Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936

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

Diesels at least powered aircraft in service. The Jumo 222 did not. The diesel-outfitted LR MPA can be a force multiplier even in 1939-43. For Jumo 213, even if it enters service earlier than historically, it is too late to do much.
 
Shortround6 said:
One does wonder how much sooner the 213 might have shown up if Junkers hadn't been fooling around with these diesel engines.
Click to expand...

Not developing the Jumo 222 (or at a lower level) and avoiding the Jumo 223 and 224 would only help. I think that the limiting factor on Jumo 213 introduction is the start of the development of the pressurized cooling system, which wasn't started until 1938 and only with the success of the Jumo 211F was the 213 seriously pursued. I think best case maybe a production introduction some time in mid/late 1942, rather than mid-1943.

tomo pauk said:
Diesels at least powered aircraft in service. The Jumo 222 did not. The diesel-outfitted LR MPA can be a force multiplier even in 1939-43. For Jumo 213, even if it enters service earlier than historically, it is too late to do much.
Click to expand...
Which is why we need the DB603 in development uninterrupted
 
An oddball design, feasible in case the engine allows enough space for a drive shaft to use prop gun tunnel - the Ki-64. Used variants of the DB-601Aa engine (1939 technology), should give the late war fighters a good run for for their money. Shortcoming was the surface cooling system. With conventional cooling system it would be slower, unless better engines are installed, like 601E or 605A.

Kawasaki Ki-64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ki64/ki64-2.gif
 
Shortround6 said:
Even 8-112 Fw 200s a month with NO changes would be a force multiplier if the crews were well trained. An inaccurate sighting report is just about useless.
Click to expand...

Sure, but its not ideal given the fuel constraint issues that having the diesel push-puller Do26 would solve, not to mention it frees up FW to focus on other projects, while giving Dornier a contract until the Do217 is ready.
 
Transport to/from demanding terrains, to/from rain soaked or show covered airstrips? Landing light artillery right when needed, not where the wind drifts the glider? Swift evacuation of men from places not easily accessible for conventional transports?
 
Flettner Kolibri was flying well on 160 PS, range 170 km.
The Fa 223E have had range of 437 km, or 700 km with additional fuel. Bomb load 500 kg (1100 lbs) for the Fa 223A. All on 1000 PS Bramo 323. All data from Wikipedia.
 
tomo pauk said:
Flettner Kolibri was flying well on 160 PS, range 170 km.
The Fa 223E have had range of 437 km, or 700 km with additional fuel. Bomb load 500 kg (1100 lbs) for the Fa 223A. All on 1000 PS Bramo 323. All data from Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Although the Fa 223 is noted for being the first helicopter to attain production status, production of the helicopter was hampered by Allied bombing of the factory and only 20 were built.
Click to expand...

Good handling in bad weather led the German Air Ministry to issue a contract in 1944 to BMW to produce 1,000 units. However, the company's Munich plant was destroyed by Allied bombing raids after producing just 24 machines.[6]
Click to expand...
These are limitations....
 
Those were limitations for anything Germans made from late 1943 on, nothing to do with designs themselves.
 
tomo pauk said:
Those were limitations for anything Germans made from late 1943 on, nothing to do with designs themselves.
Click to expand...

Other than not being ready until 1942 when it becomes hard to get them into wider service quickly enough to stay ahead of Allied bombing.
Don't get me wrong, I think they were worthwhile given that they had better performance than I thought, but given the late introduction date, I'm not sure if there can be meaningful production.
 
The thread starts in 1936, and the Fw-61 was 1st flown in June 1936. Ie. 3 years before 1st jet was flown. Should have an useful helicopter 3 years before an useful jet?

Any point in big autogiros?
 
I think we have been over this before. It took quite a while for helicopters to become load carriers. At the WW II level of development there were a few missions they could perform but in general they couldn't do much of anything a conventional aircraft could not do. And the conventional aircraft would be cheaper to build and cheaper to operate.
Unless you really need the vertical take-off and landing the helicopter wasn't quite ready. Sikorsky took around 3 tries to get the rotor they wanted and this counts the the R-4 as the first try.

Using an engine of the same power as the Flettner Kolibri this aircraft



could carry a pilot and 3 passengers, cruise at around 120mph, range 460 miles and take-off (ground run) in 550-600ft. The basic airframe dates from 1932.

The Germans might have done better to build more/better small utility transports than spending the time and effort that they spent on "trick" aircraft.
 
Germans had a bit of problem in that they had no 200-600hp radial engine. They should have had one as Czechoslovakia had several in 1938. Radial being lighter than a V-12 of the same power and at the speeds these things are going the difference in streamlining is minor, especially when you start seating the passengers side by side. Germans maybe took a few too many machine tools out of Czechoslovakia? or had them making other things?

For another comparison of early Helicopter "utility" compare a Sikorsky S-51 with R-985 engine : Sikorsky H-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the de Havilland Beaver with R-985 engine; de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beaver could take-off and land to clear 50 ft obstacle in 380 meters.

While the American "Grasshoppers" could get in and out of some rather small areas the addition of just flaps (small ones) and more power could also transform aircraft Post war Super Cub : Piper PA-18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lycoming O-290 was being built during WW II so there is no technical reason the plane could not be built earlier.

Now if you need less than a 100 meter landing space then a Helo or autogyro are your only choice but it is possible to get planes to land/take-off in only a few hundred meters.

German air transport was a rather neglected area in WW II with the Ju 52 being too old and most of the "solutions" being too big, too complex, too late and built in too few numbers. They may have shown the way for future post war tactical transports but in the numbers provided could not transport the tonnage needed into the fields used in the weather conditions of the time.
 
The Argus 410/411 engines were air cooled, at 700 lb for 460 HP, or 850 lb for 590 HP. Usnig the Argus 410, the Ar 96 entered service in 1939. They can also use another similar engine, Czech Walter Sagitta, 820-850 lbs for 520-550 HP, available to them from Spring of 1939. The BMW-produced Hornet, until the BMW factories are tooled up to produce something more important?
The R-985-SB engine weighted 640 lbs, making 400-450 HP.

Granted, the German use of captured assets can be described only by worst words.
 
Czech Avia company had a 7 cylinder radial (737cu in) of 215kg (with some accessories) and 280 hp take-off and capable of 200hp at 3000 meters max continuous on 74 octane fuel. A 9 cylinder version (with a bit more stroke) was good for 440hp take-off for 260 kg and 360hp at 2750 meters max cont. on 85 octane.

Walter had around 5 different sized of radial engines from 476 cu in to 1336 cu in (the big ones used a very long stroke) with weights from 163 KG to 360kg and powers from around 150 to 450hp. Most of the engines running on 73 or 80 octane.

There were also two series of engine (one with 105mm X 115mm cylinders the other with 118mm X 140mm cylinders) of 4, 6 and 12 cylinders and a few other small (or tiny) engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
17
Views
866
Snautzer01
Curtiss SC-1 development
Replies
5
Views
729
pinehilljoe
A
Why Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine diesels but petrol Wehrmacht?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
EwenS
E
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
R
Lockheed F-4A-1-LO to french AF infos needed
Replies
13
Views
809
bobolex
B
Menu
Log in
Register