Fw-191C

[Gixxerman]

With coupled engines the loss of 1 engine reduces total engine power to 50%. To make matters worse that 50% is all on one wing. You will be lucky to remain airborne, much less take evasive action against the enemy attack.

I can see what you are getting at here but it is worth pointing out that the coupled engine was still 2 engines.

It was possible to shut down 1 engine in the pairing and have the other still working.
So the loss of 1 engine does not necessarily mean that both are lost (if you see what I mean) although obviously damage to the vital systems both require (like the mating gearbox for instance) would kill both even when 1 might otherwise have operated normally.

 

[Shortround6]

I can see what you are getting at here but it is worth pointing out that the coupled engine was still 2 engines.

It was possible to shut down 1 engine in the pairing and have the other still working.
So the loss of 1 engine does not necessarily mean that both are lost (if you see what I mean) although obviously damage to the vital systems both require (like the mating gearbox for instance) would kill both even when 1 might otherwise have operated normally.

This depends on how the pairing was accomplished. Some paired engines drove coaxial contra-rotating propellers in which case it is easy to shut down one engine and propeller. this was not the case with the German engines.
Both engines drove a common propeller and I have never seen a reference to clutches, perhaps they were there but they are never mentioned? without clutches or some means of disconnecting the engines the live engine is try to turn the dead one over. This can be over 100hp just in friction drag without pumping losses or fighting compression. It also does not take into account any mechanical problems the dead engine has.
While constant speed propellers are wonderful things can they really match one engine putting out 1/2 the power of the the other engine/prop combo.
Like left (damaged) engine's propeller in fine pitch while the right engine is in a medium pitch? If the left propeller is just motoring over and not contributing real thrust is it doing any more for the plane than just feathering the propeller?

 

[davebender]

If the engine cowling gets hit by a burst of 20mm shells from a fighter aircraft or a single flak shell over 30mm in size the issue is probably moot. Both engines will probably take damage as they are right next to each other. Unless you plan to armor the engine cowling, in which case pairing the engines together makes sense as they will share the armor protection.

 

[Gixxerman]

I have never seen a reference to clutches, perhaps they were there but they are never mentioned?

Page 18 of J. Richard Smith Eddie J. Creek's 'Heinkel He 177 Grief' book says in reference to the DB606 -

"A provision was made for the declutching of individual engines from the airscrew by means of a clutch and lever in the cockpit"

(I knew I hadn't imagined it )

 

[koivis]

The He 177 actually was used as long range naval recce bomber, in I, II IV/KG40. From late 1943 it was the main equipment of these units, replacing both Fw 200 and Do 217. Source: Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, Kampfverbnde

 

[davebender]

He-177 Bomber Production.
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1942. 166. Unreliable early models so they don't really count.
1943. 415.
1944. 565.

415 He-177 bombers produced during 1940 might have made a decisive difference if operated in the maritime interdiction role. By 1943 they were just a drop in the bucket compared to American and British air defense capability.

 

[Jabberwocky]

davebender, to get 415 He-177s into production, you're essentially proposing that the He-177 project germinates about three years earlier than it did. Heinkel started design work on what would become the He-177 in 1936 and production work in 1937. The aircraft didn't fly until 1939.

The aircraft was overambitious in its design and ended up paying for it through a long gestation and testing period. An industrial project of this magnitude is also going to shove a lot of work on other projects aside. With Germany operating under peace-time conditions, the aircraft industry only had so many skilled men to deploy on projects.

If Germany produces 415 He-177s in 1940, what else does it sacrifice?

Just looking at empty weight, 415 He-177s weigh just shy of 7 million kg.

That adds up to the same as

780: He-111Hs; or
815: Ju-88As; or
1,340: Do-17Zs; or
2,120: Ju-87Bs.

Given that Germany produced the following in 1940:

1816 Ju-88s;
756 He-111s;
280 Do-17/217;
603 Ju-87s

those 415 He-177s are really going to eat into 1940 aircraft production capacity. True, making large aircraft is relatively more cost efficient than making smaller aircraft, but the He-177 wasn't really an aircraft designed with mass production in mind.

Basically, your asking Germany to cut its bomber production by a minimum of 350-400 aircraft (about 15% of bomber production) and more likely by about 450-550 aircraft (about 20% of bomber production) for a naval strike aircraft of dubious reliability and questionable battle worthiness.

 

[Shortround6]

Even if we follow Mr. Benders other proposals and scrap the Bismark and Tripitiz on the slips or do some other jiggery-pokery to the German economy to allow those 400+ 4 engine bombers to be built by 1940 in addition to existing forces they won't be 1943 He 177s.
Unless he is proposing to time warp engines, guns and equipment from 1943 back to 1940. They will have 2200-2300hp engines instead of 2700-2900hp engines. They will not have remote power 13 mm mgs (or even hand held ones) or 20mm MG 151 cannon or even 7.9mm MG 81s.
MG 17s and 20mm MG FFs only in manual mounts.
The lower powered engines mean less performance, both speed and range, unless the plane can be lightened up considerably. Drop the dive bombing requirement?
The 1940 engines are going to have their critical altitude several thousand feet lower than the 1943 engines which is also going to affect top speed but what is important for a maritime patrol bomber is performance at 10,000ft and under.
What bomb sights were available to the Germans in 1940 as opposed to 1943?

For these 400 planes to have decisive effect you have to assume the British do nothing over the historical norm to counter them.
Like speed up Beaufighter production, get fingers out from under butts on the Whirlwind, mount a pair of 20mm Hispanos under a Blenheim instead of the 4 .303s. Or used Martin Maryland's as long ranged fighters.

I just don't see 400-500 4 engine bombers in 1940 as much of a game changer for the Germans.

 

[davebender]

Exactly the point I am trying to get across.

A 1940 German naval bomber will look more like the Fw-191C and be powered by 4 Jumo 211 engines.

 

[Shortround6]

That doesn't solve the armament problem or the bomb sight problem or really do much for the engine problem.
Four Jumo 211 As , Bs, or ? at 1200hp each.

The 1340-1400hp Jumo 211s doesn't show up until near the end of 1940.

 

[davebender]

What bomb sight problem? A German maritime bomber is likely to carry aerial mines, torpedoes or else skip bomb using the newly developed "Swedish Turnip Method".

 

[Shortround6]

why use a 4 engine bomber to mine the waters around the British Isles when the twin engine aircraft can do a good job?
If you need a 4 engine bomber to attack ships/convoys in conjunction with U-boats like the FW 200 did than aerial mines are not the weapon to be using.
A 4 engine torpedo bomber is just a bigger target. What were the weapon dropping limits of German torpedoes in 1940?

The "Swedish Turnip Method" works, it also puts the 4 engine bomber in easy range of ever old Lewis gun the British can drag out of storage and mount on a ship. At about 200mph and 45 ft and flying over the ship, or very close to it, the bomber can hardly be a better target for the simplest of AA guns.

Much is made on this forum (and others) of the vulnerability of liquid cooled engines in the ground attack role. This is essentially what you are proposing here. The FW 200 was vulnerable enough but at least it didn't have FOUR radiator systems to expose to enemy MG fire. Loosing an engine several hundred miles off the west of Ireland is not a good thing for a German plane.

 

[davebender]

Germany wasn't planning to fight Britain prior to 1939. However they had little doubt about the need to fight France as that nation was unrelentingly hostile throughout the 1930s. France became even more hostile after that nation adopted a Marxist "Popular Front" government during 1936.

If we assume German naval bomber development begins about 1936 then the ability to strike French Atlantic seaports would be a primary requirement. 1936 Germany had no aircraft engines which produced more then about 1,000 hp. Carrying enough fuel will require more then 2,000hp so you need 4 engines.

 

[Jabberwocky]

However they had little doubt about the need to fight France as that nation was unrelentingly hostile throughout the 1930s. France became even more hostile after that nation adopted a Marxist "Popular Front" government during 1936.

Huh?

Evidence to back this assertion, please.

France was in internal political and social strife for most of the 1930s. Its policy regarding Germany was appeasement, rather than aggression.

If anything, France was much more timid in the 1930s than in the 1930s: It pulled out of the Rhineland in 1930, and failed to oppose Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, the Anschluss in 1938 and then signed the Munich agreement. France stayed resolutely out of the Spanish Civil War, unlike Germany, and was occupied for most of the 1930s investing 20% of its military budget in fixed defensive fortifications.

 

[Shortround6]

If we assume German naval bomber development begins about 1936 then the ability to strike French Atlantic seaports would be a primary requirement. 1936 Germany had no aircraft engines which produced more then about 1,000 hp. Carrying enough fuel will require more then 2,000hp so you need 4 engines.

If you want to mine the sea ports then you don't need 4 engined bombers. They would be nice but they are not necessary for many French ports. Mines should be laid at night in coastal waters so that observers on shore can't tell were they were dropped. Large twin engine aircraft can handle this job, German mine laying aircraft in the 30s include the He 59 floatplane and it's successor the He 115. Large wings and slow flying can result in impressive range as the British proved when they bombed Turin and Genoa from England.

Could the Germans have used long range 4 engine aircraft to effect in 1940-41 in the battle of the Atlantic? of course but even a few hundred FW 200s would have done about as well as anything else. The more resources the Germans put into the Atlantic battle the more the British will to counter it. Look at the British CAM ships which helped counter 1 or two flights per day of Fw 200s. Raise the shortie rate to 10-12 per day and figure what the British response would be.

1. Station a carrier in the western approches.
2. Negotiate with the Irish for a an airfield or two in western Ireland or at least overfly rights in certain areas.
3. A chain of radar picket ships running south from the Irish coast to identify Atlantic raiders.
4. increased bomb raids on the German bases.

The main mission the Germans needed doing in the Atlantic was convoy spotting and shadowing for the U-boats. If the planes could get a few lucky hit/s with bombs so much the better ( need for better bomb sights) but trying to use planes to interdict Englands shipping on the far side of Ireland is going to be a long, costly operation.

 

[davebender]

main mission the Germans needed doing in the Atlantic was convoy spotting and shadowing for the U-boats

It's more efficient for aircraft to attack merchant ships directly then to call in submarines. The catch is you need enough long range naval bombers to make the attacks. The 36 Fw200s historically produced during 1940 and 58 produced during 1941 are a drop in the bucket compared to naval requirements.