Aircraft for a different Zerstörer specification?

[tomo pauk]

Going per English-language Wikipedia, the specification for (Kampf)Zerstörer was along these lines:
The request called for a twin-engine, three-seat, all-metal monoplane that was armed with cannon as well as a bomb bay.
German-language Wikipedia says that a requirement for the Zerstörer, in 1934, is to provide escort for bombers by fighting the defensive (enemy) fighters (Aufgabe des Zerstörers war der Begleitschutz für Bomber durch die Bekämpfung feindlicher Abfangjäger.).
The 1934 spec also included the ability for cannon armament to be able to be movable - shades of Airacuda; granted, that was not proceeded with later. Updated spec from 1935 removed the need for a bomb-bay, at least per German-language Wikipedia.

So let's say RLM goes with specification like this:
Two-seat, long range all-metal monoplane with guns' armament that can reliably destroy bombers, and can carry bomb(s) or cameras need-be.
What aircraft should the German companies design, so it can enter the service by winter of 1938/39, similar as it was the case with Bf 110?

 

[GrauGeist]

I can't really think of any alternative that would fall into that category and timeline other than the ones proposed historically, like the Fw57 and Hs124.

 

[tomo pauk]

I can't really think of any alternative that would fall into that category and timeline other than the ones proposed historically, like the Fw57 and Hs124.

One avenue of approach might be a more compact twin. Like the (in)famous Fw 187, or the IMAM Ro.58, or sorta V12-powered Ki-45.
Another way is to go 1-engined.

 

[vikingBerserker]

FW 189 A-4 ground attack version with more powerful engines and replace the 4 x 20mm with 2-4 x 30mm

 

[GrauGeist]

Tomo, how about the Fw57 with Jumo210 engines instead of the DB600 engines that were used?

 

[tomo pauk]

FW 189 A-4 ground attack version with more powerful engines and replace the 4 x 20mm with 2-4 x 30mm

The other Fw product keeps popping up all the time...

Tomo, how about the Fw57 with Jumo210 engines instead of the DB600 engines that were used?

We'd probably want something out-performing the original choice Fw 57 was bigger than HP Hampden or Ju 88.

 

[Dimlee]

I wonder, did Arado try to participate in Zerstorer program before 1938 when new specifications were issued...
If they did and were supported, Ar 240 could appear earlier?
Otherwise, E.500 but with less crew and with fixed cannon armament?

Full disclosure: I like Arado

 

[tomo pauk]

Single-engined Zerstorer, depicted withe the D4Y picture.
The 4 red items represent (with a little imagination) two MG FF cannons and two MG 17s; cowl guns should be here MG 17s, obviously. There is no need for ~1050 L (~275 US gals; the Bf 110C carried 1270L for two engines) of fuel the Judy carried, 650+- L will do, thus leaving enough of elbow room for s-s tanks without eating into the fuel carried. RoC will also not suffer terribly. Keep the things simple by using the wing airfoil from Bf 109, with 14.2% T-t-C ratio, not the outrageous 18.5% as on the Bf 110. Nicely retract and cover the U/C.
Judy was pretty zippy on lower power than the DB 601A did (~50 HP deficit at 4500m) - about 540 km/h, ie. faster than Hurricane, in ballpark with Bf 110, and a tad slower than Bf 109E. Small size (in-between the Spitfire and Hurricane) and good streamlining were key ingredients. Granted, the guns' openings and chutes were at minimum with just two LMGs. Recon versions also carried a big camera aft the gunner.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So let's say RLM goes with specification like this:
Two-seat, long range all-metal monoplane with guns' armament that can reliably destroy bombers, and can carry bomb(s) or cameras need-be.
What aircraft should the German companies design, so it can enter the service by winter of 1938/39, similar as it was the case with Bf 110?

Can we ditch the second crewman, keep his seat if we must to satisfy the RLM specification, but skip the rear gunner role, squeeze that poor chap into the back as a navigator if necessary. With just one man we can make the true destroyer fighter, essentially a German P-38 or DH Hornet. We need more ammunition than a Whirlwind.

Do I misunderstand the term? (Kampf)Zerstörer is intended to destroy enemy fighters so that the bombers get through, not fight bombers itself.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think you might be clutching at straws just like the Germans were.

Decide on a long range bomber escort and separately describe a tactical strike aircraft. Don't combine both specifications into one airframe - you're asking for trouble. Messerschmitt got it spectacularly wrong with the Me 210 and it took the Hungarians and eventually redesign into the Me 410 that rectified the issues. Two different requirements operating in two different spheres of operations, altitude etc, necessitating two different airframes.

Let's also not kid ourselves regarding the Fw 187, since it's bound to get mentioned. The Kampfzerstorer paper design variant had a completely different airframe to the original interceptor variant, which was different again for the later night fighter/interceptor variant, which, incidentally was a single-seater. The available drawings confirm this. Two very different airframes doing two very different jobs.

 

[Snautzer01]

I thought the the Hungarians sticked with the 210C and produced it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, the Hungarians did fix the problems with the Me210, producing the Me210C and like Grant said, Messerschmitt fixed the Me210 by creating the Me410, which was a much better aircraft.

The problem with Messerschmitt is that they took far to long to develop the Me210 and far too long to admit it was a failure.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think you might be clutching at straws just like the Germans were.

Didn't expected you'd love the suggestion.

Decide on a long range bomber escort and separately describe a tactical strike aircraft. Don't combine both specifications into one airframe - you're asking for trouble. Messerschmitt got it spectacularly wrong with the Me 210 and it took the Hungarians and eventually redesign into the Me 410 that rectified the issues. Two different requirements operating in two different spheres of operations, altitude etc, necessitating two different airframes.

Long range bomber escort is easy - P-36/P-40 look-alike Made in Germany.
Messerschmitt redesigned the 210A into 210C, and then the 410. Not the Hungarians. I've never stated that the different Zerstorer spec includes the tactical strike job.

Let's also not kid ourselves regarding the Fw 187, since it's bound to get mentioned. The Kampfzerstorer paper design variant had a completely different airframe to the original interceptor variant, which was different again for the later night fighter/interceptor variant, which, incidentally was a single-seater. The available drawings confirm this. Two very different airframes doing two very different jobs.

A 2-seater Fw 187 flew, whatever is it called, it was not just a 'paper design variant'.

 

[nuuumannn]

Didn't expected you'd love the suggestion.

It's not a matter of love, my friend, a matter of sensibility and logic.

Not the Hungarians.

The Hungarians produced the type under licence that rectified some of the ills the Me 210 suffered independently of Messerschmitt input, and ironically the Luftwaffe received some of these in 1944 and were satisfied with them.

I've never stated that the different Zerstorer spec includes the tactical strike job.

The Zerstorer was a tactical strike reconnaissance aircraft.

A 2-seater Fw 187 flew, whatever is it called, it was not just a 'paper design variant'.

Yes, the two-seater that was built was a two-seat fighter without an offensive element compared to the Kampferstorer design, which remained a napkinwaffe only. It was this that the RLM was going to offer Fw a production contract, but it did not happen and the aircraft was not built.

I suspect you know all these things already, tomo...

 

[tomo pauk]

It's not a matter of love, my friend, a matter of sensibility and logic.

Sensibility and logic would've mandated quoting the whole part, not just the 'Not the Hungarians.' sentence.

 

[nuuumannn]

Sensibility and logic would've mandated quoting the whole part, not just the 'Not the Hungarians.' sentence.

Does it matter? You already knew what I meant.

 

[tomo pauk]

Does it matter? You already knew what I meant.

Have a good day.

 

[nuuumannn]

C'mon Tomo, don't be like that. How d'you expect me to respond? The original Zerstorer specification was flawed simply because it tried to combine two disparate roles into one aeroplane. The Bf 110 made a good recon bomber, but a lousy fighter/bomber escort. Even with the advances of post-war technology they couldn't make the F-111 a high altitude fighter and a low-altitude strike bomber.

Today they can do it with an F-18, but there are compromises - there always are and during WW2 there simply wasn't the technology to overcome those compromises.

 

[Shortround6]

Two-seat, long range all-metal monoplane with guns' armament that can reliably destroy bombers, and can carry bomb(s) or cameras need-be.

Well, you have removed the bomb bay but kept the requirements to carry bombs and cameras (large ones?)

Now in the 1930s most designers were trying to carry bombs inside rather than outside. They figured the inside storage created less drag so you have more speed/range for a even amount of of power (and for a given amount of fuel).

Tactical views changed, in the mid 30s 8-10 bombs of 100-110lb weight was considered useful, if not even more bombs of smaller weight.

A lot depends on the exact specifications and a one sentence description leaves too much up in the air (subject to the designers interpretation)

do you want eight 110lb bombs carried over 1000km or over 1400kpm?

Do you want two 440lb bombs or two bombs of a smaller size over a bit more distance?

eight 110lbs carried externally will have a lot more drag than two big bombs of equivalent weight.
Even internal bomb bays are going to be different in size.

The FW 57 had a 791 sq ft wing, the HS 124 had 588 sq ft wing.

The Bf 162 was supposed to carry ten 110lbs inside and had provision for a pair of 551lb bombs outside in overload conditions.
The "specifications" called for a take run of of 765 yds to clear a 65 ft obstacle (old William Green book, distances obviously translated from metric) bit that specification allied to most/all of the competing aircraft it can throw a real wrench into the works.

By 1942 or so very few people were carting around eight to twelve 110lb bombs in most ground attack/ light bombers.

Most of the light bombers/ ground attack planes coming into service in around 1942 couldn't operated from 1934-1937 air fields. Even a lot of modified older aircraft could not operate from older airfields.

For example a P-36C was 'supposed' to have a take off run of 1100ft to 50ft at a weight of 5800lbs.
A P-40E was supposed to need 1800ft at 7500lbs to do the same thing, and 2200ft was needed at 8100lbs.

Specifications often took into account a lot more than speed, ceiling, climb, range and number of guns.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, you have removed the bomb bay but kept the requirements to carry bombs and cameras (large ones?)

I haven't removed the bomb bay, just it is no longer required. A resulting aircraft can do with or without a bomb bay - whatever you see fit.

A lot depends on the exact specifications and a one sentence description leaves too much up in the air (subject to the designers interpretation)

do you want eight 110lb bombs carried over 1000km or over 1400kpm?

Do you want two 440lb bombs or two bombs of a smaller size over a bit more distance?

eight 110lbs carried externally will have a lot more drag than two big bombs of equivalent weight.

Single bombs preferably. One 250 kg bomb for long distances, one 500 kg bomb for short distances. Or, one 250 kg + 4x50 kg for shorter distances.
Small bombs for tactical duties still have the Hs 123 and Ju 87 as carriers.