# Contenders in German "Bomber A" Program



## Zipper730 (Mar 21, 2020)

I know there was Heinkel's design (P.1041), which became the He.177 Greif; there was Blohm & Voss's P.33; Junkers submitted a design called the EF.61 or EF.71 (forgot which), and a designation called the Ju-85, which despite generally being a Ju-88 with a twin-tail, appeared to have had several iterations, or the designation was used more than once.









There was also at least two proposals from Messerschmitt/BFW, and an unspecified Henschel project that I know of (I asked earlier today from a person who's a member of Secret Projects): I'm curious if anybody has additional data on the matter.



 Airframes


 davparlr
, 

 drgondog
, 

 Elmas
, 

 GrauGeist
, 

 GregP
, 

 Micdrow
, 
M
 MIflyer
, 

 MiTasol
, 

 Shinpachi

S
 Shortround6
, 

 tomo pauk


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 21, 2020)

The book "Luftwaffe Over America" describes and discusses various German long range bomber projects.

My conclusion was that had they known that the prototype B-29 was flying in late 1942 they would have crapped their pants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 22, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> The book "Luftwaffe Over America" describes and discusses various German long range bomber projects.


Do you have any details from the book? I can add it to my list, for the time being.


> My conclusion was that had they known that the prototype B-29 was flying in late 1942 they would have crapped their pants.


Actually, the plans were to use the B-32 over Europe. Still, with a pressurized cabin and everything, they probably would have done an equal job shitting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

Not sure if the Germans would have "crapped their pants" as they still held the majority of air superiority in 1942 over Europe with no real Allies fighter on hand to serve as escort.
They also had the Me264 which was comparable to the B-29, but was abandoned for other projects. The Me264's first flight was just a few months after the B-29's first flight in 1942, also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure if the Germans would have "crapped their pants" as they still held the majority of air superiority in 1942 over Europe with no real Allies fighter on hand to serve as escort.
> They also had the Me264 which was comparable to the B-29, but was abandoned for other projects. The Me264's first flight was just a few months after the B-29's first flight in 1942, also.



The difference was that the B-29 took to the air with 4 2,200hp engines, the Me 264 was stuck with 4 1,200hp engines (the Jumo 211). 

The original plan was for the Me 264 to use the 1,750hp Db 603, but they weren't ready in time. The Jumo 211s were replaced by BMW 801s of 1,700hp, with which the aircraft was still underpowered.

Other alternative engines were either not ready or not considered. Such as the Jumo 222 or Db 610.

The latter was probably not considered due to the experience with the He 177, though it appeared to function well enough on the Me 261.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 22, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The difference was that the B-29 took to the air with 4 2,200hp engines, the Me 264 was stuck with . . . . BMW 801s of 1,700hp, with which the aircraft was still underpowered.


And yet it was to have a range that would have eclipsed the B-29 in most any configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

And since the engines were the key issue and weren't remedied in time, the 264 was abandoned.

Which happened to quite a few promising types available to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> And since the engines were the key issue and weren't remedied in time, the 264 was abandoned.
> 
> Which happened to quite a few promising types available to the Luftwaffe.



As well as the priorities changing to fighters.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 22, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> And yet it was to have a range that would have eclipsed the B-29 in most any configuration.



Theoretically.


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 22, 2020)

I think that in mid-1944 it would have been a good idea to take a few of the more senior Luftwaffe pilots we had captured and given them a tour. First go to Grumman on Long Island where they were in a race with NAA at Inglewood to see who could turn out more fighters in a day, usually building around 18 airplanes a day. Then to Republic to look at P-47's and Chance Vought to see F4U's. Then to Goodyear to see their Corsair production and Indiana to see the other P-47 plant, followed by Willow Run to look at a B-24 coming off the line every hour. Then to Nashville to see the new P-38 plant and then Kansas for the B-29 factory, followed by Kansas City for the B-25's. Then to Dallas for the new P-51 plant, followed by Inglewood to see the main NAA plant and Burbank for P-38's followed by B-17 production at Van Nuys and Long Beach. Next go down to San Diego to see more B-24's and Seattle for B-17's and B-29's.

Then send them home via Switzerland or Sweden or Spain, getting there right about 7 June 1944. Let them talk about what they saw.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> I think that in mid-1944 it would have been a good idea to take a few of the more senior Luftwaffe pilots we had captured and given then a tour. First go to Grumman on Long Island where they were in a race with NAA at Inglewood to see who could turn out more fighters in a day, usually building around 18 airplanes a day. Then to Republic to look at P-47's and Chance Vought to see F4U's. Then to Goodyear to see their Corsair production and Indiana to see the other P-47 plant, followed by Willow Run to look at a B-24 coming off the line every hour. Then to Nashville to see the new P-38 plant and then Kansas for the B-29 factory, followed by Kansas City for the B-25's. Then to Dallas for the new P-51 plant, followed by Inglewood to see the main NAA plant and Burbank for P-38's followed by B-17 production at Van Nuys and Long Beach. Next go down to San Diego to see more B-24's and Seattle for B-17's and B-29's.
> 
> Then send them home via Switzerland or Sweden or Spain, getting there right about 7 June 1944. Let them talk about what they saw.



The Gestapo probably would have built a new concentration camp, just for them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> The Gestapo probably would have built a new concentration camp, just for them.


More than likely that a cheaper alternative would have been used...


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> More than likely that a cheaper alternative would have been used...



That's probably more likely.
Late in the war German civilians were put to the guillotine for spreading "allied propaganda", as it was called,
The military would handle the same offense probably with a firing squad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

And if the pilot was a notable figure (such as Rommel was, for example), then they'd be given the choice to "die honorably" and be given a Hero's burial or else...


----------



## Elmas (Mar 22, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> I think that in mid-1944 it would have been a good idea to take a few of the more senior Luftwaffe pilots we had captured and given then a tour. First go to Grumman on Long Island where they were in a race with NAA at Inglewood to see who could turn out more fighters in a day, usually building around 18 airplanes a day. Then to Republic to look at P-47's and Chance Vought to see F4U's. Then to Goodyear to see their Corsair production and Indiana to see the other P-47 plant, followed by Willow Run to look at a B-24 coming off the line every hour. Then to Nashville to see the new P-38 plant and then Kansas for the B-29 factory, followed by Kansas City for the B-25's. Then to Dallas for the new P-51 plant, followed by Inglewood to see the main NAA plant and Burbank for P-38's followed by B-17 production at Van Nuys and Long Beach. Next go down to San Diego to see more B-24's and Seattle for B-17's and B-29's.
> 
> Then send them home via Switzerland or Sweden or Spain, getting there right about 7 June 1944. Let them talk about what they saw.



When the war for Italy was about to start, June 1940, Italo Balbo, the known Italian aviator, was desperate:
_"The Duce has never seen the phone book of New York!"_ very sadly told to his staff.


----------



## Elmas (Mar 22, 2020)

Unfortunately I have not many informations about $-engine Luftwaffe bombers, sorry.
Four engine Luftwaffe bombers are certainly very interesting by the side of the engineering history, but not from the military side...
Certailnly Luftwaffe could not afford things like this:




No aluminium, workforce and general resources to build them.
No gas to operate (and train...) them.
And no skilled crew to man them...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2020)

Elmas said:


> Unfortunately I have not many informations about $-engine Luftwaffe bombers, sorry.
> Four engine Luftwaffe bombers are certainly very interesting by the side of the engineering history, but not from the military side...
> Certailnly Luftwaffe could not afford things like this:
> 
> ...


That picture was probably taken after the war in Europe was over, but think if it wasn't, what effect it might have had on the German's moral if the allies had sent it to them.


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I know there was Heinkel's design (P.1041), which became the He.177 Greif; there was Blohm & Voss's P.33; Junkers submitted a design called the EF.61 or EF.71 (forgot which), and a designation called the Ju-85, which despite generally being a Ju-88 with a twin-tail, appeared to have had several iterations, or the designation was used more than once.
> 
> View attachment 574339
> View attachment 574340
> ...



I thought Heinkel was pretty much handed the A project, I didnt know there was a contest with the Junkers project being a private venture that ended up being the basis for Bomber B, the Ju 288.


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

Elmas said:


> Unfortunately I have not many informations about $-engine Luftwaffe bombers, sorry.
> Four engine Luftwaffe bombers are certainly very interesting by the side of the engineering history, but not from the military side...
> Certailnly Luftwaffe could not afford things like this:
> 
> ...



Please do name a bomber force better trained and equipped than the LWs in 1939-1940... thx.

And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

The Luftwaffe training was meticulous, there is no doubt about that. However, it was extensive and was not providing pilots fast enough as the war wore on.

In regards to their "lots of aircraft", no...they did not have "lots" of them. They started the war with 737 bombers, 614 fighters, 134 dive bombers and others for a total of 1,928.

How can one reasonably justify starting a war with fewer than 2,000 aircraft?


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Luftwaffe training was meticulous, there is no doubt about that. However, it was extensive and was not providing pilots fast enough as the war wore on.
> 
> In regards to their "lots of aircraft", no...they did not have "lots" of them. They started the war with 737 bombers, 614 fighters, 134 dive bombers and others for a total of 1,928.
> 
> How can one reasonably justify starting a war with fewer than 2,000 aircraft?



The rest had less... all is relative.

By the time of the main campaign in the west they had close to 3.000, most of them newer and better than the opposition, with better tactics and training.

They did of course FAIL to adapt their training and production programs to make up for loses (usually by screwing up with the next gen aircraft, Me 210, He 177), but, I am responding to the quoted post, 4-engined bombers use LESS crew and LESS materials when considering bomb tonnage carried, they are cheaper...

If the LW had replaced 1000 He 111 with a 5 crew and a 2t payload, with 500 4-engined bombers with a 6 man crew and a 4t payload... you would have the same capabilities and save in aluminum, crew and fuel for training... or make more 4-engined bombers for the same expense, IIRC Kesselring mentioned they could have gotten 2 heavies x 3 mediums.

A good trade if you ask me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Mar 22, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> Please do name a bomber force better trained and equipped than the LWs in 1939-1940... thx.
> 
> And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.



1939-1940 as you said...
What about in 1943-1944?
What was the full load weight of a He-111?
And what was the full load weight of a B-29?
How many crew members for an He-111?
And how many those of a B-29?
Let's not compare oranges to apples.


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

Elmas said:


> 1939-1940 as you said...
> What about in 1943-1944?
> ---
> Let's not compare oranges to apples.



EXACTLY my point...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Mar 22, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> The rest had less... all is relative.
> 
> By the time of the main campaign in the west they had close to 3.000, most of them newer and better than the opposition, with better tactics and training.
> 
> ...



_"When amateurs talk about strategy, Professionals study logistics." _From a manual of U.S. Army.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Mar 22, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> Please do name a bomber force better trained and equipped than the LWs in 1939-1940... thx.
> 
> And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.



How many 4-engine bombers did the LW have? That was the OP's point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

Elmas said:


> _"When amateurs talk about strategy, Professionals study logistics." _From a manual of U.S. Army.



“I’m not superstitious, but I am a little stitious.”

—Michael Scott

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> How many 4-engine bombers did the LW have? That was the OP's point.



The OP was asking about heavy projects, I answered to a different post on a different matter... and received a non-answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> The rest had less... all is relative.


Great Britain, 1939: 7,940 aircraft
Soviet Union, 1939: 10, 380
Japan, 1939: 4,467
And for contrast, United States (who was, of course, not at war), 1939: 2,141

So it doesn't matter how many 4 engined, 2 engined or even 3 engined bombers Germany had in 1939, they simply did not take the war they started seriously otherwise they would have started with not only more numbers, but bombers that weren't airliners or "fast mail planes".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Great Britain, 1939: 7,940 aircraft
> Soviet Union, 1939: 10, 380
> Japan, 1939: 4,467
> And for contrast, United States (who was, of course, not at war), 1939: 2,141
> ...



Germany started a war with Poland, the UK and France started a great power war...

...and then proceded to do nothing, just sit and watch the Germans and Soviets crush the Poles, didnt they?

Remember, the French and Brits DECLARED war on Germany and went to war with these...












Now, be so kind as to provide the source for your numbers? What are they for? Production? Actual serviceable planes?

Please tell me you are not quoting wikipedia...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

Not wanting to hijack Zipper's thread any further, the fact goes back to the statement of:


JAG88 said:


> And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.


which is simply not the case, the numbers for Germany bear out that they did not think this thing through.

And yeah...wiki...

This book is worth having in anyone's library if they are into wartime production figures of the major belligerents:
"Aircraft of World War II" by Stewart Wilson.


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Mar 22, 2020)

I should hope the knowledgeable scholars of this site edit Wiki pages exuberantly.


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not wanting to hijack Zipper's thread any further, the fact goes back to the statement of:
> 
> which is simply not the case, the numbers for Germany bear out that they did not think this thing through.
> 
> ...



Really? Wikipedia... the "source" any idiot can go and butcher at will? 

Again, the UK and France declared war, not Germany... they didnt think it through and sat and let Poland be crushed, according to you... you may be right.

Your source is wrong, the ridiculously low number should have tipped you off, but it didnt, you will have to wonder why... these are the actual production numbers, your author... if it is his mistake and not somebody else's, took the Sep-Dec 1939 production numbers and used them as the total 1939 numbers... likely taken from Vajda, pp. 135 which mentions the 2.518 SUBtotal for 1939, your number is even lower:






Now, there are slightly different numbers available depending on source, none of them make such an absurd claim as you did.

Btw, you have been all over the place, confusing production and force strength numbers.

Could you quote the page for your source? Because if it says what you or wiki says... then it may be the solution for the current toilet paper shortage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2020)

One does have to be rather careful when comparing aircraft _TOTALS, _as some/many air forces included training planes in the totals. 

Like for the US in 1939, 2,141 planes? total aircraft in service or number built in 1939?

I can believe it but only if were include the trainers, the first production P-40s and P-39s were not yet delivered and the bulk of the US fighters were P-36s and P-35s. 

1940 gets worse. 6086 planes built in 1940 of which 1685 were fighter? 
Source Curtiss Fighter aircraft 1917-1948.

Anybody believe the US built 4400 bombers and recon aircraft?
If you count T-6 Texans and other trainers right down to hundreds of Piper cubs the number becomes believable. 

But the number of front line combat aircraft at the end of 1940 was a fraction of what the 1939 and 1940 numbers would suggest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 22, 2020)

True


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 22, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> Really? Wikipedia... the "source" any idiot can go and butcher at will?
> 
> Again, the UK and France declared war, not Germany... they didnt think it through and sat and let Poland be crushed, according to you... you may be right.
> 
> ...


It appears that my sarcasm was lost on you (not surprised, really) as I RARELY go to wiki.

And I posted the name and author of the book I refer to for numbers.

Now *hopefully* we can get back on topic or maybe not...


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 23, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> It appears that my sarcasm was lost on you (not surprised, really) as I RARELY go to wiki.
> 
> And I posted the name and author of the book I refer to for numbers.
> 
> Now *hopefully* we can get back on topic or maybe not...



You are right I missed the sarcasm, must have been hiding under all those attempts at deflection... 

No page number? Not surprised, it isnt on the wikipedia page...


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 23, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> I thought Heinkel was pretty much handed the A project, I didnt know there was a contest with the Junkers project being a private venture that ended up being the basis for Bomber B, the Ju 288.


There was a competition for the program. It's possible Heinkel was favored above the others, but I can't really confidently say that for sure.


----------



## JAG88 (Mar 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> There was a competition for the program. It's possible Heinkel was favored above the others, but I can't really confidently say that for sure.



What I find interesting, is that without Udet they would have likely ended with a Ju 288-type bomber A instead of the 177, both the Junkers and early Heinkel projects had a similar basic layout, and the 288s that did fly did it mostly with DB606-610s, the likely powerplant of such an hypothetical aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2020)

JAG88 said:


> Really? Wikipedia... the "source" any idiot can go and butcher at will?



I just caught up to this - ya know, I'm tired of you being a sarcastic asshole. Enjoy cyberspace!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 23, 2020)

Much appreciated

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrumpyOldCrewChief (Mar 27, 2020)

Banter is one thing. Arguing, using facts, is a different thing. Just being mean, and/or ignoring the point, just to be rude and insulting, THAT is quite another. Thank you, FLYBOYJ, for putting that unpleasant and disruptive turd out of our misery!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 28, 2020)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> Banter is one thing. Arguing, using facts, is a different thing. Just being mean, and/or ignoring the point, just to be rude and insulting, THAT is quite another. Thank you, FLYBOYJ, for putting that unpleasant and disruptive turd out of our misery!


Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the basic facts about the design.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 2, 2020)

I got four books which might cover some of these designs.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 12, 2020)

I was in the process of translating a few pages, and basically a back-up glitch occurred and I lost all the stuff. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 12, 2020)

Blohm & Voss P.33
I got nothing more than it was a long-ranged bomber powered by 2 x Jumo 206...

Henschel Project
It was never given a designation or name, but I can't seem to find anything that fits the profile (4 x engines, or 2 x DB 606/610) in the timeframe.

Junkers EF.61
This was a high altitude aircraft for tests. The book didn't seem to mention an EF.71 design.

Junkers Ju-85
I can't find anything in the book that conforms to the larger iterations that were described.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 15, 2020)

While slightly off topic, looking at two books

Heinkel He 177, 277, 274, by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel
Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown
There's either direct statements of changes in dive-bombing capability, or implications as to such.

In Griehl & Dressel's book, it's stated on page 8, that the requirements for the bomber called for the following...

Top speed of at least 500 km/h
Maximum range of at least 5000 km
Takeoff run no greater than 1000 m, with the provision for a catapult for overload operations
Able to execute diving attacks
Able to carry 10 kg, 50 kg, and 250 kg bombs, as well as the provision to carry any additional ordinance developed.
The following engines could be used: Argus 421, BMW 139, DB 601, Jumo 206, Jumo 211, SAM 329
No limit as to the number of engines
Crew of 3
... with it then stated on page 10 & 11 that following the final inspection, Ernst Udet tells Heinkel that the He 177 is no longer needed since he was of the belief that an air-war with England was out of the question, and that Hitler and Goering envisioned most wars on the mainland Europe to involve two-engined medium-bombers.

That said, Udet was willing to develop the plane as a research design, and also could be used for the Kriegsmarine. That said, even for the last role, it would be required to be able to carry out diving-attacks, something which Heinkel said such a large 4-engined bomber would never be capable of. Udet apparently didn't see any inherent problems, making some quick comparisons to the Ju 88, provided it was adequately strengthened. He figured the increase in maximum weight could be offset by the use of a doubled-up landing-gear placed between the 2 x DB606.

Considering diving attacks were in the specs early on, it seems to imply that the requirements were increased.

In Captain 'Winkle' Brown's book, he wrote on page 147...

_"I then began a cautious exploration of the aircraft's diving characteristics. The original specification of 1936 that had given birth to the Greif had called for sufficient structural strength to permit medium angle diving attacks. But the Stuka mentality had been so inculcated into the minds of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe that, after prototype construction had reached an advance stage, the RLM's Technical Department had insisted that the capability to perform medium angle diving attacks was insufficient and that it was desirable that this heavy bomber should be capable of performing 60 degree diving attacks!"_

I'm not sure exactly what constitutes medium-angle diving attacks, but if I was to make an educated-guess, I'd go with 45-degrees based on the following...

Dive-Bombing in the US/UK (probably Germany too) usually presume a diving angle of 60-90 degrees (Japan had a minimum of 55 degrees, if I recall)
With the bottom 1/3 (60-90 degrees) being considered dive-bombing by almost everybody's definition, low-angle would probably be any angle below 0-degrees to 30-degrees; medium-angle would be 30-60 with a mean of 45-degrees.
There was also a banned member who listed a figure of around 40-50 degrees as well.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 15, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Junkers Ju-85
> I can't find anything in the book that conforms to the larger iterations that were described..



Hi Zip.
I keep reading sources that state the Ju-85 was an early design for the _Schnellbomber_ role - not the Bomber-A program?

(PS - sorry to hear about your cat)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 15, 2020)

Graeme said:


> I keep reading sources that state the Ju-85 was an early design for the _Schnellbomber_ role - not the Bomber-A program?


Yeah, with one or two exceptions that seems to be the case.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 16, 2020)

I'm curious if anybody has any data regarding the bombing accuracy of the following

The bombing accuracy of the Ju 87 in vertical dives?
The bombing accuracy of the Ju 88 in dive-bombing attacks?
The typical CEP of the Lotfe 7B?
I'm curious because this affected the thought process of the decision to require full dive-bombing capability for the He 177 design. Also, while the Lotfe 7B wasn't online until early 1941, the knowledge of the Norden bombsight came from the Dufresne spy ring at some point in 1938. I'm not sure when Udet would have become aware of the Lotfe development.

GrauGeist, Koopernic, Shortround6, wuzak


----------



## Zipper730 (May 17, 2020)

Also, here's another thing that's been sitting with me the past few days: There was a book written by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel (1989 and 1998 if I recall), which was called _He 177/277/274_, and another book written by Manfred Griehl in 2008 called _Heinkel He 177 "Grief"_.


> On April 17, 1936, Generalleutnant Walther Wever formulated the first 'Guidelines for the Development of a Long Range Bomber' for the Future Luftwaffe. The general rearmament required that from June 1936, the Technische Amt (TA) of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) studies for a long-range bomber with heavy defensive armament. The bomb load should be at least 500 kg, with a range of 5000 km. The industry had the choice of engines. As a result the long-range bomber project Heinkel (He) P.1041 was developed in early 1937, which was considered to be the most promising A-design. In late October 1937, the initial 1:1 early design mock-up of the bomber had been built by Heinkel and was accepted by representatives of the RLM. On November 5, 1937 the former Prokect P.1041 received the official type designation He 177. In the RLM kept on increasing the aircraft requirements on the aircraft: A top speed of 700 km/h, a minimum range of 6,700 km at an altitude of 6000 m


I assume the 700 km/h figure is based on the speed the aircraft would achieve in dives, correct?


----------



## swampyankee (May 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Also, here's another thing that's been sitting with me the past few days: There was a book written by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel (1989 and 1998 if I recall), which was called _He 177/277/274_, and another book written by Manfred Griehl in 2008 called _Heinkel He 177 "Grief"_.
> I assume the 700 km/h figure is based on the speed the aircraft would achieve in dives, correct?


Top speed would be in level flight.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Top speed would be in level flight.


Normally, that's what I would have got out of it too. Except I never saw any specification for a top speed of 700 km/h up to this point in time. It's possible that it was a design-goal, but I only remember seeing it achieved in dives.


----------



## pbehn (May 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> While slightly off topic, looking at two books
> 
> Heinkel He 177, 277, 274, by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel
> Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown
> ...


Hilarious, aren't they? Their spiritual children were involved in the TSR2? They want a bomber with a pay load to have a range of 3000 miles and a speed over 300MPH, oh and be able to perform a dive bomb attack too? With a crew of three on missions of 3000+ miles who does what, it is a minimum (not maximum) of 10 hours from take off


----------



## Zipper730 (May 17, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Hilarious, aren't they? Their spiritual children were involved in the TSR2?


What are you talking about?


> They want a bomber with a pay load to have a range of 3000 miles and a speed over 300MPH, oh and be able to perform a dive bomb attack too? With a crew of three on missions of 3000+ miles who does what?


Clearly the glide-bombing requirements (early on) were the most extreme of them all: They basically wanted the ability for moderate-angle (40-50°) dive-bombing attacks (IIRC, the Air Ministry's P.13/36 called for significant diving capability at first), which was later increased to 60° (the requirements of P.13/36 were reduced to 30°), something which threw a monkey-wrench into the design (it triggered a cascade of weight gains which reduced top speed and range).

The 3-man crew was also rather unusual for a heavy-bomber as well (IIRC, the crew consisted of a pilot; the navigator/bombardier/gunner, who was the aircraft commander and rated pilot as well; the radioman and gunner). Typically heavy bombers ranged from 4-5 on the low end (O.100/400 of WWI) and up (Lancaster: 7; B-17E: 10; B-24: 11; B-29: 10-11 -- I forgot which). Defensive armament was also quite light as well (either 2 R/C turrets as intended, or 1 R/C turret, and a gunner in a bola who operated a forward/rear gun). These were changed as time went on: A tail-gun was added (crew complement increased to 4) before the plane made its first flight, as well as an additional powered turret up top (being manned, increased the complement to 5), and an extra guy was added at some point (6).

As for range, speed and payload: I'd say it'd be ambitious to demand a range of 3107 miles with 4409 pounds of bombs, with a top speed of 311 mph. That said, I wouldn't consider it to be impossible by itself. The requirements for dive-bombing (or glide-bombing) would probably push things out of reach (unless maybe they intended to achieve their range by carrying drop tanks under the wings, which they didn't do).


----------



## pbehn (May 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> What are you talking about?


The requirements for the TSR2 were constantly increased until an aircraft was developed that was just too expensive to put into production. BAC TSR-2 - Wikipedia, Just imagine a B-29 as a dive bomber and you get the idea.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The requirements for the TSR2 were constantly increased until an aircraft was developed that was just too expensive to put into production.


I never really knew much about that. That said it seems top speed was increased from Mach 1.5+ to Mach 2+, the ferry range became the operational range, and the requirements for short-field takeoff might not have been there to begin with.

I would have thought of the XB-70 as being a better example: The requirements went from an aircraft with a 3000-4000 nm supersonic extended dash and an overall range of around 7500-8000 nm, to the ability to fly supersonic the whole flight, progressively increasing speed requirements, and the requirement for a pressurized crew-compartment and ejection capsules. It only cost 1.5 billion dollars for the program (1 x XB-70 + 11-13 x YB-70) and 1.9 billion if the F-108 program was included within it.


----------



## pbehn (May 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I never really knew much about that. That said it seems top speed was increased from Mach 1.5+ to Mach 2+, the ferry range became the operational range, and the requirements for short-field takeoff might not have been there to begin with.
> 
> .


Those are the bare figures, also replace the Canberra for recon and V bombers for tactical nuclear weapons while taking off from a grass field oh and have the combat capability of the F-4 at the same time..


----------



## Zipper730 (May 26, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Those are the bare figures, also replace the Canberra for recon and V bombers for tactical nuclear weapons while taking off from a grass field oh and have the combat capability of the F-4 at the same time..


I didn't know that.

I'm curious why the Luftwaffe had this strange idea that a four-engined aircraft couldn't dive-bomb? There were two prototypes that would have four engines and it was concluded that it was unsuited to it.


----------



## pbehn (May 26, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know that.
> 
> I'm curious why the Luftwaffe had this strange idea that a four-engined aircraft couldn't dive-bomb? There were two prototypes that would have four engines and it was concluded that it was unsuited to it.


I am curious as to why anyone would do it? You put yourself in the range of small arms fire and have to climb all the way back up again. From wiki on the He 177. "A four-engine version would have been possible with engines like the Daimler-Benz DB 601 but the four-engine layout would impose higher propeller drag to the detriment of performance in dive bombing. "


----------



## Zipper730 (May 27, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I am curious as to why anyone would do it?


Well, a better question might be: "What moron in his right mind would want to develop a heavy dive-bomber?" but we both know the answer.


> You put yourself in the range of small arms fire and have to climb all the way back up again.


That occurs whether you have two engines, or four engines acting like two engines, or four individual engines. I would probably guess that at least if the engines were individualized, you'd have less odds of getting all of them shot off before you're finished with the bombing attack.


> From wiki on the He 177. "A four-engine version would have been possible with engines like the Daimler-Benz DB 601 but the four-engine layout would impose higher propeller drag to the detriment of performance in dive bombing. "


From what I remember, the drag of four individual engines was 3% higher than two individual engines. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal when you consider that they were expecting a top speed of 550 km/h (341.8) for the original design and around 534 km/h (331.8 mph) for a reduction of 3% (550/1.03). This figure was higher than the Ju 88 as is. 

While I know the top speed was greatly lower (265-273 mph), the Ju 88 was slowed a little too in the dive-bomber configuration (280 if I recall) and, from what I remember, the airframe was good to around 700 km/h (435 mph) and, I would guess the slightly extra drag might actually help keep speed in check in dives.


----------



## pbehn (May 27, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, a better question might be: "What moron in his right mind would want to develop a heavy dive-bomber?" but we both know the answer.
> That occurs whether you have two engines, or four engines acting like two engines, or four individual engines. I would probably guess that at least if the engines were individualized, you'd have less odds of getting all of them shot off before you're finished with the bombing attack.
> .


The bigger and heavier the plane the less manoeuvrable it is and the easier it is to hit.especially if you are attacking targets that are important.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 27, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The bigger and heavier the plane the less manoeuvrable it is and the easier it is to hit.especially if you are attacking targets that are important.


While I'll have to take a look on this, the baseline design was quite large and already presented a good target as is...


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> While I'll have to take a look on this, the baseline design was quite large and already presented a good target as is...


My point about dive bombing with a heavy bomber was regardless of how many engines it has. Two or four makes little difference to that issue.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> My point about dive bombing with a heavy bomber was regardless of how many engines it has. Two or four makes little difference to that issue.


That I agree with: It was equally idiotic


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> That I agree with: It was equally idiotic


The British had barrage balloons up to 5,000 ft to protect targets. A US bomber formation was spaced not only to for the gunners fields of fire but to make it more difficult for anti aircraft fire. A He 177 with four engines is 4 bf109s in incredibly close formation separated by fuel tanks and a crew of six sitting in a big glass house in the middle.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> A US bomber formation was spaced not only to for the gunners fields of fire but to make it more difficult for anti aircraft fire.


I knew the first part, but not the second part.


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I knew the first part, but not the second part.


There were all sorts of calculations and compromises made in the spacing of a bomber formation. To hit a particular target the planes should be line astern, to hit an area they should be as close together as possible but its possible to be so close that you give ground fire a target they cant miss and planes start hitting each other and dropping bombs on each other. To overwhelm ground forces passing as quickly as possible at as many varied heights as possible is best but to escort a formation they need to be as tight as possible but then if they are too tight they are on each others line of defensive fire. US daylight formations closed up to bomb the target then spread out after. B-17s could hold a tighter formation than B24s. As with many things, its complicated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 29, 2020)

Elmas
, 
W
 wuzak


I'm curious about the Germans and and radiator design: How much latitude did bomber designers get to design their radiators? Fighter designers appeared to have gotten some latitude, but the bomber guys all seemed to use annular radiators.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 31, 2020)

pbehn said:


> US daylight formations closed up to bomb the target then spread out after.


I thought that was early on, where they'd come out of the combat-box; then bomb individually; then form-up again.


> B-17s could hold a tighter formation than B24s.


Because they were more docile in handling and didn't hunt in yaw much?


----------



## pbehn (May 31, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought that was early on, where they'd come out of the combat-box; then bomb individually; then form-up again.
> Because they were more docile in handling and didn't hunt in yaw much?


As with all things it is complicated and there isn't a universal truth. I was just saying the most general of generalisations. Combat box - Wikipedia note this mainly refers to "stuff" in 1943 which was before the US really got going in Europe.


----------



## wuzak (May 31, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Elmas
> ,
> W
> wuzak
> ...



A lot of German engines were provided as power eggs, with the cooling system included. This facilitated changing between liquid and air-cooled engines. 

That said, the He 111 did not have an annular radiator, early Do 17s, Do 215 and some Do 217s. And the Junkers Ju 87 did not.

As planned, with DB 603s, the Me 264 would not have had annular radiators either. They came about as the DB 6043 was not yet available, so Jumo 211s were substituted.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 1, 2020)

wuzak said:


> A lot of German engines were provided as power eggs, with the cooling system included.


So there was minimal decision on the radiator configuration?


> That said, the He 111 did not have an annular radiator, early Do 17s, Do 215 and some Do 217s.


Were power eggs a factor in Bomber A?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So there was minimal decision on the radiator configuration?



There would have been discussion between the airframe and engine manufacturers to agree on a solution.




Zipper730 said:


> Were power eggs a factor in Bomber A?



I doubt it.

I also don't think any of the Bomber A prototypes had an annular radiator.


----------

