- Thread starter
- #81
This book might offer a glimpse about that.
A better thought-out '2nd gen' of German 2-engined A/C? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Thanks for hint, Dan Sharp books are excellent and informative.
What I'm mentioning, from memory, is not even a project, but just a couple of sketches of the pilot and the DB606 in view and side view. As soon as I find the picture I will send it.
don4331
Senior Airman
Were you thinking He.119?
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I'd put Do-335 in for 3rd gen too. Lightens demand on jets while still turning in good performance.
wuzak
Captain
No. There are topics about the He 119 (and the RT project) for the bomber variant. What I am referring to is a short article. In the accompanying text, I'm almost sure that the word Jäger was mentioned and it was not a sketch of the whole plane, but only how to place the engine in relation to the pilot (conventionally in front, behind as in the P-39, etc.).
But the very idea of a twin-engine plane designed as a classic ww2 fighter is interesting.
cammerjeff
Tech Sergeant
Could anything be done with the DB 601 or JU 211 powered Do 217c? Drop the dive bombing requirement, reduce the crew to 3, drop the heavy forward firing guns, with the lower weight it should improve the max and cruising speed and still be able to carry 4000lbs of bombs internally. When the better engines become available ad them. It still will not cruise and much more than 300mph with the available engines.
I don't know if you could remove the slots from the wings and vertical tail surfaces to clean up the aerodynamics or what effect that would have on the handling. I think it could have been a useful A/C in the 1941-43 time frame. The Lighter airframe should also help the fragile main landing gear survive.
I don't know if you could remove the slots from the wings and vertical tail surfaces to clean up the aerodynamics or what effect that would have on the handling. I think it could have been a useful A/C in the 1941-43 time frame. The Lighter airframe should also help the fragile main landing gear survive.
- Thread starter
- #88
Might be a better use of Jumo 211s than the He 111 was.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Probably not.
What you seem to be describing is sort of between a Do 215 and Do 217 with BMW 801s.
The Do 215 empty was about 54% of the weight of a Do 217E. Yes using the lighter engines and ditching the dive bomber requirement is going to lighten the Do 217C up somewhat but you are not going to get a Do 215 with double the bomb load and more speed and?????? using the same basic engine/s.
If you want a fast bomber using DB 601 engines just keep the Do 215 in production and modify it a little bit. You need the Do 217 to replace the He 111 as the He 111 was the only longish range bomber that could hold even four 550lbs inside while they played around with the He 177.
- Thread starter
- #90
Not 4, but 8 250 kg bombs inside the He 111.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Timing, Since they could not fit bigger than the 250kg bombs inside they often fitted a plate over one of the bomb bays and fitted a rack for a large caliber bomb while keeping the four 250kg bombs. It might have varied as to how easy it was to take the plate/rack off. Some He 111s got a big plate that covered both bays and held up to 5 (?) bombs outside.
Basically the whole 2nd generation German bomber program was a fiasco. Counting the Do 217 as a 1 1/2 generation
Too tricky by far.
Unproven new engines.
Too many innovations.
- Thread starter
- #92
I was simply disagreeing with your notion that He 111 was able to carry just 4x 550lb bombs for LR missions. 1885 km range with 8x 550lb bombs.
Basically the whole 2nd generation German bomber program was a fiasco. Counting the Do 217 as a 1 1/2 generation
Too tricky by far.
Unproven new engines.
Too many innovations.
Hence this thread
wuzak
Captain
Could Heinkel have improved the He 111?
DB 605 or later Ju 211, tidied up airframe, better bomb bay and defensive positions.
Could use the remote turrets from the Me 210 (which we will then turn into a 2 seat fighter without defensive guns and bomb bay), allowing the crew to stay in forward compartment.
Possibly a better bet that the He 177, though not capable of the same sort of bomb loads.
DB 605 or later Ju 211, tidied up airframe, better bomb bay and defensive positions.
Could use the remote turrets from the Me 210 (which we will then turn into a 2 seat fighter without defensive guns and bomb bay), allowing the crew to stay in forward compartment.
Possibly a better bet that the He 177, though not capable of the same sort of bomb loads.
- Thread starter
- #94
It will require a major surgery for the He 111 to be sufficiently improved. Wing was low-set, that usually messes up with the bomb bay size. A high-wing He 111 version, or at least mid-wing? Wing itself was too big & thick for the engines available, even when we include the BMW 801 (He 111 was powered by better 211s, if not on a very fast pace). Loosing a better part of the wing inner section reduces wing area and the resulting drag (like it was done when Tempest was becoming (Sea) Fury, and possibly when Battle was becoming P.4/34?).
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Not much of a disagreement.
You are entirely correct. The He 111 had that capability (less range?) at least from the E series onward. Some of the H series lost it but that was due to the above mentioned external racks as your link shows.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
As Tomo has said, it may take too much work.
That said the He 111 got less than the bare minimum. It was behind (by a year?) the engines used in the Ju-88.
It was around 1 year late getting the single 13mm power turret used in the Do 217 and Ju-188. It was late getting the better MG 81 7.9mm guns or upgrading to 13mm guns in either the upper or lower positions.
Not exactly high hanging fruit
The Jumo seems to have been a bit better bomber engine. Again, you often need a bit better 30 minute climb rating than a better 1-3-5 minute rating for bomber.
He-111P with DB 601A engines needed 31.3 minutes to get to 14,765 ft. Trying to accelerate from cruise speed to max/combat might take most or all of a 5 minute limit?
Replacing 100kg crewmen with remote control power barbettes may be a bit more streamline, it may very well be heavier.
He 111 could, in theory, fire at several(3-4) different targets at once. Some people got a little to frugal with manpower with remote power barbettes. You can only engage the number of targets that you have men operating the remote aiming stations.
wuzak
Captain
I worded it badly.
I was thinking of a new version of the He 111, a new, or mostly new, design.
Sort of like the relationship between the Ju 288 and Ju 88. Call it a He 211.
- Thread starter
- #98
Ju 288 was a whole new aircraft when compared with Ju 88
Okay, He 211, that is a major redesign of the He 111: wing looses the inner section thus reducing it's span and area (to about 600 sq ft) as well as drag and lift; fuselage has the wing attachment points in mid-wing position now, engines are probably the BMW 801. Bomb bay set for carrying 4x 500 kg bombs, or 2x 1000 kg bombs, or, with doors removed, one 1800-2500 kg bomb. Barbettes from the Me 210 are used instead of the draggy defensive positions.
wuzak
Captain
Ju 288 was a whole new aircraft when compared with Ju 88
Okay, He 211, that is a major redesign of the He 111: wing looses the inner section thus reducing it's span and area (to about 600 sq ft) as well as drag and lift; fuselage has the wing attachment points in mid-wing position now, engines are probably the BMW 801. Bomb bay set for carrying 4x 500 kg bombs, or 2x 1000 kg bombs, or, with doors removed, one 1800-2500 kg bomb. Barbettes from the Me 210 are used instead of the draggy defensive positions.
Engine-wise, I think the best that is available.
Jumo 211J may be better than BMW 801 at the start. (I'm not sure when the more powerful Jumo 211s became available).
The inner section of the wing is what keeps the propellers from cutting the fuselage.
In fact, the reason why I decided to contact the forum is the old scale models. I make (more collect that is) 1/72 and who would assemble, for example, the Italeri Bf 110 when there is Eduard's. The only solution (besides giving them away/throwing them away/selling them for nothing) is to make a what-iff variant out of them.
And so I have a couple of ideas (they also need a little help with the details).
If I may, I will go back to the first generation.
For the mentioned Bf 110, one variant would be the version with BMW 132/Bramo 323. Why - well, as production of DB 601 was delayed , why not put stronger radial engines instead of the Jumo 210.
The other would be the already mentioned - raise the wings to the level of the cabin (and get space for 500 kg of bombs below) maybe push the machine gunner/radio crewman back as far as necessary, and the pilot forward for the sake of counterweight. And without a bomber - a crew of two, only the transparent lower part of the nose (as in Pe-2/Tu-2). Even with only 2x250 kg, the carrying capacity is the same as that of the Do 17 (over UK). The question is how much could they pack up to the maximum carrying capacity and is it fast enough ?
The second topic is the Ju 88 ie its counterpart the Ju 85 (I am not referring to the later iteration of the Ju 85 which was Junkes' project for Bomber A).
O In those, a couple of sketches (and photos of the model) show a double tail and a cabin like the Ju 188, so far everything is fine, but why weren't the wings raised and thus made a place for the bombs? As the production of the Ju 88 was in segments, keep the A models as divebomber (due to precision and that the fighter variants have sufficient strength) and changed the middle block with wings attachment and bomb bay. The front segment with the cabin ... doesn't even matter which one. The wings can stay together and we don't have to touch the tail (so as not to cause problems in production). And soon we have a classic medium bomber with a spacious place for bombs. (and I can justify keeping old models).
The question is, of course, whether the regular bomb bay and relatively insignificant weight savings justify it ?
And if I don't bore you, I also have an idea for "Do 117"
) 1/72 and who would assemble, for example, the Italeri Bf 110 when there is Eduard's. The only solution (besides giving them away/throwing them away/selling them for nothing) is to make a what-iff variant out of them.And so I have a couple of ideas (they also need a little help with the details).
If I may, I will go back to the first generation.
For the mentioned Bf 110, one variant would be the version with BMW 132/Bramo 323. Why - well, as production of DB 601 was delayed , why not put stronger radial engines instead of the Jumo 210.
The other would be the already mentioned - raise the wings to the level of the cabin (and get space for 500 kg of bombs below) maybe push the machine gunner/radio crewman back as far as necessary, and the pilot forward for the sake of counterweight. And without a bomber - a crew of two, only the transparent lower part of the nose (as in Pe-2/Tu-2). Even with only 2x250 kg, the carrying capacity is the same as that of the Do 17 (over UK). The question is how much could they pack up to the maximum carrying capacity and is it fast enough ?
The second topic is the Ju 88 ie its counterpart the Ju 85 (I am not referring to the later iteration of the Ju 85 which was Junkes' project for Bomber A).
O In those, a couple of sketches (and photos of the model) show a double tail and a cabin like the Ju 188, so far everything is fine, but why weren't the wings raised and thus made a place for the bombs? As the production of the Ju 88 was in segments, keep the A models as divebomber (due to precision and that the fighter variants have sufficient strength) and changed the middle block with wings attachment and bomb bay. The front segment with the cabin ... doesn't even matter which one. The wings can stay together and we don't have to touch the tail (so as not to cause problems in production). And soon we have a classic medium bomber with a spacious place for bombs. (and I can justify keeping old models
). The question is, of course, whether the regular bomb bay and relatively insignificant weight savings justify it ?
And if I don't bore you, I also have an idea for "Do 117"
