As it was the Ju88 and its successors should have been the only bomber that Germany fielded: the Do 217, Bf110/Me210/Me410, He177/He277 (the mechanical failure that it was), Ju290/390, and later He111 were all redundant to the German war effort once the Ju88A4 comes online. After that all production should have been focused on the Ju88/188/288/388, though really there should have been no He177/277s produced because they were a waste of resources from 1942 on. 

Full throttle Ju88 and its derivatives production was the only option from 1941 on. The Ju87 was still necessary, to be replaced with the Hs129 and Fw190 ground attack version from 1943 on.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 25, 2012)

Double Post.


----------



## davebender (Dec 25, 2012)

Ju-88 needed DB603 engines to reach it's full potential. Unfortunately (for Germany) RLM cancelled funding for that engine program during 1937 to 1940. Otherwise a DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter might have entered service during 1941 which would have allowed Me-110 to entirely end production during 1942.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> Ju-88 needed DB603 engines to reach it's full potential. Unfortunately (for Germany) RLM cancelled funding for that engine program during 1937 to 1940. Otherwise a DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter might have entered service during 1941 which would have allowed Me-110 to entirely end production during 1942.



By 1942 I don't think the DB603 is necessary for the Ju88 to be competitive, but by 1943 you are right. Still even with the DB605 and upgraded Jumos/BMW 801s it was very useful. I think it matters for the Ju188s in 1943 when the Mosquito is really becoming an issue.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> Ju-88 needed DB603 engines to reach it's full potential. Unfortunately (for Germany) RLM cancelled funding for that engine program during 1937 to 1940. Otherwise a DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter might have entered service during 1941 which would have allowed Me-110 to entirely end production during 1942.



By 1942 I don't think the DB603 is necessary for the Ju88 to be competitive, but by 1943 you are right. Still even with the DB605 and upgraded Jumos/BMW 801s it was very useful. I think it matters for the Ju188s in 1943 when the Mosquito is really becoming an issue.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> He-219 was also a rather large and expensive aircraft.



It was also probably Germany's most competitive night fighter and a project that Milch really did try to kill on more than one occassion 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 26, 2012)

Dave,

According to the findings of Prof. Budraß, the Ju288A was less expansive and less demanding on spare ressources than was the Ju-88A in mass production. Details of production habe been much improved on the -288. Components from both, fuselage and wing are serially produced Ju88 elements. Noteworty was a significantly decreased degree of handcraftmanship required in the production run. Working time per unit was 18% less compared to 1941 Ju88. Hardly a very expansive airplane. It may have been less stellar performing with Jumo-211 or BMW-801 but it was an airplane capable to cruise at 300 mph outbound with very good endurance and payload options. Much better than the Ju-88.
It was also more maneuverable thanks to new Hirth flaps and ergonomical because of the fighter cockpit.
The fuselage could be modified for NF. Replace the two barbettes with units each for Schräge Musik and turn the gunners position to a radar operators one with front mounted radars.


----------



## davebender (Dec 26, 2012)

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
By the end of 1942 the Ju-88 airframe cost only about 140,000 RM. Dirt cheap for an aircraft of that size. Less then the cost of American made P-38 and P-47 fighter aircraft. 

Ju-288 never entered mass production so we cannot know for sure. But I would bet against Junkers delivering Ju-288 airframes for less then 140,000 RM each.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2012)

I cannot comment on prize per unit in RM currancy for the Ju-288, since only prototypes were buildt (except for a single serial C-1 delivered prior to the stop caused by the Jägernotprogramm in 1944).
But what i can comment about is that spare ressources beeing more effectively distributed within the Ju-288 and Jumo-222 program than they were distributed in the existing Jumo-211 and Ju-88 program. This has been commented by Otto Marder in dezember 1939 in the minutes to the stand of development Jumo-222, while Hertel commented to the RLM for reduced worktime hours for unit production of the Ju-288A compared to the Ju-88A in 1941. This was before Milch´s decision in august to split up engine and airframe development.

The Jumo-222 A/B first run in july 1939 and attained 2000 hp in march 1940 on the testbench (Brandner in decembre 1939 believed that 2000 hp would be attainable in february 1940, not that far off from schedule).
Indeed, the Jumo-222 was plagued by subsequent changes of the requirements with drastic increases in demands of power from the part of Milch /RLM. Milch changed the original RLM requirement for power rating of the Jumo-222 A/B from 1900 hp to 2500 in july 1941 (just when it was cleared for 2000 hp after passing the 100 hour test run with 2000 hp continous in spring 1941) and then to 3000 hp in 1942 (just half a month before it was cleared for 2500 hp) in order to justify the disconnection between Ju-288 airframe and Jumo-222 engines. Then Milch choosed the Jumo-213 to be preferred in development and production as R&D of the Jumo-222 to be shifted to Dessau to delay the Jumo-222 even further. The Jumo-222E/F was finally certified cleared for 3000 hp max continuous rating late in 1944. It however, could have gone into serial production as version Jumo-222A/B with the original, 2000 hp rating in the already tooled up and set up production lines at Vienna Ostmark facory in december 1941, which had a legend production capacity of 1000 Jumo-222A engines / month under full working load. Production of other factories didn´t even had to be reduced. Changing requirements meant that only small series production was commenced for testing and other purposes, one of the reasons for low Jumo-222 production output (totalling ~300 engines) was that there are no airframes designed for this engine!

Even without the Jumo-222. The Ju-288V-3 alone logged more than 100 flight hours with BMW-801A before the end of 1941. I would rather have the Ju-288 than the Ju-188/388, even if it comes only with Jumo-211 or BMW-801A.


----------



## davebender (Dec 28, 2012)

I agree. 

However you are talking about replacing the Ju-188 level bomber rather then the Me-110 night fighter.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2012)

I am not sure why it technically should be impossible to replace the Ju-88A NF derivates with a Ju-288A NF derivate in mid´43 (replacing Bf-110G all along with them). They are both similarely sized (the Ju-88G is actually a bit larger than the more compact Ju-288A:

Ju-88C1
2 x Jumo-211J (1,400 hp each)
height: 5.07m
span: 20.08 m 
length: 15.55m (length with radar 16.50m)
wing area: 54,70m²
weight (normal, internal fuel, no external stores or internal bombs): 11.8 tons
max cruise speed: 270 mp/h (radar antennas take away 19 mph A/C speed = 251 mph)
max. emergancy speed: 317 mp/h (radar antennas take away 22 mph A/C top speed = 295 mph)
take off roll: 2,340 ft

Ju-288A with Jumo-211 engines
2 x Jumo-211J (1,400 hp each)
height: 4.15m
span: 18.29m
length: 15.89m (length with radar 16.84m)
wing area: 60.0 m²
weight (normalm internal fuel, no external stores or internal bombs): 13.9 tons
max cruise speed: 320 mp/h (radar fit takes away est. ~22 mph A/C top speed = 298 mph)
max. emergancy speed: 348 mp/h (radar fit takes away est. ~24 mph A/C top speed = 324 mph)
take off roll / lift off: 2,950 ft

The Ju-288A with proposed Jumo-222A engines:
2 x Jumo-211J (2,000 hp each in -A1 version certified 1941)
height: 4.15m
span: 18.29m
length: 15.89m (length with radar 16.84m)
wing area: 60.0 m²
weight (normalm internal fuel, no external stores or internal bombs): 14.5 tons
max cruise speed: 351 mp/h (radar fit takes away est. ~24 mph A/C top speed = 327 mph)
max. emergancy speed: 401 mp/h (radar fit takes away est. ~28 mph A/C top speed = 373 mph)
take off roll / lift off: 1,970 ft


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree.
> 
> However you are talking about replacing the Ju-188 level bomber rather then the Me-110 night fighter.


Not sure why the Ju288 cannot be both a bomber and night fighter especially if it gets the DB603 and its later upgrades.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 28, 2012)

Me I steal like the Ar 440.


----------



## davebender (Dec 29, 2012)

I hadn't realized they were so close in size. Guess I should have checked specifications. 

How did Junkers manage to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-288 yet were unable to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-88?


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> I hadn't realized they were so close in size. Guess I should have checked specifications.
> 
> How did Junkers manage to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-288 yet were unable to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-88?



They didn't. AFAIK they used external bomb racks, just like the Ju88.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> I hadn't realized they were so close in size. Guess I should have checked specifications.
> 
> How did Junkers manage to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-288 yet were unable to put a decent size bomb bay on Ju-88?



They didn't. AFAIK they used external bomb racks, just like the Ju88.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 29, 2012)

This is not quite correct. The Ju288a used an internal enclosed bombbay dimensioned to fit a torpedo or three SC-1000 or two of the largest sized bombs (2500 kg SC-2500 ones IIRC) with various options to accomodate different sets of 50-, 80-, 250-, and 500 kg Bombs. 
I have somewhere the files for it. _edit: added it below._
External racks existed, too (primarely intended for 900ltr drop tanks or guided weapons) but the bombbay was primary in the function. Even the biggest bombs fitted in it (note the text: "ohne Umrüsten")





Consequently, neither the fuselage nor the bombbay was much changed in the Ju-288B, but the cockpit was.


It was Hertel's task to formulate a space and production optimised fuselage for the Ju-288a and by all accounts, he succeeded in this target. the fuselage was only 3ft wide but about 6ft tall and not circular in diameter. It could have been more low drag smoothed but not more space efficient.
Hertel came from Heinkel, he had nothing to do with the Ju88 design process.


----------



## cimmex (Dec 29, 2012)

Interesting site about the Ju288 in German only but with a pic showing the bomb bay
FlugzeugLorenz: Junkers Ju 288


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> They didn't. AFAIK they used external bomb racks, just like the Ju88.



The 288 had an internal bomb bay.



cimmex said:


> Interesting site about the Ju288 in German only but with a pic showing the bomb bay
> FlugzeugLorenz: Junkers Ju 288



Great site, thanks!


----------



## delcyros (Dec 31, 2012)

Some more details about the various Ju-288a data aviable.
There are, in part, conflicting data aviable on the net. 

Ju-288 (initial proposal, also termed Junkers EF-73).
This design was closer to the Ju-88A. It had the same rear fuselage with the Ju-88A tail section and a smaller wing. Two JUMO-222A (2 x 1840 KW) were proposed to drive the airplane. Under development from 1937 to 1940. Another version was proposed to be propelled by two JUMO-224A Diesel with ultra long range (marine purposes). No prototypes.
Span: 15.70m
wing area: 48.0m²
speed: 675 km/h at 8,000m
internal bombload: 4,000kg (=2 x SC2000)
max. take off weight: 14,600kg
Range figures as given by Junkers appear to be to high (the RLM concerns about this and I guess they were right in their suspect) and are not reproduced here until more data is aviable

Ju-288A (scheduled for serial production late in 1941, initial variant, studied 1939 to 1941)
The design had to be changed owing to a larger requirement of internal bombload from the RLM. Driven by two derated JUMO-222A/B (2 x 1440 KW) but other engines were under consderation, too (see above). The Ju-288V1 was buildt according to these requirements, the Ju-288V5 was buildt as a full pre production prototype, driven by JUMO-222A/B.
Span: 18.29m
wing area: 54.0m²
speed: 660 km/h at 8000m
bombload: 5000kg (=2 x SC 2500 internal)
max. take off weight: 15600kg
range: 3850km

Ju-288A modified (scheduled for serial production late in 1941, modified variant, studied 1941 to 1942)
The design had to be changed owing to a larger requirement of internal bombload from the RLM. Driven by two derated JUMO-222A/B (2 x 1440 KW) but other engines were under consideration, too (see above). The big difference to the Ju-288A above is the bigger wingsize. The Ju-288V2-V4 were buildt as prototypes following these specifiations.
span: 20.06m
wing area: 60.0 m²
speed: 645 km/h at 8000km
bombload: 5000kg (two SC2500 internal) (+ 1200kg external drop tanks or +1000kg external bombs, optional)
max take off weight: 17300kg
range: 3600km

Now the RLM changed once more requirements, calling for an even larger endurance, requiring yet another, even bigger wing (span= 22.0m, wing area = 64.0m², beeing represented by the Ju-288V6-V8 and Ju-288V12, leading to the Ju-288B design stage) and eventually a fourth crewmember (Ju-288V9-11) in a wider cockpit. Simultaneously, the power requirement for the JUMO-222A/B was increased to 1844 KW, which -as it was hoped, would compensate for the larger airplane.
I was somehow suprised to see that they required so much larger payloads from the initial proposal EF-73. Even driven with only 1044 KW JUMO-211J instead, the A/C should be fast (~580 km/h) and nimble and represents (in my eyes) a more capable plane than Bf-110 and Ju-88/-188 with regard to utility and load taking vs range capability.


----------



## davebender (Dec 31, 2012)

The relatively small EF-73 might make a good night fighter. Ju-288A would be the bomber. They are different enough that, if produced, they should probably have different model designations.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 4, 2013)

For a plane capable of effectively fighting the NF Mossies it should to have quite a speed advantage over the latter. So incorporating a low drag laminar flow wing would had been obviously of use.
But in none of the aircraft mentioned it had been done?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2013)

spicmart said:


> For a plane capable of effectively fighting the NF Mossies it should to have quite a speed advantage over the latter. So incorporating a low drag laminar flow wing would had been obviously be of use.
> But in none of the aircraft mentioned it had been done?



Probably need to not be so big and heavy either....

The He 219 empty weight was about the same as the Mossie's max weight....


----------



## spicmart (Jan 4, 2013)

I wonder if the Germans are lacking knowledge and research as far as laminar wings are concerned. And not all new or late war fighter designs sport such a wing. Pros and cons?


----------



## davebender (Jan 4, 2013)

WWII era night fighter aircraft typically don't turn burn. They stalk prey and open fire from point blank range. 

High speed and excellent high altitude performance are necessary for catching Path Finder Mosquitoes. A specialized mission that has little in common with shooting down enemy bombers and night fighter aircraft.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 4, 2013)

Hadn't thought about that.
But to achieve more of a speed advantage against the PFMs, that's where the benefits of a laminar flow wing would come into play, doesn't it?


----------



## davebender (Jan 4, 2013)

Me-209 II had a laminar flow wing. Fw-190D9 did not and they won the production contract. So apparently there's nothing magical about using a laminar flow wing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2013)

Fw-190D-9 was a straightforward modification of the plane that is already in mass production, while the 209 was a brand new airplane, that was giving nothing to justify the production. That might be the explanation about the decision what to produce next?
As for Me-209-II having laminar-flow wing - that is a myth as it was that XP-40Q have it? A plane with a thin, 17 m^2 wing needs Jumo-213A to make 685 km/h - that dos not look like a laminar-flow wing? Not that it was magical, either.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 5, 2013)

I thought that the Me 209II had just kind of a stretched Me 109 wing, so the wing profile should be the same.
Afaik the only Messerschmitt plane that sported a laminar flow wing was the Me 309.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 5, 2013)

A Me 209-II did never exist nor did a Me 209-I. They were both named Me 209 while the first version was propaganda-presented as Bf 109R or Me 109R.
One could call it the Me 209 of '43 or the second incarnation of the Me 209.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 5, 2013)

Don't want to be a smart*ss but for the sake of terminology the '43 machine should rather be called the second plane to have the name Me 209, doesn't it? 
An incarnation would mean that the two are somehow related designs which they are obviously not.
The only commonality is that they were built by the same company.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 6, 2013)

*Me 210 vices*

How can one explain why the flight characteristics are so abysmal from an aerodynamicist's point of view and compare them to other planes'?


----------



## spicmart (Jan 20, 2013)

The engine nacelles of many twin engined aircraft were lengthened and their rear sharpened in the course of their development mostly to improve flight stability.
Examples are the DH98 Mosquito, He 219, F7F etc..
The earlier Fw 187 also had those kind of "streamlined "nacelles whereas those of its later stablemate Ta 154 had a rather blunt rear sections 
One would assume that a later design would benefit from later aerodynamic knowledge. 

So were those initial short engine nacelle tails as good as the later ones from an aerodynamic point of view?
If not so, why had the 154 being a late (wartime) design not sleeker nacelles installed in the first place?

The Messerschmitt twin designs also had blunter nacelle ends.


----------

