A better thought-out '2nd gen' of German 2-engined A/C?

[tomo pauk]

Point I am trying to make is that the P-38 got a lot more power as time went on for very little weight gain. Helped by better fuel.
If the Germans start work in 1938-40 they have limited options for engines and limited growth for existing engines.

I don't think that German mainstream V12s have had limited options for growth. Granted, a good deal of their options was stifled by material deficiencies in 1941 an later, not something that they will know 100% in 1938-40.
Basically - go with 1100 HP engines for the 'paper' stage in 1938, continue with prototypes powered by 1200-1300 HP engines in 1940, and enter service in 1942 with 1400+- HP.

Jets screw everything up. The Jumo jet engines weighed about what a two stage R-1830 did but gave a lot more thrust. Burned a lot more fuel too
Trying to figure out what a piston engine equivalent would be gets very hard.

Two-stage R-1830 was overweight and too draggy for the power it was making, so I would not try to compare it with 1st rate ww2 engines. Jumo 004 weighted as much as the 'normal' V12 of most of belligerents; granted, weight of liquid cooling and that of the prop need to be accounted for, too.
Ar 234 C doubled the number of engines, meaning that there was a lot of stretch in design. A piston-engined equivalent also does not need to carry 860+ US gals (3270L) of fuel in the internal tanks - 350 will do? - so there is a major weight save there to be had, ie. about 3000 lbs for minus 500 US gals. More than covers it for the powerplant being heavier.

He 219 needs a lot of shifting around. They could carry around 3370 liters of fuel inside the fuselage and the rear of the engine nacelles. The wing roots carried a lot of 20mm ammo.
They carried all the ammo for the belly tray guns.
you could swap fuel into the wing roots where the ammo was (wing root guns are hard as the length of the gun means the ammo has be near the mid point of the wing.
But we also run into the volume/weight thing. Unless you want to just use one large bomb (Mosquito with Cookie) you run out of volume faster than you run out of weight.

A bomb by itself is heavier per unit of volume but a bomb bay built for multiple bombs needs room to hoist them, fasten them and rig safety wires.

He 219 will not work that good as a bomber (it will be fine as a night fighter, as it was the case anyway). Something shape and size of it will, and that is what I've suggested.

When using the Mosquito as a model lets remember that it held four 500lb bombs internally for a large part of it's life, sometimes a pair of 1000lb target markers.
Keep our expectations of a small, fast twin bomber to near those levels.

Germans saw pretty quickly that small bombs don't work for anything that is not an infantryman (a reason why Ju 88 gotten the wing racks very fast). For their fast bomber, I'd suggest that bomb bay is tailored for a single bomb, up to 1800 kg/4000 lb. Bigger bombers can take over with greater bomb load.

 

[z42]

I am not saying the allies actually planned better. They got lucky and were able to develop the Turbo Allison when 2-3 of the American 'Wonder engines' died almost as long and painful deaths

Winners make their own luck, and all that. The Allies, the US in particular, was an economic powerhouse and could afford all these R&D efforts going in all directions. Germany couldn't. Of course didn't help that Germany, par for the course for dictatorships, had a highly dysfunctional management.

He 219 needs a lot of shifting around. They could carry around 3370 liters of fuel inside the fuselage and the rear of the engine nacelles. The wing roots carried a lot of 20mm ammo.
They carried all the ammo for the belly tray guns.
you could swap fuel into the wing roots where the ammo was (wing root guns are hard as the length of the gun means the ammo has be near the mid point of the wing.
But we also run into the volume/weight thing. Unless you want to just use one large bomb (Mosquito with Cookie) you run out of volume faster than you run out of weight.

A bomb by itself is heavier per unit of volume but a bomb bay built for multiple bombs needs room to hoist them, fasten them and rig safety wires.

Have to admit I really like the Mosquito approach to adapting the design for multiple roles. For the (night) fighter version put cannons in the bomb bay, shooting under the cockpit. Plenty of space for the cannons and ammo in the bomb bay. For the German version, maybe possible to additionally squeeze the Schräge Musik upward firing cannons in the back of the bomb bay, and find some empty space above the bay for the barrels without wrecking the central wing box.

When using the Mosquito as a model lets remember that it held four 500lb bombs internally for a large part of it's life, sometimes a pair of 1000lb target markers.
Keep our expectations of a small, fast twin bomber to near those levels.

Ok, for the initial Jumo 211 powered version, aiming for a 2 man fast unarmed bomber with a 1000 kg bombload doesn't sound too unrealistic. Later on, an upengined version, say with 801's, could maybe increase that to 2000 kg. Though with both heavier engines and heavier bombload, might need a longer wing to keep the wing loading reasonable. Or just design the initial version with a comparatively low wing loading, with the expectation that later variants would add weight?

 

[Shortround6]

Ok, for the initial Jumo 211 powered version, aiming for a 2 man fast unarmed bomber with a 1000 kg bombload doesn't sound too unrealistic. Later on, an upengined version, say with 801's, could maybe increase that to 2000 kg.

The problem here is that it is not quite as interchangeable as it seems.
when you are dealing with something like a Ju 88 at over 30,000lbs gross weight it is rather easy to change engines that are 600-800lbs different from each other (each) especially if you can ditch the radiators and coolant at the same time.

When you are dealing with 22-23,000lb aircraft it gets harder. It also depends on what other choices you make. Like do you allow the gross weight to rise to take into account the increase weight of the engines and bomb load? do you limit the fuel? or increase the Gross weight for more fuel? At what point do you need to beef up the landing gear/tires?

Mosquito weight increased by about 1,000lbs both empty and max gross went they went to the two stage Merlin 72 engines. This allowed them to keep the same fuel load as the older planes or play more games when not carrying the 4000lb cookies. Early Mosquitos did not have the under wing racks.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Me 210/410, Ju 288, He 219, Ta 154, Ar 240/440, Do 335 - neither was a succes story wrt. what it did in ww2, apart from He 219 shooting down some number of RAF heavies. Whether due to the faulty design process, no engine materializing, choice of a wrong material, being too late, or a combination of these and other factors, like politics or, indeed, Allies being ever better in air warfare.
The promissing Fw 187 never played the role in the LW plans, while the jet-powered Ar 234 was too late.
Okay, Me 262 was the exception, but it was not available in numbers needed.

So what should've the LW twin-engined A/C looked like, in order to became a worthy opponnet to the Alies, so to speak? Timing is very important consideration, the A/C in question need to be in service as early as 1942, preferably in 1941 (thus having the design process start some time 1938, or 1937 for the use in 1941 - provided the A/C is just a spin-off from what already exists). Roles for the A/C are mostyl that of bombing and night-fighting, and perhaps recon job. Day aerial fighting if one feels adventurous.
Only historical aerodynamics, materials, engines and guns are available.

Depends on the intended application, but I`d say what you want is just an Me210 with DB601-E`s and without all the ruination imposed by the RLM which destroyed it.

Obviously the rear guns should be deleted though. Without all the Nazi screwups, you could have had that in production in late 1940.

A reasonable case for this is made here (or is at least a part of it)

https://www.calum-douglas.com/dipl-ing-robert-lusser/

 

[tomo pauk]

A reasonable case for this is made here (or is at least a part of it)

https://www.calum-douglas.com/dipl-ing-robert-lusser/

Thank you.
Me 210 is mentioned there under "5.) Overestimation of the possible acceleration of the delivery date."; Lusser is very critical on the intent of the RLM/LW/etc on much shortened development cycle for the new aircraft, that often meant the new project is actually delayed. Me 210 service use was delayed due to the constructive fault - too short the fusleage resulted in an aircraft that was too dangerous to fly; it took time for MTT to admit the mistake and to design longer fuselage in order for the 210 to became an useful combat aircraft.

Depends on the intended application, but I`d say what you want is just an Me210 with DB601-E`s and without all the ruination imposed by the RLM which destroyed it.

RLM was probably not guilty of MTT people making the mistake with the initial design of the 210. RLM was also not guilty of MTT choosing 18% t-t-c ratio for the wing root, as if it is 1934 again.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Thank you.
Me 210 is mentioned there under "5.) Overestimation of the possible acceleration of the delivery date."; Lusser is very critical on the intent of the RLM/LW/etc on much shortened development cycle for the new aircraft, that often meant the new project is actually delayed. Me 210 service use was delayed due to the constructive fault - too short the fusleage resulted in an aircraft that was too dangerous to fly; it took time for MTT to admit the mistake and to design longer fuselage in order for the 210 to became an useful combat aircraft.



RLM was probably not guilty of MTT people making the mistake with the initial design of the 210. RLM was also not guilty of MTT choosing 18% t-t-c ratio for the wing root, as if it is 1934 again.

Further details here: please read another article I wrote which includes many items British Air Intelligence found after interrogating various German aviation engineers about the Me210/410 in 1945. These serious management errors all correlate to the concepts in Lussers letter, which is what you have just read on my website.

Who Cares About Project Management?

From Messerschmitts to the Moon: engine designer, author, and renowned WWII aero engine expert, Calum Douglas, gives a high-stakes illustration of how just how critical the effective management of a development programme can be.

www.getanneal.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd like to focus on a better CAS aircraft to replace the too-small and too-underpowered Henschel Hs 129. Start with two BMW 801 engines and make an armoured single seat, smaller Ju-88 built around a single, internally mounted, high capacity 75 mm (Bordkanone 7,5) or BK 37 mm (Bordkanone 3,7).

But even more important is a twin engine transport like the American C-47. With rare exceptions like the glider-based Gotha Go 244, the Germans never fielded a bespoke twin engined transport of the C-47's class, instead focusing on three, four or even six engined transports. The few twin BMW 801 prototypes of the Arado Ar 232 would have made a good start.

 

[EwenS]

Didn't 5th AF start getting A26s in fall 1943?

The 13th BS, 3rd BG, 5th AF received 4 A-26B for a combat evaluation between early 1944 and July 1944. They weren't popular. Amongst other things, original canopy design limited visibility and they couldn't be used in the same combat formations as the Group's A-20s as they had different cruising speeds. Douglas was already working on fixes for most of the problems raised by 3rd BG. On completion of the evaluation the aircraft were withdrawn.

At that point Gen Kenney didn't want to have to support a third light/medium bomber type in SWPA when the A-20 and B-25 were doing a good job.

The first fully equipped A-26 BG in the Pacific theatre was the 319th BG in 7th AF which became operational on Okinawa in July 1945 (first Pacific mission on 16 July). It had left the MTO in January and re-equipped with the A-26 before redeploying to the Pacific.

The 3rd BG 5th AF began to transition to the A-26 in early summer 1945 but did not complete the process until after the end of WW2. It was flying both the A-20 & A-26 at that time. They were receiving A-26 with the 8 gun nose armament.

341st BG in the CBI transitioned from the B-25 to the A-26 in June/July 1945 in India but did not enter combat with its new aircraft in WW2. By Aug 1945 the 12th BG had also begun to convert in India.

In the ETO the A-26 underwent a combat evaluation in early Sept 1944 before the 416th BG became the first unit to swap its existing equipment (A-20) for the A-26, flying its first mission on the new type on 17 Nov 1944. At this time it continued to use glass nosed A-20J/K as flight leaders due to a shortage of A-26C.

 

[z42]

I'd like to focus on a better CAS aircraft to replace the too-small and too-underpowered Henschel Hs 129. Start with two BMW 801 engines and make an armoured single seat, smaller Ju-88 built around a single, internally mounted, high capacity 75 mm (Bordkanone 7,5) or BK 37 mm (Bordkanone 3,7).

IMHO, no. Those really big cannons were generally not considered successful (37mm perhaps the upper end of what's useful). And LW had a perfectly good strike aircraft in the FW 190 A&F, no need to replace what's working. (Did they ever mount the 37mm cannons on the 190 to replace the Stuka tank busters?)

But even more important is a twin engine transport like the American C-47. With rare exceptions like the glider-based Gotha Go 244, the Germans never fielded a bespoke twin engined transport of the C-47's class, instead focusing on three, four or even six engined transports. The few twin BMW 801 prototypes of the Arado Ar 232 would have made a good start.

IIRC there's been multiple recent threads where this has been discussed. My tl;dr takeaways for a "German Dakota":

• Twin Jumo 211 engines.
• Construction in steel/canvas/plywood to save the precious aluminum for combat aircraft.
• Should be done before the war and before they build thousands upon thousands of Ju 52's.
• Unarmed; a single rifle caliber Mg isn't going to help against a fighter anyway.

Ar 232 was indeed remarkable in more or less figuring out the formula for a modern military transport, but alas, I don't see it feasible how it could be available for those early-mid war large scale air transport missions.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The A-20 ended production in October 1944. A-26B production began in September 1943, 7 accepted by the end of the year. A-26C was 1 in May 1944, 4 in July then production from September.

A-26B 41-39116 to 39119 officially accepted in February and March 1944, delivered to Material Command, redelivered in late April 1944 to "96469R" Alameda ATC left Oakland 6 May 1944 for the Pacific. https://www.3rdattackgroup.org/a-26-b-26-invader.php

The USAAF Statistical digest first reports A-26 in the ETO in August 1944, the MTO in April 1945, in the Pacific Ocean Areas in April 1945 and then June 1945 for the Far East Air forces and China Burma India Theatre.

The 9th AF trial 6 to 19 September 1944 was 77 sorties, 73 effective, 133.375 short tons of bombs, no losses. All medium altitude level bombing, 18 aircraft and crews attached to 553rd Squadron 386th Group. The 416th BG officially changed to A-26 on 6 November, the 409th followed on 29 November, the 323rd on 14 February 1945, the 391st on 10 April 1945, end April 1945 the 9th had 1 A-20, 4 A-26 and 6 B-26 groups. By the end of the war 22,999 A-20 sorties, 10,441 A-26, alarmingly precise 18,684.475 to 15,499.923 short tons of bombs, the A-26 carried 1,000 pound bombs the A-20 topped out at 500 pounds with the 9th Air Force.

9ht AF Accident rates were B-26 on operations 0.90 per 1,000 hours, 1.03 on non operations, A-20 1.03 and 1.68, A-26 1.07 and 0.93

 

[tomo pauk]

Fw's project of a 2-engined heavy fighter, fuselage based on the Ta 154 but low wing, and BMW 801 engines. Keen eye will notice MK 103s as guns' firepower, plus what seems like MG 151s:
link

 

[Admiral Beez]

And LW had a perfectly good strike aircraft in the FW 190

Well, yes, if we're looking to make the best use of a pair of BMW 801s, it's this....

The Germans had too many dissimilar aircraft doing duplicate roles. Another twin is not needed. Instead, the Germans should have run better competitions and consolidations, leading to an airforce made of the very best and easiest to produce of fewer types.

 

[wuzak]

Fw's project of a 2-engined heavy fighter, fuselage based on the Ta 154 but low wing, and BMW 801 engines. Keen eye will notice MK 103s as guns' firepower, plus what seems like MG 151s:
link

Fw 187?

 

[Shortround6]

the Germans never fielded a bespoke twin engined transport

The Douglas DST (Douglas Sleeper Transport) was only bespoke for a little while. Douglas had no qualms about selling them to anyone after an initial period of supplying them to American Airlines. US Military only got them after hundreds had been sold to commercial operators AND licenses had been given to the Soviet Union and Japan.
First C-47 flew almost exactly 6 years after the DST.
Not even the C-46 was really bespoke. It just happened to come at the time that the USAAC needed a big transport and they ordered a simplified (no pressurization ) version of a passenger airliner that was undergoing testing/trials.

The US did order several bespoke transports but they were all flops until the C-82/C-82A and that required major revision just to get into the acceptable (barely) category.
Required further revisions to get it into the decent catagory ( R-4360 engines) but strangely very few made it into civilian use even after the US gov gave them to about a dozen foreign governments who proceeded to swap them around to others. One wonders if the maintenance load of the R-4360 had anything to do with that?

Bespoke transports tend to have way too many cooks stirring the pot (overly complicated requirements) , wind up with with small production runs and are thus expensive per plane built.

Find a decent transport, modify it as little as possible (beef up the floor, cut large hatch in the side, etc) and produce in numbers.

 

[tomo pauk]

Fw 187?

From what I've read at the linked site, fuselage was based on the fuselage of the Ta 154.
(fuselage of the 187 was pretty slender, 6 cannons - 4 of them the big MK 103s - will not fit inside)

 

[tomo pauk]

A less conventional twin was the Bf 109Z, that I guess everyone has heard about
I'd try to make it with just two undercarriage members (suitably reinforced), so there is more of useful volume left for the fuel, guns or ammo. Introduce the wheel well covers.
The central wing of greater area would've helped here, also, hopefully allowing for the MK 103 to be carried inside it. Remove the cowl MGs, and have both fuselages outfitted with cockpits, so there is another pair of eyes on the lookout, while the another crew member can be a novice pilot learning the tricks of the trade 1st hand. Also to bring the aircraft back in case the 'main' pilot is incapacitated.

 

[Shortround6]

Plane........................wing area Sq ft..........................empty weight/lb.................Gross weight/lb/normal

FW187A.............................327.................................................8160.....................................11,020
FW187C.............................322..............................................11,110.....................................15,870
Me 210A-1.......................390.............................................15,590(E equiped) ..............21,400 (max)
ME 410A-1........................390.............................................16,570(E equiped)...............21,280
Ju 288 A.............................581?...........................................33,850.....................................38,900
He 219A-7.........................479............................................24,690......................................33,730
Ta 154A-1...........................349................................................-------..................................19,690
Ar 240A-0..........................337.............................................13,670.....................................20,840
Ar 440A.............................377..............................................20,280.....................................26,900
Do 335A-1.......................414..............................................16,000.....................................21,160


Mosquto IV...................454................................................13,400.................................21,460
Bf 110C-1.......................413..................................................9,760..................................13,290
Bf 110F-2........................413...............................................12,350(E equiped)...........15,870

The Bf 110s are for fighter versions without bombs.
All weights (except FW 187C) are from William Green and rounded off to nearest 10lbs.
JU-288 had it's wing changed a number of times during the development process at it gained weight.

Germans seemed obsessed with getting high speed by using small wings to reduce speed in the later planes.
Unfortunately this also means you need longer (better?) runways which were not always available in the Theaters they would up fighting in and the Germans did not have amount of construction equipment that the allies had to build better runways. Allies didn't the equipment either in the early part of the war.
It also means you cannot stuff a bunch of fuel in the wing.
Lets compare the British Mosquito to the Ta-154 or try to turn the Mosquito into a Ta-154.
1, Replace the Merlins with Griffin engines. (Heavier and thirstier)
2. Reduce the wing area to about 77%.
3. Reduce the fuel capacity to about 62%.
4. take out the bomb bay. (internal Volume)

Maybe the Germans can use the Ta-154 as an anti Mosquito airplane, but it is a lot less useful for many other roles unless they start cutting and pasting things, Like extra fuselage sections and/or larger wing to hold more fuel for recon, but now the plane is slower and more expensive to make. Using the favored German technique of strapping the bombs on the bottom helps with the escape, not so good if intercepted on the way in.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thank you for the effort to bring out the interesting numbers

Germans seemed obsessed with getting high speed by using small wings to reduce speed in the later planes.
Unfortunately this also means you need longer (better?) runways which were not always available in the Theaters they would up fighting in and the Germans did not have amount of construction equipment that the allies had to build better runways. Allies didn't the equipment either in the early part of the war.

Some Germans were obsessed with small wings, some were not. Probably Heinkel was the greatest convert for the small wings religion, followed by MTT? Fw was incresing the wing size of their aircraft as they were developing, Ju 288 also grew as you've noted.

Lets compare the British Mosquito to the Ta-154 or try to turn the Mosquito into a Ta-154.
1, Replace the Merlins with Griffin engines. (Heavier and thirstier)
2. Reduce the wing area to about 77%.
3. Reduce the fuel capacity to about 62%.
4. take out the bomb bay. (internal Volume)

1. Most of the engines on Ta 154 that actually flew were very much comparable with 1-stage Merlins, both in weight and consumption. Fw saw the wrong of their ways with trying to install the Jumo 213s on the small wing Ta 154, and moved (but just in theory) towards the Ta 254, with the bigger wing and longer fuselage.
2, 3 & 4 - Good for a fighter, reducing drag and weight = better speed and RoC (things that Hornet gained over Mosquito, among other stuff).

Maybe the Germans can use the Ta-154 as an anti Mosquito airplane, but it is a lot less useful for many other roles unless they start cutting and pasting things, Like extra fuselage sections and/or larger wing to hold more fuel for recon, but now the plane is slower and more expensive to make. Using the favored German technique of strapping the bombs on the bottom helps with the escape, not so good if intercepted on the way in.

Everyone was strapping the bombs outside
Granted, a real bomber will need a half-decent bomb bay, or at least a recess that can hold a big bomb.

 

[Shortround6]

1. Most of the engines on Ta 154 that actually flew were very much comparable with 1-stage Merlins, both in weight and consumption. Fw saw the wrong of their ways with trying to install the Jumo 213s on the small wing Ta 154, and moved (but just in theory) towards the Ta 254, with the bigger wing and longer fuselage.
2, 3 & 4 - Good for a fighter, reducing drag and weight = better speed and RoC (things that Hornet gained over Mosquito, among other stuff).

My old book may very well be wrong on what engines were used in Ta-154, first 2 prototypes were 211Ns (?) and the next 13-15 planes got Jumo 213E s wuth two stage 3 speed superchargers, (?). There may have been more substitutions of other 213 models?

As far as the Hornet goes, great fighter single seat fighter, as bomber? Yes it could carry a pair of 1000lb bombs under the wings but that meant you couldn't carry drop tanks.

Everyone was strapping the bombs outside
Granted, a real bomber will need a half-decent bomb bay, or at least a recess that can hold a big bomb.

And that is sort of the problem.
The Mosquito is sort of held up as the gold standard for twin engine aircraft, being able to do a number of jobs without much modification. It turned out to be pretty much the right size for the Merlin engines for good performance, The Merlin was able to be boosted in power, and in 1941-42-43 most other peoples "fast" bombers really couldn't carry a much heavier load than the Mosquito. And just about everybody else's "Fast" bombers were not fast enough. The A-20 was about the closest and it wasn't fast enough and had crap for range at higher cruising speeds. At least the A-20 could carry four 500lb bombs inside The A-20 got better but it took a while.
In the early part of the war the Germans don't have a 1600hp radial engine. It shows up in 1941. and instead of sticking it in a 21,000lb plane they stuck it in a 33,000lb plane.
Do 217E-2.......................614..............................................19,520.....................................33,070

They needed the big plane to try to replace the He 111. Please note that a Do 217 E-2 was heavier empty equipped (23,250lb) than early A-20s were taking off with crew, bombs and fuel in 1941. Different type of airplane and perhaps a good try in 1940-41 when people were trying to figure out what kind of speed you needed for high speed, daylight bombing.
turns out that 273mph at sea level and 320mph at 17,000ft wasn't close to being good enough.

That leaves the Germans with different versions of the DB601 and Jumo 211 for their fast bombers until 1943 (?).
And that leaves them with the choice of bombs or fuel or going slow.

The ME 210 was actually the best bet of the existing planes if they had fixed the handling problems early on. Get rid of the dive brakes and just shallow angle dive, Just stick one or two 13mm machine guns in the rear of the cockpit instead of that barbette mount. Then decide if you want a bomber or fighter on the same airframe, If you want a fighter stick the guns in the bomb bay, don't try to carry two 20mm guns (with 350rpg /around 305lbs just for ammo) ) and two 7.9mm machine guns with 1000rpg at the same time as the bombs. If you want a little "respect" armament put in four 7.9s with 500rpg or less.
Or for short range work keep the 20mm guns in the bomb bay a put an external rack under the wing roots.
You may wind up with a 350-360mph "bomber" without too much trouble.

Germans had a lot of trouble with the radar antenna, some installations were worth over 20mph, as much as 30? So there is only so much wing clipping you can do to get the performance back

 

[tomo pauk]

My old book may very well be wrong on what engines were used in Ta-154, first 2 prototypes were 211Ns (?) and the next 13-15 planes got Jumo 213E s wuth two stage 3 speed superchargers, (?). There may have been more substitutions of other 213 models?

I've taken a peek on the German Wikipedia. They list V1, V2, V5, V6, V7 and V9 as being powered by the 211s, and, if I'm reading it right, the V5 and V6 were later outfitted with the 213As. V3, V8, V10 and V23 were outfitted from the get go with 213As. The V22 gotten the 213F. They don't list any Ta 154 with 213E. There was no V11 to V21.
FWIW

added: As far as pre- or small-series 154A-0 and A-1 go, these were exclusively powered by Jumo 211 engines.

As far as the Hornet goes, great fighter single seat fighter, as bomber? Yes it could carry a pair of 1000lb bombs under the wings but that meant you couldn't carry drop tanks.

The Ta 154 started its paper life as a 2-engined 1-seat fast bomber named Ta 211, with a bomb bay, being a taildragger, and without front-facing guns. Not needing to devote internal volume in fuselage for the front U/C member, guns + ammo (on the mid fuselage) and 2nd crew member was allowing for a bomb bay. Not a big one, granted.
It seems that no fuel tanks were installed in the wings, so that is where a good deal of fuel can be crammed in so there is space for the 2nd crew member and a more serious bomb bay.
Obviously, in a fighter version, bomb bay should house the guns.

In the early part of the war the Germans don't have a 1600hp radial engine. It shows up in 1941. and instead of sticking it in a 21,000lb plane they stuck it in a 33,000lb plane.
Do 217E-2.......................614..............................................19,520.....................................33,070

(to use another sentence

And that leaves them with the choice of bombs or fuel or going slow.

You can recall that I've suggested a bomber that with a wing of ~500 sq ft +- 10% (eg. not-He-219, smallest ju 288 that extisted) to be powered by the BMW 801s.
I'm willing to let go of the big bomb load the Do 217E-2 carried - instead of 3000, maximum can be 1800 kg. I'm also letting go of the numerous crew member count, their sizable glasshouse canopy, and I will cut the defensive firepower by at least a half.

That leaves the Germans with different versions of the DB601 and Jumo 211 for their fast bombers until 1943 (?).
And that leaves them with the choice of bombs or fuel or going slow.

Not bad at all, engine-wise.
Keep the size modest (wing in the 350 sq ft ballpark, no thick profiles), no need for the tricycle (less internal volume needed) as it was the case with Ta 154, fuel tanks go in the wings + no guns & ammo in fuselage = bomb bay in fuselage (doh).