Dornier 219 What If

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

the tricycle landing gear of the Do335...which was expensive and difficult to produce and maintain...
It would reduce production and increase complications for maintenance.
 
A bomber with a engine in the rear of the fuselage would be a fighter pilots dream, no possibility of a tail gunner, or anyone shooting directly to the rear.
 
wiking85 said:
The Do217 did have a rearward facing turret near the cockpit.
Click to expand...
How's it going to shoot thru the rear propeller disc ?
Did anyone ever sychonize a flexible gun?

I don't see anyway to get the main gear back far enough for it to rest on a tri gear, especially with a engine behind the cg.
 
Why does it need to?

Turrets and barbettes typically have mechanical stops to prevent a gunner from shooting the tail off. In this case mechanical stops would also protect the rear prop.
 
It's not going to be fast enough to not be intercepted, and you're leaving the ideal direction for it to be intercepted from unprotected.
 
davebender said:
What makes you think that? The American made A-20 had tricycle landing gear and it was our least expensive twin engine bomber.
Click to expand...

It was also our smallest and least capable twin engine bomber, not counting the Hudson.

Tricycle landing gear is heavier and more expensive than tail dragger gear, but mostly by only a few percent. It may require more maintenance, it does mean fewer landing and take-off accidents which tends to over shadow the maintenance requirement.
 
davebender said:
All loaded heavy bombers require escort. That's what Fw-187s are for.
Click to expand...
Never in the history of aerial warfare is there an bomber escort so effective, that the bombers themselves needed no defensive armament, and this fictional Fw187 would have been no different.
 
Never in the history of aerial warfare is there an bomber escort so effective, that the bombers themselves needed no defensive armament
Click to expand...
I agree. However it's equally foolish to load a bomber down with payload hogging defensive weapons and additional aircrew to operate them. You want just enough defensive weapons to prevent being an easy kill. There should be some sort of rear protection but it doesn't need to be located in the tail.



I like what Focke Wulf did for their Fw-191 heavy bomber. Those remote control weapons located on the wing at the rear of the engine cowling should have a good field of fire.
 
Nice hypothesies so far - though I think adding a rear fuz engine, the associated redesigns, increased structural loadings weight and the extention shaft with its torsional anti-vibration bearings would severely eat into the operational range/mission requirements and maintenance ect.

Also, to compensate for the CoG differences, the main wing would have to be moved rearwards down the fusalage and/or the tractor engines extended forwards, or extend the forward fuz forwards or a ratio of all three - which could add further development delays to production upon those incurred for the rear fuz redesign for a pusher.

But, as with the resulting affects of trying to meet the glide/dive bombing stresses e.g; like the Ju88's He177's etc, the same redesigned, increased wieght of structural metal/members would make that area slightly more combat damage sustainable than a normal rear fuz' - barring critical member/equip't damage naturally.

Albeit with possible associated higher maintance needs for sustained operations - something that eventually assited in the crippling of german aircraft operationally via logistical needs/stresses incurred upon the transport system.


In no way am I meaning that it couldn't be done, or it being implausable, just it'd add to the 'gestation' period and combat infrastructural needs.
Even if that might ignore the RLM, DVL, Techamt Luftwaffe personalities their opinions that'd infuriate matters further than just the accepted/tolerated/ignored/threatening party politcs of then.
 
Last edited:
You've got just as much drag and weight with that solution, as a conventional turret with a gunner, but with a lot more complex and vunerable control runs between the aiming position and turret. That solution probably weighs more than just a conventinal manned turret.
 
I disagree.

A tail turret can fire only to the rear. Remote turrets / barbettes (not sure what they were called) on wings cover the top and sides as well as the rear. One gunner sitting inside the Fw-191 cockpit area armored cocoon does the work of four B-17 crew members.
- Tail gunner.
- Top turret gunner.
- Left waist gunner.
- Right waist gunner.
 

You can tell by how that turret is positioned it has very little field of fire downward, like the tail gunner usually has, no ability at all to fire forward as the top gunner has, and no ability whatsoever to take care of more than one target at a time, as mulitple turrets do.

Also if that 3rd engine on the rear has as big a propeller as most twins, those guns wouldn't be able to shoot much closer to the center than straight back, leaving a huge chunk of sky uncovered.

Like I said, a 3 engine bomber, with that 3rd engine in the tail, has no way to defend the most important sector of sky around a aircraft, the tail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Wondered if anyone knows what it is ?
Replies
5
Views
1K
AMCKen
A
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
10K
Snautzer01
A
What if - Four-Power Pact 1933 is confirmed
Replies
3
Views
881
Zmauky
Z
Menu
Log in
Register