Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank you. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the "odd" proportions of the Me 264.What is "height" the 264 had a double tail fin design. The B-29 was longer but narrower it had two bomb bays because of that. They are just different airplanes, similar but not the same.
It doesn't have odd proportions, it just has proportions, some aircraft had both single and double tails during their life, The Manchester had a triple tail to start with.Thank you. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the "odd" proportions of the Me 264.
No I don't mean the shape of the tail, I'm thinking of the fuselage length/wing span ratio.It doesn't have odd proportions, it just has proportions, some aircraft had both single and double tails during their life, The Manchester had a triple tail to start with.
I've been comparing the two recently and despite having almost the same wingspan (~43m, off by two inches), the B-29 has almost twice the height of the Me 264 (8.5m vs 4.2m) and an additional 10m in length (20.9m vs 30.2m). My question is, what exactly accounts for the design differences? Besides looking quite similar, both have the same mission, but the Me 264 is significantly smaller while having a relatively similar performance. Why was the Me 264 designed so short?
I wouldn't say that the Me 264 and B29 had the same mission. The Me 264 was expected to conduct 10,000 mile round trip missions with around a 5000kg lb bombload from Europe to the East Coast to bomb Sperry Works and Alcoa etc. The B29 could perhaps do 6200 miles ferry range. The Me 264 was also only 75% of the size of the B29. It had to lot of challenges.
The Me 264 ran into several problems, mostly political it seems some strategic.
1 There was a very bad relationship between Professor Messerschmitt and Erhard Milch who was in charge of procurement at the time for the Luftwaffe. Milch did support the Me 262 mJet but in the minutes of meetings published by Manfred Griehls book "The Luftwaffe over Amerika" he is constantly making quips and sarcastic comments about the practicality of the concept of such a mission and aircraft.
2 The Me 264 could do the mission, the only problem was that with Jumo 211 engines it would take 2500m take-off roll and needed a nearly a 3000m runway. That run way was seen as a vulnerable target for allied bombing. Using RATO to shorten the takeoff roll was seen as too risky for standard missions.
3 The aircraft itself was large and would have been spotted and become a target for allied bombers.
4 When 2000hp variants of the BMW 801 became available the aircraft was capable of about 9200 miles range and (from, with about memory about 2000kg to 3000kg of bombs). There was flight test data at this point and the run way length requirements had become more acceptable but by that time too much time had been lost.
5 Messerschmitt was sensible about the about the expectation for his design. He envisaged the initial version with the the Jumo 211 as being a lightly armed maritime reconnaissance aircraft and a courier aircraft that could reach japan. It was quite a fast aircraft anyway at nearly 340mph and had sufficient cryogenic nitrous oxide for a 40 minute burst of speed at high altitude. It would have been lightly armed with waist guns and maybe a manned dorsal manualy aimed gun.
The aircraft in the fullness of time was to receive the 2400hp DB603H engine (which used 100/130 octane C3 fuel). The 2250hp DB603LA (on 87 octane with MW50) engine actually entered production for the Ta 152C so they actually achieved the required horsepower.
This aircraft had retractable remotely controlled turrets with duel 20mm guns. These turrets were actually developed and fitted to the second prototype (which was lost in bombing but there are many excellent photos). The aircraft could defend itself from any angle including the tail by super firing the ventral and dorsal turrets between the twin tails. With twin 20mm guns I would argue it had enough punch to stop a fighter before the fighter got through. There is no such thing as bullet proof glass that can withstand 20mm rounds.
6 The Germans had very successful in flight refuelling tests in 1942/1943 and I imagine they could have used Schwann-Luft radio buoys to organise rendezvous but it seen to have been too radical idea for Milch.
7 This very much gets down to resources such as hanger space, engineers and draftsmen. These were in short supply and never assigned. The me 264 did not have sufficient priority.
8 This also gets down to a strategic decision. Do you put resources into this. You would need to put hundreds of Me 264 over the USA to sufficiently saturate American defences to minimise attrition. It just seems to expensive. The other alternative was night bombing but that only becomes feasible when the Germans recover a British H2S.
9 Nevertheless just as a maritime reconnaissance bomber it would have been justified with the occasional nuisance raid occupying US and Canadian resources into continental defence.
I understand that the mission of the Amerika Bombers and B-29s in the Pacific differed in many important ways, however I believe that this can be rectified by simply comparing the H3 Schwerer Bomber (Heavy Bomber) variant to the B-29. According to Creek and Forsyth, the H3 powered by four DB603H's was to have carried 14,000 kg (30865 lbs) over a length of 7,900km (range was projected to have been increased to 8,400km with Jumo 213's). This compares to the B-29's 9072kg (~20,000 lbs) bomb load over 5,556km (~3000 nautical miles, both stats are from the 1950 SAC manual). If the Me 264 was 25% smaller, how was it able to carry a higher payload over much greater distances (in theory)? This doesn't make much sense to me.I wouldn't say that the Me 264 and B29 had the same mission. The Me 264 was expected to conduct 10,000 mile round trip missions with around a 5000kg lb bombload from Europe to the East Coast to bomb Sperry Works and Alcoa etc. The B29 could perhaps do 6200 miles ferry range. The Me 264 was also only 75% of the size of the B29. It had to lot of challenges.
How much of an impact would Jumo 222 engines have had on this? Would it have made the 264/6m redundant?4 When 2000hp variants of the BMW 801 became available the aircraft was capable of about 9200 miles range and (from, with about memory about 2000kg to 3000kg of bombs). There was flight test data at this point and the run way length requirements had become more acceptable but by that time too much time had been lost.
This is fascinating to me, could you please point me towards more sources on this? It doesn't seem to have been included on any other bomber designs (such as the Ju 288, Ta 400, Fw 238, Ju 390, etc)This aircraft had retractable remotely controlled turrets with duel 20mm guns. These turrets were actually developed and fitted to the second prototype (which was lost in bombing but there are many excellent photos). The aircraft could defend itself from any angle including the tail by super firing the ventral and dorsal turrets between the twin tails. With twin 20mm guns I would argue it had enough punch to stop a fighter before the fighter got through. There is no such thing as bullet proof glass that can withstand 20mm rounds.
Where can I find more info on this? I do have Luftwaffe over Amerika by Manfred Griehl as well.6 The Germans had very successful in flight refuelling tests in 1942/1943 and I imagine they could have used Schwann-Luft radio buoys to organise rendezvous but it seen to have been too radical idea for Milch.
Thank you for your post, Koopernic! I have some further questions:
I understand that the mission of the Amerika Bombers and B-29s in the Pacific differed in many important ways, however I believe that this can be rectified by simply comparing the H3 Schwerer Bomber (Heavy Bomber) variant to the B-29. According to Creek and Forsyth, the H3 powered by four DB603H's was to have carried 14,000 kg (30865 lbs) over a length of 7,900km (range was projected to have been increased to 8,400km with Jumo 213's). This compares to the B-29's 9072kg (~20,000 lbs) bomb load over 5,556km (~3000 nautical miles, both stats are from the 1950 SAC manual). If the Me 264 was 25% smaller, how was it able to carry a higher payload over much greater distances (in theory)? This doesn't make much sense to me.
How much of an impact would Jumo 222 engines have had on this? Would it have made the 264/6m redundant?
Of course we have to measure based on claimed/desired/projected performance, because the Me 264 prototypes that were built were not equipped with DB 603's nor Jumo 222's, nor AFAIK, did they ever fly with any sort of bomb load. I am not trying to make a value statement based on these projected performances (ie one plane is better than the other), I am trying to understand why the Me 264 had such a large projected performance advantage over the B-29 when it was smaller and used similar engines. How do you pack 10K lbs of bombs more than what the B-29 carried, at much greater ranges, despite being 3/4 of the size?You are comparing claimed or desired performance, for the Me264, vs actual performance, for the B-29.
Nope, I made sure. 7,900km (actually more) is the projected range with 14,000 kg bomb load. See the photo below, from Forsyth and Creek's Messerschmitt Me 264Leaving that aside, one should make sure that the Me264's maximum range is given with the 14,000 kg bomb load. It's not unlikely that the maximum range is with a reduced bomb load.
Very interesting, thank you! Didn't the Jumo 222 also have pretty good power/weight ration (1.03 hp/lb)? Doesn't that help make up for the extra weight as well?Versus the Me264? It's difficult to tell. The engines are individually much more powerful, but they're also heavier (this is not as bad as it looks; engines reduce the bending loads on the wing in flight), and their increased power comes with increased fuel consumption, so more fuel would be required for the same range.
I don't mean to be rude, but I would prefer not to get into a discussion here regarding "operational what ifs", I'm trying to better understand the technical aspects of the aircraft instead.In any case, bombing North America from Germany (or continental Europe) would probably end up hastening Germany's defeat: the hundreds of bombers needed for an effective air campaign with conventional weapons would mean that something else doesn't get built. What kind of attrition do those unescorted heavy bombers suffer? How many Fw190s, Bf109s, and Ju87s are the Germans willing to sacrifice while the Luftwaffe is heavily engaged against Western Allies' bombers and Soviet fighters trying to chew up Luftwaffe tactical aviation? The heavy bomber might be useful in the East, but, again, the Germans don't have anything to escort them.
Hi Koopernic, I am comparing the Me 264 "Schwerer Bomber H3"(heavy bomber) with the B-29. I understand that the engines required for this variant (DB 604H) was not tested with the aircraft, but I think it's a fair comparison since it's in the same HP class (2200 HP) and same time as the B-29 (1944). The two H3 variants appear to be the same, so why is it that the Me 264 heavy bomber could carry more bombs a longer ways away than the B-29 while being smaller and having similar engines?Unfortunatly you've overlooked the full data spec Spicyjuan. The Me 264 H3 came in two variants a "Schwerer Bomber H3"(heavy bomber) and a "Langstrecken Bomber H3" (long range bomber.
Interesting, had this been accepted rather than rejected, I wonder if the German designs would have been more focused on packing as many bombs in the airframe as possible than going for range, and how those designs would have looked!The Germans had developed and tested in flight refuelling tested in a series of experiments between Ju 290 and Ju 352 around 1942/1943. That would extend range about 1/3rd ie to 20000km and put much of the Midwest within range.
Without going too much into the Jumo 222, wasn't production planned for 2000-2500 HP in 1942? If it was benching 2800 HP on B4, what would it have been with C3? I was under the impression that the Me 264 had always the Jumo 222 in mind.Hence by early 1944 the Germans had engines that could make the Me 264 practical. Early 1944 BMW 801 (1900hp), Jumo 213A (1750hp) and DB601A (1750). By late 1944 all of these engines were producing over 2000hp. They BMW801TJ would have given 2000hp but allowed cruising at 11500m and the Jumo 213E1 was producing 2050hp at very high altitudes and the DB603LA was producing 2250hp. The 2400hp DB603H required was surely not far away. The Jumo 222 was also planed. It was benching 2800hp on B4 fuel in 1944 and production was planed if it could reach 3000.
I have this book too, albeit in PDF. I'd like to get a print copy, but $100+ is too pricey for a book I already have.The following is from Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika Bomber by Rober Forsyth and Eddie J Creek. A good book from Men that I have given a lot of money too.
Hi Koopernic, I am comparing the Me 264 "Schwerer Bomber H3"(heavy bomber) with the B-29. I understand that the engines required for this variant (DB 604H) was not tested with the aircraft, but I think it's a fair comparison since it's in the same HP class (2200 HP) and same time as the B-29 (1944). The two H3 variants appear to be the same, so why is it that the Me 264 heavy bomber could carry more bombs a longer ways away than the B-29 while being smaller and having similar engines?
Interesting, had this been accepted rather than rejected, I wonder if the German designs would have been more focused on packing as many bombs in the airframe as possible than going for range, and how those designs would have looked!
Without going too much into the Jumo 222, wasn't production planned for 2000-2500 HP in 1942? If it was benching 2800 HP on B4, what would it have been with C3? I was under the impression that the Me 264 had always the Jumo 222 in mind.
Weren't there designs of the Me 264 with BMW 803 (4,500HP) or BMW 109-028 (6,700 HP+2,645 lbs of thrust)?
I have this book too, albeit in PDF. I'd like to get a print copy, but $100+ is too pricey for a book I already have.
I think the Me 264 fuselage was quite small and cramped by what I've seen. In all pictures of the aircraft, the engine nacelles and propellers look huge compared to the body, while -in truth- they should be the same 'power eggs' units used on Ju-88 (Also, there is a galley but no toilet! How were the aviators supposed to relieve themselves during a >24hrs flight? Did they install 'special seats' in the bomb bay?)
View attachment 604245