Effects of a mass produced Do26?

davebender · Apr 18, 2013

Do-26 weighed approximately twice as much as Ju-86 and had twice as many engines. I'd hazard a guess Do-26 would cost roughly twice as much to mass produce. Do-26 also required a seaplane tender with large catapult to achieve maximum range.
Falke Information

GDP of Soviet Union and their allies was much larger then GDP of European anti-communist nations. Hence German military equipment must be relatively inexpensive to have any hope of producing enough. Building expensive Do-26 seaplanes plus additional Falke class seaplane tenders might work for USA but it won't work for WWII Germany.

wiking85 · Apr 18, 2013

Shortround6 said:
what patent?

View attachment 231293

Did they buy it from Handley Page?

And Handley Page might not have been the first.

IIRC they held the German patent for developing it, so no other German company could without paying royalties to Dornier, which no one was interested in.

wiking85 · Apr 18, 2013

davebender said:
Do-26 weighed approximately twice as much as Ju-86 and had twice as many engines. I'd hazard a guess Do-26 would cost roughly twice as much to mass produce. Do-26 also required a seaplane tender with large catapult to achieve maximum range.
Falke Information
View attachment 231296

GDP of Soviet Union and their allies was much larger then GDP of European anti-communist nations. Hence German military equipment must be relatively inexpensive to have any hope of producing enough. Building expensive Do-26 seaplanes plus additional Falke class seaplane tenders might work for USA but it won't work for WWII Germany.

They couldn't build catapults at dock facilities?

Also do you have a source for the range claims on the Ju86? Once stunt flight is not a useful barometer for future militarized version's combat performance. If we went by that the 6000 mile stunt flight of the Do26 blows the Ju86 out of the water. So again, the range matters most, which the Ju86 could not achieve with its militarized version.

davebender · Apr 18, 2013

Historical German navy didn't do things that way. Neither did pre-war Lufthansa. There must have been good reasons.

Shortround6 · Apr 18, 2013

wiking85 said:
IIRC they held the German patent for developing it, so no other German company could without paying royalties to Dornier, which no one was interested in.

A fairly useless patent. The British, Dutch, French, Italians, Russians and perhaps Americans all built planes using tandem engines from WW I through the early 30s. And I may have left somebody out.

wiking85 · Apr 18, 2013

Shortround6 said:
A fairly useless patent. The British, Dutch, French, Italians, Russians and perhaps Americans all built planes using tandem engines from WW I through the early 30s. And I may have left somebody out.

Sure, my point is that in the German market the only company working with the technology was Dornier, so it would not be a possibility to get Junkers to develop a tandem layout for an aircraft like this. I don't care about external markets, because they are meaningless when it comes to talking about Germany building a diesel tandem engine naval recce aircraft.

wiking85 · Apr 18, 2013

davebender said:
Historical German navy didn't do things that way. Neither did pre-war Lufthansa. There must have been good reasons.

Because there was no reason to historically in peacetime. In wartime it would be useful and could be done from French ports if needed with far less effort than building a whole ship for the purpose.

Shortround6 · Apr 18, 2013

Usually patents were recognized between countries. Sometimes not. For example : "Slots were first developed by Handley Page in 1919 and the first aircraft to fly with them was the experimental H.P.17, a modified Airco DH.9A. The first aircraft fitted with controllable slots was the Handley Page H.P.20. Licensing the design became one of Handley Page's major sources of income in the 1920s"

Now there was a German inventor, Gustav Lachmann,of slots/slats but when Handley Page became aware of him they offered him joint partnership in the patent and He and Sir Handley Page became good friends.

Trying to patent the idea of tandem engines would seem to be about as practical as trying to patent the idea of twin tractor engines. Or twin pushers.

davebender · Apr 18, 2013

Fw-200 C-3. Production began Sep 1940.
RM273,500 each.
4 aircraft per month production rate. 52 total built by March 1942.
1,750km (1,090 mile) strike range with four 250kg bombs.
A single Condor typically searched an area 320 x 120km (200 x 75 miles).
ASV radar (introduced Dec 1942) quadrupled size of search area.
Fw-200 could carry Hs.293 when that guided weapon was introduced.

Fw-200 was relatively inexpensive and would have been cheaper still if placed into mass production. Plenty of range / endurance. Reliable too if not loaded down with weapons and gun turrets. Historically the few Fw-200s operated as maritime patrol aircraft were tremendously effective. Procure 40 Fw-200s per month rather then historical 4 and German navy would have complete aerial coverage of Atlantic to a distance of 1,000 miles from French coast.

krieghund · Apr 20, 2013

here is an excerpt from a Russian 1939 book on foreign motors

Effects of a mass produced Do26?

More options

davebender

1st Lieutenant

wiking85

Staff Sergeant

wiking85

Staff Sergeant

davebender

1st Lieutenant

Shortround6

Major General

wiking85

Staff Sergeant

wiking85

Staff Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

davebender

1st Lieutenant

krieghund

Senior Airman

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads