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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thank you. I have no good sources for the Ta-154.
tomo pauk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know why they didn't stick fuel tanks in wings. DH did it but many fighters with wooden construction did not. Wooden spars and ribs take up more room and when you start making the wing smaller even if you keep the same "thickness" you get a thinner wing.
A-20 used 18% airfoil at the root. had a 464sq ft wing and could hold 400 US gal in the wing tanks, inboard and outboard of the Nacelles. Any increases in fuel were in the fuselage above the bomb bay.
And bombers were not meant for fighter maneuvers. The wings were not built to handle high G loads. This may have been a problem for some of the German planes, how soon did they drop the dive bomber nonsense for the twins? And you may not be able to just lighten a wing like you can just not bolt on the Dive brakes. trying to use lighter spars, ribs, stringers and even thinner skin in places calls for an awful lot of new calculations. If you get rid of the dive bomber requirement early all is great. If you are trying to make a high speed bomber and at least a daylight bomber interceptor (forget dog fighting escorts) you need more structure than just a high speed bomber/recon aircraft.
Ju-88 used a 586 sq ft wing and held 369 Imp gal( 443 US gal) in the wings.
Not saying you can't fit any, But a 350 sq ft doesn't leave a lot of room compared to the larger wings.
Well, I can see a smaller load (Do 217 could hold a max of 4000kg) but 1800kg is a bit fine.
The numerous crew members is four. cutting to three?
If you cut the crap defensive firepower by half does that give you 1/2 crap or twice crap

Yes ditch the fixed 15mm MG 151.
A single 13mm MH 131 out the top and 2nd one out the bottom is certainly crap. A single 7.9 out the nose isn't worth much and the single 7.9 out each side of the canopy that have to manned by either the top gunner or the bottom gunner seem to be a poor return on investment.
Germans had a real thing for acrobatic gunners leaping around the airplane from one gun station to the next while woefully slow interceptors tried to amble by the German bombers
 

Perhaps Fw was taking a page from Grumman wrt. reluctance to put the fuel tanks in the wings Jokes aside, Ta 154 wing plating (upper and lower) were held together by screw pairs, each screw connected with it's counterpart with a small metal rod; five per each rib:



Thus it would've been the P-39D situation, with protection taking too much of usable volume, while the fuselage was offering less restricted volume. 'My' Ta-154-lookalike will never go with wood - light alloy all the way - so the wing is more welcoming to the fuel tanks.
Douglas was not taking advantage of the generous wing the A-20 had - the P-38 was carrying a tad more, despite a much thinner and smaller wing; granted, the sizable bomb bay eventually paid off for the A-20 once they started adding fuel tanks there.

Shortround6 said:
Ju-88 used a 586 sq ft wing and held 369 Imp gal( 443 US gal) in the wings.
Not saying you can't fit any, But a 350 sq ft doesn't leave a lot of room compared to the larger wings.
Click to expand...

Much smaller (the the Ju 88) P-38 carried up to 410 US galls, all in the wings, while the Hornet carried 430 imp gals (= 516 US gals; most of that in the wings). Seems to me as more of a package issue.
 
tomo pauk said:
Douglas was not taking advantage of the generous wing the A-20 had - the P-38 was carrying a tad more, despite a much thinner and smaller wing; granted, the sizable bomb bay eventually paid off for the A-20 once they started adding fuel tanks there.
Click to expand...
tomo pauk said:
Much smaller (the the Ju 88) P-38 carried up to 410 US galls, all in the wings, while the Hornet carried 430 imp gals (= 516 US gals; most of that in the wings). Seems to me as more of a package issue.
Click to expand...
You are quite right, it is a packaging issue.
A-20 wing.

fuel tanks were in the forward part of the wing, so two tanks in the wing on each side.
Now we get into legacy engineering.
A-20 was designed around R-1830 engines AND with integral tanks.
The R-1830 powered planes only had the inner "tanks" and held 163 Gal each (using US gallons here) and there were no "tanks" as such. They sealed off part of the wing structure and used that as a tank (suitable strength to hold the fuel sloshing around). 325 Gal usable. The R-1830 powered planes were also around 15,200lbs gross.

The R-2600 powered planes started with the same fuel tanks but it was quickly realized that they were not going to have much range so they added an 87 gal tank in each outer wing.
This gave a capacity of 500 Gal and all was good, until somebody figured out that having people shoot at your unprotected integral tanks was was not helping long life of the pilots/crew. Douglas managed to fit inner fuel cells of 136 gal and out fuel cells of 64 gal for a total of 400 gal.
Now Douglas had already fitted a larger fin and rudder and reinforced the wing spar/s when they stuck the R-2600 engines in the plane and the Gross weight went to just over 20,000lbs which was allowed to creep up to about 24,000lbs G & J models.
I am sure that Douglas could have figured out a way to fit more fuel in the wings if they wanted to and had the engineering staff available. However Douglas had the legacy fuselage designed for scores of small fragmentation bombs that weren't being used so they had extra volume in the fuselage. Douglas had also added around 33% to the weight of the plane when they went to the R-2600 engines and they were going to add almost another 20% in the next couple of years. Adding more wing fuel storage/weight?

Some of Douglas's engineering staff was already working on the A-26 which flew 5 weeks after Midway.
Excerpts from Joe Baugher's web site.
In the autumn of 1940, Douglas began a preliminary design study to develop a common successor to the Douglas A-20, Martin B-26, and North American B-25 bombers,
At the end of January 1941, a team led by Edward Heinemann and Robert Donovan had come up with a proposal for a new twin-engined attack aircraft that would satisfy these requirements.
The mockup was inspected between April 11 and 22 of 1941, and on June 2 the War Department authorized the construction of two prototypes under the new designation A-26.

Major changes to the A-20 have to be looked at in that light.
Same can be said of some of the German programs (or programs in other countries). Just about anything can be done, but sometimes it is not wise. It sometimes takes a lot of time and effort to modify and existing design to meet new requirements.

The Me 210/410 is kind of an example.

By the time they got the DB 603 engines into it and fixed the CG and aerodynamic problems they had changed a bunch of things.

At some point you have to accept what you have and stop tinkering with it (Ju-288) and/or accept the fact that the intended engine is crap and you need to start over.

The US was lucky that they had more engines in development because they sure had their share of crap engines in development that took a lot of money and manhours down the drain in the airframe manufacturers.
 
Shortround6 said:
At some point you have to accept what you have and stop tinkering with it (Ju-288) and/or accept the fact that the intended engine is crap and you need to start over.
Click to expand...

They should've keep the Ju 288 simple, and indeed stop thinkering with it - many times a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bushes.
Use what works now (for the 288 it is the BMW 801), swap with big V12s once these are available. It is not that Ju 288 was some space-age bomber, but it offered a significant advantage over the He 111 and Ju 88 - that being a bomb bay that was able to house big bombs, wherein the 111 and 88 needed to carry big bombs hanging outside the airframe, that kills both speed and mileage.
 
On a side twin engine note, my sons and I were at a Commemorative Air Force open house at Modesto CA (just after the Confederate name change) to view their Heinkel He-111 making the circuit. We hung around long enough, toughing it, petting it, hugging it, to see it lite off and fly east. Later we heard it augured in on its last leg in Texas bound for Missoula. PAX
 
A better thought-out '2nd gen' of German 2-engined A/C?
Start of programs.
1934
Do 17
He 111
Ju-86
FW 57
HS 124

1935
Ju-88

1936
FW 187
He 177 for reference.

1937
Do 217

1938
Ar-240
Me 210

1939
Do 317
Fw 191
Ju 288

1940
war will be over soon

1941
NOW the war will be over soon

1942
Ta 154
He 219
Do 335

There seem to be at least 3 generations of twin engine aircraft here with a few inbetweeners. And again this is start of program/design, not first flights.
Corrections welcome as this is from William Green and there may be new scholarship/dates.

Obviously not all all aircraft perform the same roles and I left out a few like the Fw 189 and Hs 129 which were rather limited.

You have the 1934-35-36(?) generation.
The 1937(?)-38-39 generation.
The 1942 generation.

If somebody want's to go add jets go ahead.
 
Shortround6 said:
1938
Ar-240
Me 210

1939
Do 317
Fw 191
Ju 288
Click to expand...
Thanks again for looking at numbers and typing them out.
We might probably agree about one thing: if German companies (and RLM/LW) get two of the designs right (say, Me 210 with thin wing, low-drag cooling and 'normal' fuselage length from day one, plus a simple Ju 288), they solve two issues - the 1st gen twins can be replaced on a reasonably quick pace, and there is no need for the follow-up (= Ta 154, He 219, Do 335)?
These twins - in mass manufacture and use - can later get better engines as these materialize in order to stay competitive.
Jet-propelled twins as 3rd gen?
 
Does the Ju 288 with BMW 801 have sufficient performance for your needs Tomo?

Or will you have to gamble on a Ju 288 with DB 606 (already being developed/produced for the He 177)?

DB 606 has ~ 50% more power than BMW 801.
 
wuzak said:
Does the Ju 288 with BMW 801 have sufficient performance for your needs Tomo?
Click to expand...

Probably it has, provided we keep the size modest, as it was on the 1st prototype. Wing area was at 580 sq ft, wing span at almost 61 ft. Compare with Do 217 (610 sq ft, 62 ft 4 in), Ju 88A-4 (yes, different engine; 65 ft 7 in and 587 sq ft), Tu-2S (522 sq and ft 62 ft). P1Y1 and 2 - 592 sq ft 65 ft 8 in.
Granted, wing area and span are not be-all end-all metrics.
What the 288 has over Ju 88 and Do 217 is the less bulky and more streamlined cockpit, and thin fuselage; also, over the Ju 88, it has a well-sized bomb bay so the bombs are not hang in the slipstream to kill speed and mileage. Will it be a 400 mph/650 km/h bomber - perhaps with better engines, like the turboed BMW 801 as the Ju 388 got.
As-is (= fully rated BMW 801D) it might do 550-560 km/h bombed-up, though, or ~100 km/h better than a Ju 88 with external bombs. With big V12s (DB 603A or Jumo 213A) perhaps another 20-30 km/h.

wuzak said:
Or will you have to gamble on a Ju 288 with DB 606 (already being developed/produced for the He 177)?

DB 606 has ~ 50% more power than BMW 801.
Click to expand...

Two 606s = four V12s
606 was the gamble on it's own.
 

I'd still be in favor of a fast unarmed 2 man bomber. Probably needs to be capable of something around 650 km/h to be survivable during the day. So would need to be significantly smaller than the 288, more like a Mosquito. 801 provides a few hundred horses more than the Merlin, but the bigger and draggier nacelles probably eat that advantage up.

While the 801 is probably their best bet for a new standard bomber engine, considering 603 and 213 are still not ready yet, a problem is that except for the initial variants they all required C3. Unclear whether Germany could have sufficient capacity to produce the required volumes.

Perhaps try to develop a more powerful B4 using variant? But how? More rpm and MW50 for TO/WEP, a bit like the Homare?

The turbocharged variants certainly look interesting, if they would be able to produce them at reasonable cost and little usage of strategic metals. Wasn't the secret that they had air cooled turbine blades? Presumably not the film cooling modern turbine blades use, which was developed starting in the 60'ies..

Two 606s = four V12s
606 was the gamble on it's own.
Click to expand...

Bluh, just cancel the 606; there are much more cost effective ways to produce boat anchors.
 

Aiming for 650 km/h indeed rules out the 288.
We'd be looking, among German airframes as ballpark, on something between the Ta-154-sized A/C and a 'fat fuselage' He 219 designed as a bomber? Me 210/410 fits between the two, size-wise.
The small bomber can even work with DB 601E or de-rated DB 605A?


Make a better use of the 801E project perhaps. It was canned supposedly due to requiring the change in a part of tooling on production lines making the 'normal' 801s, but even the DB 603 or Jumo 213 production will require change in tooling (or brand new tooling if new factory is required for these).
Already mating the S/C from the 801E on the 801C should work - the new S/C will heat the air less, and it will make better boost, so it should provide the power similar to the 801D but on B4 fuel. Granted, the MW 50 should be the option to boost the power even more.
All of this will require the debugging of the 801, as it was the case through 1941 and 42.


Yes, it was with air-cooled blades. These will lower the need for nickel vs. the solid blades.
Turbines with air-cooled blades were mass produced for the needs of jet engine program in 1944-45.
 
Simplest solutions is no to lose kampf part of Kampfzerstörer request for a new multipurpose fighter so you start with something like bf 162 not bf 110. Maybe with mid wing (so to have bomb bay as was requested).
 
Plane....................................................Ju-288......................B-26........................Do-217.........................Ju-88...........................Tu-2S.........................P1Y1
Wing area sq ft.................................580............................602............................610.................................587................................522..........................592
Wingspan...........................................61...............................65...........................62.33.................................65.6................................62............................65.66
Gross weight(lb)............................29,542....................26,734......................33,700.............................26700..........................23,200.........................23,000
power.................................................2 X 2000.................2 X 1850....................2 X 1580.......................2 X 1340.................2 X 1850................2 X 1825
crew.......................................................3................................5......................................4.....................................4.......................................4..............................3

max speed.............................................404............................326 #...........................320...........................................292......................328............................340

max bombload...........................6600...............................5800..........................8800..................................4400................................5000............................2200
norm. load.....................................????................................2000..........................5500..................................3300................................3300............................1760

features
dive bomb...................................Y..................................N.................................Y......................................Y.......................................Y.................................Y
pressure cabin............................Y.................................N.................................N.....................................N.......................................N...............................N
remote gun turrets...................2.................................0..................................0........................................0.......................................0................................0
power gun turret/s..................0...................................1.................................1........................................0.......................................0................................0
manual gun stations................0................................3...................................4........................................3......................................3.................................1
fixed gun sets.............................2.................................0..................................1........................................1(?)..................................2.................................1

total Guns................................6 X 7.9.......................3 X 12.7/2X .30........*...........................................**.................................. ***..............................****

* 1 X 15mm, 2 13mm, 1-2 7,9mm
** 2 X 13mm and 1/2 7.9mm or 6 7.9s or???
*** 2 X 20mm fixed in wings, 3 12.7-7.62 guns in dorsal and ventral mounts/hatches
**** 1 X 20mm fixed forward, 1 X 13 mm gun in dorsal position.

Ju 288 numbers are for the EF 73 proposed version which didn't last long, it is also for the Jumo 222 engines offered more power higher up than the all of the other engines (?)

B-26 numbers are a bit of mess, they are for the B-26/B-26A version which also did not last long. Performance numbers were done at 26,734lbs but that means with about 465 US gal fuel in the tanks and with the bomb bay empty. With 2000lbs of bombs and full tanks (in these early versions) you could hit 33,300lbs with 1462 US gal of fuel or trade fuel for bombs.
Gun armament is one .30 in the nose, one .30 out the belly tunnel, one .50 in the tail and the two .50s in the power turret. Also means that the co-pilot's seat is empty if all four gun stations are manned, a problem for the two older German bombers also.

Most or all of these planes except the JU 288 need external stowage to hit max bomb load.

The EF 73 spec seems more than a little optimistic. Max fuel was 4010 liters (882 imp gal/ 6350lbs) which with max bombs leaves no weight for oil, crew, guns, ammo, equipment.
Empty weight was lower than the Ju-88A-4?

You can find space (volume) for a lot more "stuff" than most WW II designers did, but the "stuff" still has weight, and the weight has to be dealt with.

B-26 is of interest as it shows the progression to heavier weights in later models and changes made to get the plane off and back on the ground. Granted the US added an awful lot of weight with more guns and ammo but the B-26 was never stressed for dive bombing, did not have cabin pressurization and never had a remote power turret.
 
Shortround6 said:
Plane....................................................Ju-288
Click to expand...
Shortround6 said:
Wing area sq ft.................................580
Click to expand...
Shortround6 said:
power.................................................2 X 2000
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
Please note that Jumo 222 powered 288s went quickly with the greater wing span and area (~700 sq ft); granted, the 1st prototype was with small wing, same as the real 1st prototype that was powered with BMW 801s. Later BMW powered prototypes were also with bigger wing, 635 or 646 sq ft.
 
I believe a DO 335 like aircraft would have been possible in your timeline. Dornier had been studying the design for some time. The DO 335 was stalled by the Luftwaffe for some time until it was too late to be a meaningful asset in the war effort.
 
What about the Fw 187 as a no-nonsense way for the Luftwaffe to have a high-performance 2-engined A/C, without looking at fancy new engines to materialize? It should work well with mass-produced V12 engines (DB 601/605, Jumo 211) since it was a small and sleek fighter, should be able to lug a big bomb as a fast bomber, fend off most of Allied fighters before 1944, and should work as a LR recon.
Being a 'classic' twin, installing 30mm cannons like the MK 101 or 103 should be much easier than to have these on Fw 190s, and with smaller performance penalty.

NevadaK said:
I believe a DO 335 like aircraft would have been possible in your timeline. Dornier had been studying the design for some time. The DO 335 was stalled by the Luftwaffe for some time until it was too late to be a meaningful asset in the war effort.
Click to expand...

Do 335 strikes me as 'why we didn't came to that idea 5 years earlier'. Especially for Dornier, who were making aircraft with push-pull powerplants already in 1920s.
 
Zmauky said:
Simplest solutions is no to lose kampf part of Kampfzerstörer request for a new multipurpose fighter so you start with something like bf 162 not bf 110. Maybe with mid wing (so to have bomb bay as was requested).
Click to expand...
Nowarra states that Bf 162 was with a bomb bay for a 500 kg bomb, while two 250 kg bombs were supposed to be carried externally. Should be much more of a fast bomber than it was the Ju 88 (and with that also a faster night fighter).
 
The FW 187 can do some jobs but it is a little small for others.
The Me 210 was a little large for some (forget dog fighting) and better for others. You want a fast bomber, better use an internal bomb bay. Do 335 was intended to be a intruder/fast bomber with an internal bomb bay, it may have been a bit wasteful but that was the intention.

To be a really successful aircraft the plane needs to do the mission/s required/wanted from the airfields available (or with minor improvements) with little additional support.
Maybe the US could build fighter runways for loaded P-47s and P-61s but who else could
What is the range needed for the missions? Cross channel is one thing, especially from occupied countries. The Med was not intended but if you are planning on attacking Russia?
Ural bomber may have been drug induced without looking at a map but short range planes are going to be a problem.
Using external stores gets to be problem. Hurricanes using one rocket rack and one drop tank is an expensive way to get 4 rockets to the target. P-38 with one bomb and one one drop tank was done but it also is an expensive way to get one bomb (or give weight of explosives) to the target. A lot of people did it but was using what they had, not what they wanted.

Germans main problem was not enough engines. Which lead to some of the politics as to which companies got contracts and for what.
Do-17 was the result was not having enough DB 600/601 engines.
Do-215 had a short life due to engines. Take a Do-215, stick DB 601N or E engines in it and redo the nose.
Four 550lb bombs inside, add wing root racks as desired. Won't dive bomb but that didn't work with large twins anyway
 

Doom of many designs was that they tried to do everything, ending up in doing nothing good enough. Potez 63 series comes to mind, Ba.88 too, the earlier Ba.65 was also the do-all aircraft that ended up mediocre in everything. So I'd keep the number of roles short (high-perf LR fighter for the 187), and adopt for other few roles later (recon, fast bomber, fighter bomber). A Fw 187 powered with DB 601 or Jumo 211 will still be plenty fast vs. a lot of Allied fighters, and definitely faster than a bombed-up Bf 110 or even Fw 190.


Primary missions:
- long range fighter (already designed as such)
- air-defense fighter with great firepower (easier to accomplish than with an 1-engined fighter)
- 'destroyer' (LR fighter armed with both light bombs and guns' firepower)

Secondary missions:
- LR escort
- short range bomber, carries 1000-2000 kg bomb load (far cry from a short range Bf 109 bomber that carries one 250 kg bomb)

Don't bother:
- night fighter
- LR high payload bomber


Both P-38 and Hurricane have had a problem of not being able to lug anything under the centreline. P-38 also has a problem of it being a twin boom design, severely limiting the internal CoG-neutral volume for payload, that was further used up by the requirement for the nose leg of the U/C to be housed (eg. neither Hellcat, nor Corsair nor Hornet have had the problems listed above). Hurricane had a problem of small fuel tankage.
Fw 187 had neither of these shortcomings wrt. internal and external payload.


Something certainly has to go for something else to be made. Do 17 predates the DB 600/601 engines
Do 215 does not materialize. Bf 110 is produced in perhaps half the numbers vs. the historical production (or not at all, but that is beyond this thread). No day fighter versions of the Ju 88 (211s should fit nicely on the Fw 187).
Do 215, even with the nose job, will still be a prey for the Allied fighters, both when going towards the target and going back - note the wing area almost double of the Fw 187 (or 20% greater than that of the Mosquito or A-20) and 18% thick wing profile. Wing area was in ballpark with the Tu-2, Ju 88 or 1st prototype of 288.

Fw 187 will also be much improved if the DB 601E is installed on it. Add the bomb tray for 250 kg bombs?
 
So we are designing a '2nd gen' if German 2 engined aircraft but question is for what missions ? To be counterpart (to performances and/or missions ) of Mosquito or A-26 or Wellington or ...also when is important question.
For example Me 210: if it was good from start ( like Me 210ca ie Db 605 powered Hungarian version ) it would be good light bomber even with original DB601. As for zerstörer or night fighter not so much.
It fit in category but it was to late, first flight September 1939 frontline units April 1942.
(And I agree that all Me 410 DB 603 engines would be better used in Fw 190C . )
And all in all Me 410 wasn't bad airplane - just wrong time/mission. (one can not expect that it could tangle with 8.AAF's escort fighters but as recce and for light bombing mission was good and a bit late).
My choice for light 2 engined aircraft...(and I will get to 2nd generation)
From 1939 Kampfzerstörer with long range and an internal bomb bay - actually combined zerstörer and schnellbomber (so mid wing Bf 110 with optional bomber/radio in nose (ala Bf 162) and bombs or more guns in bomb bay as mission required ). Think of Erprobungsgruppe 210 like missions in BOB.
Also from 1939 one seat Fw 187 as long range fighter - zerstörer. Used as Bf 110 iotl.
For engines maybe Fw gets DB (more used as fighter) and Bf Jumos (more used as bomber). With improvements ie DB 605 / jumo 211j / mg150/20 / mw50 ect we can get to 1942 maybe 1943 and then what ?
Assuming timeline of war was not changed 2 engined zerstörer (Fw 187) was doomed for fighter vs fighter over western Europe (and earlier unguided rockets on single engined fighters can be answer for B-17 boxes) also it is to small for night fighter, and light bomber (bf 110 / 162) is to big for ground attack missions on eastern front and to small for medium bombers missions or barely enough big for night fighter.
As much I like projects like Ta 211 or early predecessor to He 219 they without change in timeline wasn't needed or wanted - that's mainly why there are only projects . So if nothing changes drop them and do something different - ie from 1943 2 engined jets for west and Fw 109F for east.
Well if we change timeline .... then we may get la raison d'être. A then we can, with pleasure , design appropriate airplane.

I don't want to be rude or offensive and I like to read wiff and learn about projects and different people's ideas but I like to put them their corresponding framework.

And my apologies to native English speakers for my lack of knowledge of the language.

greetings from Adriatic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
wuzak
W
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
849
tomo pauk
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
28
Views
949
Shortround6
S
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register