Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.The 109F with the DB 601N engine seems to be 15-20mph faster than a 109E (or T) using the same engine. Improvements in climb and turn are also quite noticeable if test figures are to be believed?
Part of the problem with some "what ifs" is how far do you go. The HE 112 was extensively modified from the early versions to the B series. About all they kept was the Jumo 210 engine and a cockpit in the middle of the plane (OK the landing gear?). The Fuselage was stretched and changed in construction. The vertical and rudder were changed. A whole new shorter span and changed plane form wing. The new wing was not only much smaller in area it changed form a 2 spar construction to a "single" spar with "auxiliary" spars in front and back (3 spar wing?). All three spars appear in cut away drawings to connect to fuselage.
A "similar" redo at some point in time after the B series could see the fuselage change in construction/size and another entirely new wing (keeping old landing gear?) eliminate any comprehensibility problems the old wing might have had.
But it would still be a He 112 right?
It is one thing to do such major changes at the prototype stage when each plane is almost hand built and little or no production tooling exists. It is quite another thing to make such extensive changes when multiple production lines exist in factories hundreds of miles apart. The change can be made but it requires a much larger investment in time and money (and lost production) to do it.
The He 112B was already limited to the Jumo 210 for similar RLM and logistical reasons. The Jumo 211 was also initially in short supply, and the 210 was pressed into use for initial Bf 110 and Ju 87 production as well.Fw-190 airframe was around early enough to compare with He112B. It was RLM insistence on BMW801 radial engine which delayed the program. The same RLM determination to use BMW801 engine would probably doom the He-112B. In order to compete Heinkel would need to design an airframe around the new engine.
Against the 1939 Hurricane with fixed-pitch propeller, the 112B might have fared rather well in horizontal speed and especially roll, climb, and dive performance (roll and dive would likely remain an advantage regardless of propeller).I do not know if it had the potential to still be competitive in 1945, but it could have been a good fighter in 1939 - 1941 for sure. It was almost certainly as good or better than the Hurricane, albeit in need of a better engine as-flown. The Hurricane might not have been all that great with a lesser engine than a Merlin, either. Perhaps the He 112 needed a DB 601 series engine to "wake up."
Unless they could make the He 112 cheap enough to at least let performance/handling/cockpit characteristics weigh in as net advantages (especially with DB 601 production limiting volume more than airframe cost) I don't think it would be an attractive option.So development, while possible, might never have been practical from an engine availability standpoint. Still, they found sufficient engines for Bf 110's, so maybe there was some potential there.
I wonder if this low aspect ratio 'thick' long chord wing (with thin airfoil) would be good for retaining relatively large internal stores capacity relative to area while the elliptical shape would make up for the lift:drag losses of the low aspect ratio. It very well may have been one of the areas that added to the 112's cost and complexity (and was abandoned in favored of a straight/tapered wing on the He 100) but it still seems like an interesting option. Heinkel's aspirations for a wooden wing might not have been cheaper in terms of labor either, but it should have been appealing in terms of materials. (assuming Heinkel could manage mass production of wooden components of the sort)The limiting factor might be the wing. The HE 112 went through at least 3 different wings. I don't know what airfoil they wound up using on the last ones. It "looks" thick but that may be deceiving due to the long cord over most of the elliptical wing.
As it was the same could be said for the initial small Fw 190 V1 and the later prototypes, let alone the A-0 and A-1 production models. The initial V1 seems rather well suited to the 1100-1200 PS class engines of 1939, and honestly seems more likely to result in a production aircraft retaining more commonality to the V1 prototype than the A-1 ended up with. (also would have avoided the hang-ups related to inexperience with radial engines and both problems with placement and experimental cooling arrangements)It's pretty much made up by this board. The only thing the real Fw 190 and a DB 601 powered "version" would really have in common would be the name/designation.
Which, ironically, should have been one of the higher priority changes to be made at the beginning of the war, or even before that. Adapting wider-track gear with the transition from D to E, or more likely E to F would have been very significant for reducing overall attrition and number of operational aircraft. Between that and improvements to the canopy, there were a number of practical operational features that seem like they'd have been more logistically useful than the raw performance gains the 109F offered.To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.
Although they still had the same main-gear to the end.
The Bf 109E-3 had a DB 601Aa that gave 1,175 HP at takeoff and 1,000 HP at 12,140 feet. Max speed at sea level was 290 mph. Max speed was 348 mph at 14,560 feet and initial rate of climb was 3,280 ft / min. Service ceiling was 34,450 ft.
The Bf 109F-4 had a DB 601E with 1,332 HP. Max speed at sea level was 325 mph. Max speed at 19,680 feet was 376 mph. Service ceiling was 38,048 feet.
If we take the E at 1,175 HP and do nothing but add the DB 601E engine with 1,350 HP, and drag doesn't change, I'd expect the new top speed to be 304 mph at sea level. To get 325 mph, the frontal area had to decrease by some 18 percent. That's a LOT, but believable since it happened.
A telling parameter is the E's top speed was at 14,560 feet and the F's top speed was at 19,680 feet. That tells me the supercharger wasn't the same or SOMETHING in the engine wasn't the same since it's best altitude went up by a third. At the E's best altitude it made about 1,000 HP. At the F's best altitude of 19,680 feet, the DB 601Aa made about 800 – 830 HP. The Bf 109F has to make 1030 HP one third higher to get 376 mph so, as I said above, a good deal of the extra performance came from engine improvements.
If the E had done nothing but get the same engine, it would have had another almost 200 HP or so at 20,000 feet and the top speed would have been in the 365 mph range, which is only about 10 mph slower than an F. At the E's best height of 12,140 feet, the F could go 356 mph instead of 348 mph, which isn't all that big of a difference. But add up a few mph at the E's best altitude and a significant amount more HP at 20,000 feet and it makes a pretty significant difference.
If anyone wants to propose different numbers, hey ... go for it.
I'm not making any wild claims here, I'm just proposing that the F's engine made up a good deal of the speed difference between the E and the F. The aerodynamic cleanup helped, but so did the engine change. Hopefully there's nothing unusual about better-performing planes getting a bit of help from many difference small changes. I'm pretty sure there was some cleanup that could be done on the He 112, too, but I still don't propose to estimate how much. It is, after all, a paper airplane that didn't get produced.
The maingear design by Messerschmitt was actually genius, as the gear's frame also contributed to the engine support, keeping the overall assembly light and easy to produce. It also allowed a huge advantage in transporting aircraft by land, performing maintenance/repair and keeping production time cost down. The Bf109's maingear design also found it's way into the He162, but was a little easier on the pilots because it was a tricycle configuration.Which, ironically, should have been one of the higher priority changes to be made at the beginning of the war, or even before that. Adapting wider-track gear with the transition from D to E, or more likely E to F would have been very significant for reducing overall attrition and number of operational aircraft. Between that and improvements to the canopy, there were a number of practical operational features that seem like they'd have been more logistically useful than the raw performance gains the 109F offered.Originally Posted by GrauGeist
To be fair, however, look at the changes the Bf109 went through: A/B/C/D/E/F/G/K/T not including all the experimental knock-offs. The engines, the armament, the cowling, the canopy, the mainwing, the vert. stab. and even the tailwheel changed over the course of the Bf109's career.
Although they still had the same main-gear to the end.
I'm aware of this and the transportation advantages, but the ground handling issues presented a serious problem for 109 operational logistics (especially with novice pilots). Granted, modifications to the tailwheel earlier on would have at least partially addressed this.Trying to change the gear's track would have ended up affecting the entire production line, as it would involve the wing's structure as well as that of the engine mount all needing redesign.
It's pretty much made up by this board. The only thing the real Fw 190 and a DB 601 powered "version" would really have in common would be the name/designation.
Fw might have had a few paper sketches of a DB powered fighter in the late 30s but the DB engines available at the time did not have enough power to meet Kurt Tanks goal of a more rugged fighter than the Bf 109. A more rugged/sturdier fighter being heavier.
As it was the same could be said for the initial small Fw 190 V1 and the later prototypes, let alone the A-0 and A-1 production models. The initial V1 seems rather well suited to the 1100-1200 PS class engines of 1939, and honestly seems more likely to result in a production aircraft retaining more commonality to the V1 prototype than the A-1 ended up with. (also would have avoided the hang-ups related to inexperience with radial engines and both problems with placement and experimental cooling arrangements)
Are there any "best guesses" on what the performance of this bird would look like? Also, was there any large differences between the DB 601M and DB 601N?
The limiting factor might be the wing. The HE 112 went through at least 3 different wings. I don't know what airfoil they wound up using on the last ones. It "looks" thick but that may be deceiving due to the long cord over most of the elliptical wing.
One prototype with DB 601 engine was supposed to hit 354mph which is about the same as a Bf 109E with the same engine ( or a bit better?). The question is did the He 112 have enough stretch left to match the 109F without another major redo?