Germany's ideal late war fighter

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

Changing an engine or changing armament on a prototype or a couple of "test" airplanes as "proof of concept" is one thing. Doing a properly "engineered" installation is another. Least amount of ballast needed, proper access for maintenance, proper cooling under a variety of conditions. And perhaps even more important, the design and construction of the different jigs and fixtures needed for mass production. Most of the work on the jigs and fixtures cannot begin until the actual changes are finalized in the test program. A jig for the location and drilling of the radiator mounting holes is pretty much useless if the radiator is changed or even moved and inch in regards to the datum line or locating holes for the jig.

Russian "mass production" without proper jigs and fixtures often lead to low serviceability in the field because not only did parts from different factories not fit properly but at times parts from the same factory were not interchangeable and needed to modified to "fit".
 
My suggested best fighter would be the Jumo 222 equipped TA-152. There were 3 versions of the TA-152 planned. The smaller wing faster version for mid/low altitude which would be ideal for the eastern front, and the H version to reach the anticipated B-29 bombers. The ME-262 was far advanced with engines improving with time (that the Luftwaffe fortunately didn't have). If the effort that went into the V2 program was transferred to jet engine development, the end of the war would have been more costly (nothing would have changed the outcome). The ME-262 was mostly inhibited with quantity. 100+ ME-262s intercepting bombers would have been a disaster for the bombers. Head on and rear attacks by the ME-262 was an effective tactic because of speed. Remember it took only three 30mm hits to down a bomber on average. A 1/2 second burst puts 10 times as many rounds down range as is necessary to bring a bomber down. Head on, the slow moving 30mm round falls 1/2 as fast. (The closing speed determines effective drop so ballistics are not so bad). The vertical mortars developed near the end of the war would have increased the head on attacks effectiveness 10 fold.
Would this have changes anything? Sure, the war would have gone on another 6 months (Maybe). Even before D-day, the axis was running out of resources (people, fuel, food), and the allies were continuing to get stronger.
 
Thinking laterally; the best would be an enhanced pilot training system to man the (whatever fighter) with high quality pilots.

With such a system then, even relying solely on Me109s, the Luftwaffe would get better results than IOTL.

Now as to where you magic the fuel from I have no cunning plan.
 
"... For 1944-45: one jet engine, two cannons, slightly swept wing .."
I agree in principle but, given the slow spool-up of turbines, at that time, witness the need for 262's protected by Doras on landings and take-offs, I would hesitate to put all my defensive eggs in the "one-jet platform" or any-jet fighter platform for that matter. Kurt Tank's 190 platform was a very good one, responding to design pressures better than Herr M's 109 platform did, IMO.
But the pilot training issue is the only issue that really matters ... given Germany's condition.
 

Sevearl things to note.
1st - Doras used to protect Me 262 on take off and landing = it is winter of 1944/45 = Allies have undisputed air superiority over all of Germany. My proposal is that Germany produces 1-engined jets already in early 1944, in time when Tempests, Spitfires and and P-47s can't harras them over Germany proper, while P-51s and P-38s can't be everywhere. We can still use Fw 190As or Bf 109Gs to protect airstrips in Western Germany, need be. Going with 1-engined jobs instead of 2-engined means LW can have more of them in short time. 1-engined job will use much less fuel than 2-engined one, it's smaller size means it is harder to spot and hit.
 
All true ... but how many missions are your jets good for without engine change ... 3 - 4?
I believe the scarcity of critical metallurgicals (turbine blades, etc.) is not favorable to turbine improvements.
 
michaelmaltby said:
All true ... but how many missions are your jets good for without engine change ... 3 - 4?
I believe the scarcity of critical metallurgicals (turbine blades, etc.) is not favorable to turbine improvements.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Jumo 004, versions in 1944, lasted for 25 hours. That will give 25 missions of 1 hour each. Number of replacement engines needed for 1-engined A/C will tend to be half of what a 2-engined force will need, for same number of A/C.
Germans got around the lack of rare metals with development of hollow blade turbines, those were coming of the line in 1945, however.
 
I cannot argue against the prioritization of turbines ... the economics, the fuel, the simplicity ... and the one engine jet (when you're fighting over home) is a natural choice given the situation at the time ... both the rocket program and the jet program, unfortunately, lent themselves to slave labor ... also a reality in Nazi Germany at the time.
I want to visualize your preference, tomo,
 
Please remember that the "engine life hours" are sort of a maximum. They are no guarantee that an engine will last that long.
IF an engine makes that long it service it is to to be pulled for overhaul regardless of how well it is running at the moment.
"design" life and "service" life could often be very different things.
 

Unfortunately, slave labour will be used in Nazi Germany disregarding what weapon system is in production.
There was an itersting proposal by the company Blohm & Voss. A 1-engined fighter was to be produced around steel construction, that comprised from tubes and profiles. Lower/front tube served also as intake tunnel, central part contained fuel tank (500 L). Inner part of the wing was also from steel, housing fuel tanks (450L total there). Main U/C was modified unit from the Bf 109. Wood was also used extesively. Wing was square, with just one wing rib shape used. Thickness 12%, if I've measured it right at the pdf file.
(holz = wood, stahl = steel)




Agree all the way. Perhaps - if it is known that max life is pin-pointed at 25 hours, have the engines removed after 20 hours, send them to the overhaul facility, and install new engines?
 
Regarding labor you are of course correct ... the Blohm & Voss design is truly frightening in it's simplicity .... having said that .. there's something very 'Soviet' in that concept fighter ... like Kutushka
 
michaelmaltby said:
Regarding labor you are of course correct ... the Blohm & Voss design is truly frightening in it's simplicity .... having said that .. there's something very 'Soviet' in that concept fighter ... like Kutushka
Click to expand...

I don't know what is 'Kutushka'...
People at Blohm & Voss criticised Heinkel due to not incorpoating greater % of non-strategic and 'cheap' materials when those were developing the He 162! Wood was used only for the wings on the 162.
B&V proposal (airframe only) was to be produced from steel (58%), wood (23%), 'light metals' (duralumin? 13%) and 'rest' (6%).
 
tomo pauk said:
Agree all the way. Perhaps - if it is known that max life is pin-pointed at 25 hours, have the engines removed after 20 hours, send them to the overhaul facility, and install new engines?
Click to expand...

Trouble is some of the engines were crapping out in service in 10 hours or less.
Please note that this is not anti-German. British and American jets both during the war and in the first couple of years after the war were, on average, coming nowhere near their "nominal" engine lives.
 
Single jet engined version of Me-109 could be interesting. Soviets converted piston engined yak-3 fighter to yak-15 with a jumo 004 copy. Only problem would be the range, probably cockpit can be placed one meter back in order to make room for a central fuel tank but this approach kind of defeats the purpose to put it into mass production ASAP. I don't know if a similar conversion could be possible with something like mostly non-strategic material built Go-149, probably too light airframe for intended jumo-004s or BMW 003 (HeS 8 might have work), and not designed for higher speeds. But it's interesting that soviets managed Yak-3 conversion to jet, yet in a real emergency Germans didn't tried something similar. They thought Me-109 TL but that aircraft required two engines.

Another approach might be using external rocket boosters on existing propeller driven aircraft instead of designing something like Me-163. Preferably big solid fuel rockets for a fast climb to altitude but I don't know if this idea is feasible.

PS. I read Germans spent 16.000 flak rounds on average to take down one bomber during last months of war. That amounts to 40 tons of propellant even if you don't count exposives inside the projectile. If you use 250 kg. per one booster, you can build 160 booster rockets with it. How many more bombers could be shot down with rocket boosted fighters? Rockets could be placed on central bomb rack for example.
 
Last edited:
... I noted the use of steel. Katushka = Stalin Organ
Click to expand...

Hi Mike, would have been an impressive sight watching one of these firing, let alone a barrage.
Just a wee bit of info: Катю́ша Cyrillic spelling, phonetic English: Katyusha, after a popular song. Katyusha is also a diminutive of the name Yekatarina.

The name 'Stalin's Organ' came from the layout of the rocket launcher behind the cab:

Katyusha

This one on a postwar Zil truck at the Korean War Memorial, Seoul.
 
I had a rather lengthy conversation with an ace (27 kills ?) who flew the Me-262. He said they could make only 2 flights on the engines before a change was required, maximum air time per flight 55 minutes.
 
I think the Dornier 335 was the missed opportunity for 44 and 45. The technology was in place, it was political that the plane was not mass produced. It could have been placed in production in 43, with 335's meeting the Bomber in 44 streams during the day and night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
942
SaparotRob
War Weary
Replies
14
Views
811
Snautzer01
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
614
spicmart
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
Menu
Log in
Register