1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

[tomo pauk]

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

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

Mission impossible.

 

[Shortround6]

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

 

[davebender]

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Dave

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

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

You should read von Gersdorff to this theme!

 

[davebender]

So do I.

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

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

Mission impossible.

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

As said above, you are in charge.

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

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

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

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

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

One of the reasons for starting this thread

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

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

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

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

The same goes for the A6M! The Zero would be in real trouble to fight the Spit and the Bf 109 E at Boom and Zoom tactics and at high speed.

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

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

Covered above - German allies and Germans themselves were producing far less restricted planes around the DB-601A, then it was case with Emil.

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

This option requires an increase in DB601 engine production.

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your whole argumentation based on 1941 but not on 1940!

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

 

[Milosh]

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

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

 

[riacrato]

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

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

 

[davebender]

Speaking of radiators...

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

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