Dornier 219 What If

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by wiking85, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Historically the Dornier 19 (Dornier Do 19 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was produced to meet the German Air Ministry's requirement for a 'Ural Bomber', but when it came time for the prototype to enter testing, it was deemed too underperforming by the Luftwaffe and superseded by the 'Bomber A' project that was given only to Heinkel to produce the He177.
    Recently I've come across information that suggested that the Dornier was ordered to stop development of the Do19 in July 1936 about 5 weeks after the Bomber A requirement was issued and several months before the first prototype was delivered.

    What if Dornier, rather than accepting that the Do19 contract was going to be cancelled, instead tried to horn in on the Bomber A contract? They had been one of two companies that had experience designing four engine strategic bombers and learned a great deal from the less than stellar Do19. That experience could have helped them tremendously when designing a next generation strategic bomber. Heinkel at this point had no experience designing such a technically complex machine, so would likely have issues with their first generation strategic bomber. The Do219, Dornier's offering, could provide a back up to the potential of a Heinkel failure.

    As to what the Do19 would look like, I figure that pretty much everything with the Do19 would have be changed and they might look at the success with the Do17 for inspiration, rather than their flying boats, which inspired the Do19. Historically the Do217, despite superficial resemblances to the Do17, were a totally different design internally. Just as the Do217 took the nose from the Do17 and had a similar tail assembly, perhaps the Do219 would end up looking like a larger, 4 engine Do217 with the same deepened bomb bay sleek design, though with turrets mid-fuselage, rather than right behind the cockpit. They would also retain the tail gunner position of the Do19.

    So in my mind the Do219 would look like a cross between the Do217 and the Lancaster. If design starts in mid-July 1936 when the order comes down to cancel Do19 development, that gives it 4 years to develop to July 1939 when it could theoretically enter production. Most WW2-era aircraft took about 4 years from design to production, though further development to bring an aircraft to its full potential sometimes took longer.

    So does anyone think this could be a viable potential path for a German strategic bomber instead of developing the Do19 or fixing the He177?
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    #2 davebender, Sep 8, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2012
    do26bt_title.jpg

    This is a Do-26 flying boat. Note the engine configuration. I think a Dornier Bomber A should copy this arrangement with two pairs of Jumo 211 V12 engines. Early versions of the aircraft would have 4,800 total hp (4 x 1,200 hp). 1941 and later aircraft would have 4 x 1,340 hp Jumo 211F engines.
     
  3. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Very interesting. I didn't even think about that. The Do26 debuted in 1938 though, even though the configuration worked in earlier models, the latest attempt, the Do14, was a failure. Its a mighty big risk to take for a major design like the Do219, but success would be massive if it worked. The question is whether Dornier would be willing to take the risk of trying the remote engine configuration in a strategic bomber...
    Dornier Do 26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Dornier Do J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Dornier Do X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Why do you say that? Dornier had all sorts of experience with tandem engine arrangements. Using familiar technology is normally the least risky option.

    Do-18. First flight 1935.
    800px-Dornier_Do_18_D-ANHR_in_flight_1938.jpg

    Do-335. Originated as project P.59 during 1939.
    Do335.png
     
  5. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Ah, I discovered the Do18 after I posted about the Do14, which was a failure. Obviously the Do18 was more recent than the Do14 and the Do26 was in the works by 1937. Plus the Do335 was originally a bomber design...so this could work. Any idea if the push-pull configuration could handle a medium dive? The Bomber A specs required a 'medium' dive, whatever that meant. Apparently the later Udet issued dive specs were a 50-50 degree dive, so a 'medium' dive would be 30-40 degrees? Apparently the He177 was originally designed to handle that, which is why the DB606 and the two large propellors were used before Udet's request.
    The question is whether the push-pull could as well, which I see no reason why not, but I'm not aeronautics engineer.
     
  6. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The twin engine Ju-88A could dive @ 90 degrees. Why would it be any different for an aircraft with twin engine pods?
     
  7. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    #7 wiking85, Sep 9, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
    The way the air flows over them perhaps?

    It just seems like such an easy way to improve performance of any aircraft, so I don't know why it wasn't used more widely in WW2 aircraft designs.
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Why were USAAF fighter aircraft armed with .50 cal MGs right up to the Korean War?
    Why did the Luftwaffe procure the Me-110 rather then the Fw-187?
    Why did the Westland Whirlwind carry so little internal fuel?

    Not all aircraft design decisions can be explained by logic and common sense.
     
  9. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    There us usually an explanation though.
    The USAAF had the .50 for inertia reasons, large stocks, lobbying
    The Luftwaffe had the Bf110 because of Goering's demands
    And I'm not sure about the Whirlwind.

    There usually is a logic behind most things if we dig deep enough
     
  10. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No it couldn't. The only (german?) aircraft capable of doing this was the Ju 87.
     
  11. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ju-88 Flying Operations Manual.
    Ju-88 Flying Operations Manual
    I stand corrected. It appears 40 to 70 degree angle was normal for the Ju-88A dive bomber.

    What was the normal attack angle for Me-410A dive bombers?
     
  12. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Didn't the dive requirement get deleted after all of the trouble with airframe? Same with the Do217, He177, and Ju88.
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Newer German bomb sights allowed acceptable weapons delivery accuracy at shallower dive angles. This placed less stress on the airframe and was probably easier for green pilots then a 70 degree dive.
     
  14. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    I thought that even the 'glide' bombing was too much for the Ju88, as it deformed the skin past 40-45 degrees. The Ju88 as a result was only used as a level bomber from 1940 on.
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Well one out of three isn't bad.

    The FW 187 could not meet the specification as written, which is pretty much a logical and common sense reason for turning it down unless you could convince the officers involved that the specification was wrong. ( and in hind sight it may have been, but ordering aircraft that DO NOT meet the specification is a sure way to be accused of favoritism or incompetence.

    The Whirlwind carried what for fuel? 134imp gallons? It was a small airplane. Wing smaller than a Hurricanes. It's single speed supercharged engines were rigged for altitude work which meant that they were good for only about 770hp each for take-off. Small wing, limited take-off power, what was the minimum field length requirement? Something had to give and it was fuel. of course the fact that it could easily out range either a Hurricane or Spitfire if they weren't carrying drop tanks might mean they weren't quite as worried about short range. Seems like logic and Common sense to me.
     
  16. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    That's it, so what is the reason for the push-puller configuration not being used? The only logical reason, unless there was some technical issue, was that no other German aircraft manufacturer had experience producing such an engine and didn't have the technical know-how. Dornier was the only one, but didn't have the Bomber A offer from the Luftwaffe (or RLM, not sure) and didn't request to be included. They of course studied on how to use it for a medium fast bomber with the Do335, but not for a strategic bomber because it looked as though the He177 was favored.

    Of course we can speculate what if the Do19 used the pull-pusher configuration, which would have meant a totally different aircraft that may well have been produced.
     
  17. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    The "push-pull" was not new, it was not German, and it offered a number of problems of it's own.

    It had been used in WW I, including by the British on the Handley Page V/1500. It had been used by Fokker on civilian airliners (including a few built in the US) It had been used by the French on bombers, mail planes and at least one flying boat. Its advantages and disadvantages, as known at the time, were fairly well known.

    It seems to work best when the propellers are a good distance between them. This means things like the extension shafts on the Do 26 flying boat, extra weight and complication, or really long engine nacelles. There is often trouble cooling the rear engine. Not necessarily the radiator but things like the accessories depended on cool airflow through the cowling and many times on liquid cooled engines special small ducts carried cooling air directly to the spark plugs.
     
  18. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    This is what I was looking for. The really long engine nacelles don't seem to pose a problem with a strategic bomber, as its wings are already pretty wide and could accomodate longer nacelles without much of a design issue and the wings could be shorter in length to compensate to a point.
    As to the cooling issue, from what I am able to tell on Wikipedia, the radials were the only ones with the cooling issue. How much air flow did the liquid cooled engines require?
     
  19. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. Large radial engines such as the BMW801 and R2800 had far more cooling problems then any liquid cooled engine.
     
  20. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    In general or in the push-pull configuration?
     
Loading...

Share This Page