Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936

[tomo pauk]

What about fighters? The Bf-109 will be the standard issue. By the time it acquires a 1000+ HP engine install the drop tank facility, maybe reinforce the horizontal stabilator, so the struts can be eliminated; install retractable tail wheel? Should boost range and speed.
When to introduce 'another iron in the fire', what to expect from that one?

 

[wiking85]

What about fighters? The Bf-109 will be the standard issue. By the time it acquires a 1000+ HP engine install the drop tank facility, maybe reinforce the horizontal stabilator, so the struts can be eliminated; install retractable tail wheel? Should boost range and speed.
When to introduce 'another iron in the fire', what to expect from that one?

Single engine fighter-wise I don't think there is anything to do differently than the LW did historically. The FW190 was perfect for its time, the only thing one could hope for would be less engine issues with the BMW 801. Once the war was on its hard to just phase out the Me109, especially when the 209 and 309 were failures. I would say start working on the Ta-152 with DB603 in 1941 though, rather than 1943 and waiting for the Jumo 213 and detouring into the Fw190C/D.

Other than that the Me262 is very much were they should go with jets and avoid all the rocket detours and other jet designs.

In terms of two engine aircraft, I'm in favor of the Bf110 as a gunship/ground attack/fight-bomber. Beyond that the Fw187 is a necessity for long range escort/air superiority fighter. Working on the Me210 is worthwhile without the dive bombing requirement, provided it is understood that it isn't necessary if it doesn't work out in testing. The Do335 is worthwhile for a back up.

As far as nightfighters the Ju88C/G is the only way to go for me, though having the Bf110 as a stopgap along with the Do215 makes sense in production terms. Don't bother with the He219 IMHO. A nightfighter Me262 is a viable research path too, as is the do335. But enhancing the Ju88 into better and better nightfighters until the jet age makes total sense.

 

[stona]

Quality is one issue, but my opinion is that German aircraft quality was pretty good throughout the war. They might have done better, but this was not the primary problem for the LW

LWs main problems early in the war were

1) Shortages in production
2) Over-emphasis on whole airframe production, not enough effort on replacement engines
3) Insufficient effort on the pilot replacement programs....as the war progressed German pilots became less and less well trained
4) Linked to the above a shortage of training aircraft

If the luftwaffe could overcome its logistic issues, it would have won the BoB and would not have been bled white in its other campaigns. this was not a function, or a result of poor aircraft designs. it was a function of a generally poor support element. If the numbers had been there, the quality issue would not have mattered

These are precisely the kind of problems I was referring to as a lack of strategic planning.

I'm surprised that a drop tank wasn't introduced for the Bf 109 earlier. The first drop tank equipped Bf 109 to appear in a British CEAR was White 11, WNr. 4900, a Bf 109E-1 flown by Fw.H.Schmidt of 6./JG 53 which force-landed at Wheelstead Farm, Old Romney on 30 November 1940.

You could say the same thing about the adoption of drop tanks by the US 8th AF escort fighters too. As I said before all sides made what, in retrospect, were easily fixable mistakes.

None of this has anything to do with the aeroplanes developed from 1936 until the beginning of the war.

Cheers

Steve

 

[wiking85]

These are precisely the kind of problems I was referring to as a lack of strategic planning.

I'm surprised that a drop tank wasn't introduced for the Bf 109 earlier. The first drop tank equipped Bf 109 to appear in a British CEAR was White 11, WNr. 4900, a Bf 109E-1 flown by Fw.H.Schmidt of 6./JG 53 which force-landed at Wheelstead Farm, Old Romney on 30 November 1940.

You could say the same thing about the adoption of drop tanks by the US 8th AF escort fighters too. As I said before all sides made what, in retrospect, were easily fixable mistakes.

None of this has anything to do with the aeroplanes developed from 1936 until the beginning of the war.

Cheers

Steve

Part of the problem was not having a good design in service; the plywood version was defective and the early aluminum version wasn't without issues. The aluminum option was costly in terms of aluminum, which Germany may or may not have been able to afford; having the Fw187 in service though reduces or eliminates that need to have drop tanks in service for the Me109. Drop tanks too do not solve the serious historical issue of too few fighter pilots, which resulted in a surplus of fighters to operational pilots during the BoB! Then we get into fuel issues for training and how the lack of having good staff planning from 1936 on really screwed things up (aka keep Walter Wever alive and a lot of these issues never appear).

 

[DonL]

English is not my 1st laguage. I've read the sentence that begins as 'by 1939' as 'at start of 1939'. I'd welcome a clarification.
The Ju-87B in was exceptional aircraft if the opponent does not have a capable defense - it's by no means a perfect aircraft. The Do-17 and He-111 were about as good, or just slightly better than many other similar bombers - Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, SB-2, DB-3, SM-79, Fiat BR.20, CANT Z.1011 and 1007, Martin B-10 and 167, PZL.37. Ju-52 was as good as DC-3 or HP Harrow.

So I will say that German A/C were as capable as what the rest of industrialized world was fielding. It were other factors, listed in above post, that made LW superior from 1939-42 (bar RAF).

Messerschmitt Bf 109 ? Wikipedia
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ? Wikipedia

This links are in german, at the Bf 109 E link is written production start was January 1939 and at the first 8 month 1100 were built.
At the Polen link you can see the strenghts report of 2. September 1939, there were 219 E1 compare to 95 B/D.

3) Insufficient effort on the pilot replacement programs....as the war progressed German pilots became less and less well trained
4) Linked to the above a shortage of training aircraft

This is some issue I'm very curious about:

To my opinion this was mostly the mistake of Jeschonnek, because it had no priority on his personal to do list and he was convinced the war is over at 1942. I'm not sure the LW had not enough training a/c's. I have done a little research of numbers till September 1939 and till 1945. Perhaps someone can show comparable numbers for the RAF or France Air Force. I think a comparation to the USA would be not constructive.

German trainers built or commanded to training units till end of 1939

Klemm Kl 25: 359
Klemm Kl 35: 500
Albatros Al 101: 83

Focke-Wulf Fw 44. 1702
Bücker Bü 131: 1500
Bücker Bü 133: 100
Gotha Go 145 : 1192
Arado Ar 66: 1356
Arado Ar 76: 193
Focke-Wulf Fw 56: 514
Heinkel He 72: 767
Heinkel He 42: 203
Focke-Wulf Fw 58: 1200

Arado Ar 65: 70
Heinkel He 45: since 1939: 400
Heinkel He 46: since 1939: 400
Heinkel He 51: since 1939: 150

In summary = 10689 training a/c's

German trainers built or commanded to training units till end of 1939-1945

Klemm Kl 35: 800

Bücker Bü 131: 1500
Bücker Bü 181: 2.681
Messerschmitt Bf 108: 650
Arado Ar 96: 2891
Arado Ar 68: since 1940: 400
Focke-Wulf Fw 58: 470
Siebel Si 204: 1.216

In summar y= 10608 training a/c's

From 1930-1945 ~ 21300 a/c's

So if we only look at real trainers: Albatros Al 101: 83, Klemm Kl 25: 359, Klemm Kl 35: 1300, Focke-Wulf Fw 44: 1702, Bücker Bü 131: 3000, Bücker Bü 133 100, Gotha Go 145 : 1192, Arado Ar 66: 1356, Arado Ar 76: 193, Heinkel He 42: 203, Focke-Wulf Fw 56: 514, Heinkel He 72: 767, Bücker Bü 181: 2.681, Messerschmitt Bf 108: 650, Arado Ar 96: 2891, Focke-Wulf Fw 58: 1670, Siebel Si 204: 1.216

In summary: 19877

Note: many underpowered frontline a/c's like Ju 87A, Me 110B, Do 17, He 111, Bf 109 B/D later E's were also commanded to the training units.

Compare to other Air Forces are this realy inferior numbers?

 

[stona]

Part of the problem was not having a good design in service; the plywood version was defective and the early aluminum version wasn't without issues. The aluminum option was costly in terms of aluminum, which Germany may or may not have been able to afford; having the Fw187 in service though reduces or eliminates that need to have drop tanks in service for the Me109. Drop tanks too do not solve the serious historical issue of too few fighter pilots, which resulted in a surplus of fighters to operational pilots during the BoB! Then we get into fuel issues for training and how the lack of having good staff planning from 1936 on really screwed things up (aka keep Walter Wever alive and a lot of these issues never appear).

The drop tank carried by Schmidt was the aluminium version. From Dave Wadman.

A subsequent report on this aircraft appears in CEAR Serial No.33 No.3/179 of 20 December 1940 which states:

"Crashed on 30.11.40 at Old Romney. This aircraft was fitted with extra oil tank of two gallons capacity and pipe lines for extra fuel tankage. The aircraft has now been examined but no extra fuel tank was found. The fuel line however, runs down to the bottom of the fuselage near the external bomb rack and it is assumed that a jettisonable auxiliary tank had been carried. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that a metal, streamlined petrol tank was found in the country* which could be slung to the bomb rack of a Me 109. The capacity of this tank is approximately 90 gallons (the tank is damaged and the capacity cannot be definitely ascertained). This would give an extra range to the aircraft of about 450 miles at normal cruising speed, or rather more than double the usual range. A further report will be issued if and when a tank is found in situ."

* In this context 'country' means the countryside......may not be obvious to non native English speakers.

The pressed steel tank, made to an identical pattern to the aluminium version, came much later. If these two were new rather than 70 years old, and freshly painted, they would be indistinguishable.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Single engine fighter-wise I don't think there is anything to do differently than the LW did historically. The FW190 was perfect for its time, the only thing one could hope for would be less engine issues with the BMW 801. Once the war was on its hard to just phase out the Me109, especially when the 209 and 309 were failures. I would say start working on the Ta-152 with DB603 in 1941 though, rather than 1943 and waiting for the Jumo 213 and detouring into the Fw190C/D.

As an airframe (ie. we will forget about the engines for a brief moment), the Fw-190 was offering several things superior to the Bf-109:
-somewhat a bigger wing that, combined with a more generous fuselage volume, allowed for more armament, ammo fuel
-wide set, inward retracting U/C
-far better field of vision
-far better rate of roll, much due to stiff wing with two main spars, span-vise reinforcements and big ailerons
-covered main U/C and retractable tailwheel, for better streamlining

So indeed, too good a fighter to pass on. Would it be possible to introduce it earlier, say, just for the BoB? The BMW 139 was offering excellent power (Short-term power (5 min): 1410 HP at 4500 m altitude
Increased short-term power (30 min): 1270 HP at 4900 m altitude, via HoHun), but the reliability was not that good. Maybe install the DB-601A as power egg, so the radial engine can be installed without much of problems? In case the Jumo-211B is rated for 5 min power (ie. comparable with DB-601A), we might use those power eggs instead of DB-601As. The inter-cooled Jumo-211J with C3 fuel for 1941, in case radial is still running late?
I'd have it with 2 weapon stations per each of two wing halves, each station holding either 2 LMGs, or one cannon. Preferably total of 8 MG-15s, each with ~500 rounds for BoB.
From 1941-42, in 'my Luftwaffe', the engine would be either 14 cyl radial, from 1942-43 the 2-stage DB-601 or Jumo 211. Ie. no DB 603 or Jumo 213.

Other than that the Me262 is very much were they should go with jets and avoid all the rocket detours and other jet designs.

One might want the single engined jet, too, so the piston jobs can be replaced quickly.

In terms of two engine aircraft, I'm in favor of the Bf110 as a gunship/ground attack/fight-bomber. Beyond that the Fw187 is a necessity for long range escort/air superiority fighter. Working on the Me210 is worthwhile without the dive bombing requirement, provided it is understood that it isn't necessary if it doesn't work out in testing. The Do335 is worthwhile for a back up.

The Fw-187 should come in handy, until it's replaced with 2-stage Fw-190s. The push-pull fighter might be a good alternative, the design need to be started ASAP, so even on two DB-601s or Jumo 211s the aircraft can perform. With those two and Ju-88, there should not be need for Bf-110, Mtt can concentrate on 109 and jet(s).

As far as nightfighters the Ju88C/G is the only way to go for me, though having the Bf110 as a stopgap along with the Do215 makes sense in production terms. Don't bother with the He219 IMHO. A nightfighter Me262 is a viable research path too, as is the do335. But enhancing the Ju88 into better and better nightfighters until the jet age makes total sense.

Agreed that Ju-88 should get the priority. Maybe trying also the push-pull fighter as a NF?

 

[parsifal]

RAF and Commonwealth home produced trainers that i know of

Airspeed Oxford: 8586
Avro anson: 11020
Tiger Moth: 8868
DH86: 62
DH93 30
Miles Magister 1303
Miles martinet: 1325
Miles Master: 3520
CAC Wirraway: 900
CAC wackett: 250
Proctor: 1143

Thats a total of about 37500. Germany produced under 10000 dedicated trainers before and during the war that it could realistically use. Both side of course used operational types in their OTUs

 

[wiking85]

As an airframe (ie. we will forget about the engines for a brief moment), the Fw-190 was offering several things superior to the Bf-109:
-somewhat a bigger wing that, combined with a more generous fuselage volume, allowed for more armament, ammo fuel
-wide set, inward retracting U/C
-far better field of vision
-far better rate of roll, much due to stiff wing with two main spars, span-vise reinforcements and big ailerons
-covered main U/C and retractable tailwheel, for better streamlining

Agreed.

So indeed, too good a fighter to pass on. Would it be possible to introduce it earlier, say, just for the BoB? The BMW 139 was offering excellent power (Short-term power (5 min): 1410 HP at 4500 m altitude
Increased short-term power (30 min): 1270 HP at 4900 m altitude, via HoHun), but the reliability was not that good. Maybe install the DB-601A as power egg, so the radial engine can be installed without much of problems? In case the Jumo-211B is rated for 5 min power (ie. comparable with DB-601A), we might use those power eggs instead of DB-601As. The inter-cooled Jumo-211J with C3 fuel for 1941, in case radial is still running late?
I'd have it with 2 weapon stations per each of two wing halves, each station holding either 2 LMGs, or one cannon. Preferably total of 8 MG-15s, each with ~500 rounds for BoB.
From 1941-42, in 'my Luftwaffe', the engine would be either 14 cyl radial, from 1942-43 the 2-stage DB-601 or Jumo 211. Ie. no DB 603 or Jumo 213.

The BMW139 was not viable AFAIK; it needed to be revised into the 801 due to experience merged in from Bramo. Merge the two radial engine companies sooner and start the 14 cylinder radial sooner and we are all set, but using the early development apparently was not a viable option.

As to using an liquid cooled inline, there was a lack of DBs and a lack of Jumo performance at altitude where the fighters were needing it. A jumo powered fighter would be stuck well below 20,000 feet. Increase DB production early on with greater investment in its production and a FW190 powered DB601 is potentially viable, but is there a guarantee that it would perform as well as the radial engine design? The smaller width changes the design, as did the long nose C and D series, which changed its flight characteristics that made it so memorable in the A-series. You can't power-egg a single engine fighter with fuselage based engine, you need a new fuselage otherwise you gain unnecessary drag and weight by having to brace the smaller liquid cooled inlines in a wider radial designed airframe.

One might want the single engined jet, too, so the piston jobs can be replaced quickly.

Sure, but there was never any single engine powerful enough to make this work. Post-war it would be fine, but given the technical constraints up to 1945-46 its just not viable; have it be backburner research for 1946.

The Fw-187 should come in handy, until it's replaced with 2-stage Fw-190s. The push-pull fighter might be a good alternative, the design need to be started ASAP, so even on two DB-601s or Jumo 211s the aircraft can perform. With those two and Ju-88, there should not be need for Bf-110, Mtt can concentrate on 109 and jet(s).

Push pull had too long of a lead time to be ready by 1944; it would have to start development in the mid-1930s. If there was enough foresight, having jumo of db powered push-pull fighters would have been indeed awesome by 1942-43. The problem is starting the research early enough. A smaller Do-335 in 1942-43 would have been ideal IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
The project didn't really start until 1939 and it took serious development before the Do-335 could even be contemplated in 1942 when the design started. I looked into the pre-official project and it wasn't able to be moved up without starting push-pull fighter research in 1935/36.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göppingen_Gö_9
Even having the concept research start in 1937 wasn't enough; I don't buy the complaint that Goering cancelled research in 1940, as the Go-9 flew in 1941 after the supposed cancel order.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
You'd have to start in 1935 with the Go-9 to get something like that ready by 1942 in combat. As to the Fw187 I think it has viability until about 1943; at that point there are too many other more viable options (not the Me210/410). Then its all about the Ta-152 IMHO.

Agreed that Ju-88 should get the priority. Maybe trying also the push-pull fighter as a NF?

Sure, but the development of the push-pull meant it wasn't ready until late 1944, which is too late.

 

[Shortround6]

Going for the "push-pull" falls into the trap that so bedeviled the Germans in history. Going for the technological "superior" solution despite the increased development problems. It is not a question of "can it be made to work?" but "can it be made to work quickly and easily?) compared to the "conventional" solution (a normal twin).

A "normal" twin had little or no problem with gun location (no through the hub or sychro problems). Not much problem with radar location (you don't want antenna behind a propeller). A 'normal' twin has both engines located somewhat near the center of gravity and not fighting for fuselage space with other things.

Somethings in WW II were a matter of timing of weeks or a few months. Having a "good" solution in early 1943 may be better than a "better" solution in late 1943 or a "best" solution in early 1944.

 

[tomo pauk]

Normal twin role should be fulfilled with Fw-187 and Ju-88. The Germans have had no problems to either fire their cannon through the prop after 1940, nor to fire it synchronized (talking about air-to-air stuff). The layout is superior when it comes down to drag. During normal operations, ther is no torque reaction with identical engines. Despite the layout, the DO-335 managed to have plenty of fuel, good punch and bomb bay.

...
The BMW139 was not viable AFAIK; it needed to be revised into the 801 due to experience merged in from Bramo. Merge the two radial engine companies sooner and start the 14 cylinder radial sooner and we are all set, but using the early development apparently was not a viable option.

We don't know certainly how much more the 139 was problematic, compared with 801. Both have had the issues, and I agree that an earlier work on them should yield a viable engine earlier.

As to using an liquid cooled inline, there was a lack of DBs and a lack of Jumo performance at altitude where the fighters were needing it. A jumo powered fighter would be stuck well below 20,000 feet. Increase DB production early on with greater investment in its production and a FW190 powered DB601 is potentially viable, but is there a guarantee that it would perform as well as the radial engine design? The smaller width changes the design, as did the long nose C and D series, which changed its flight characteristics that made it so memorable in the A-series. You can't power-egg a single engine fighter with fuselage based engine, you need a new fuselage otherwise you gain unnecessary drag and weight by having to brace the smaller liquid cooled inlines in a wider radial designed airframe.

Lack of DBs doesn't have to occur if one really starts planning in 1936 and further. The power of Jumo-211B, above 5 km, was in the ballpark with DB-601A (eg. at 6 km, 30 min rating, it was 830 PS for 211B vs. 850 for the 601A with new supercharger, vs. 800 PS for the 601A with old supercharger).OTOH, it would be a good idea to rate the 211 for the 5 min power rating, along with existing 30 min and take off rating (1 min)
The ~1000 HP V-12s in the 'pre-190' will not equal the capabilities of the historical Fw-190s of 1941/42, bar reliability (and that is not unimportant). We have, however, other benefits of the airframe, as I've listed above.
The power egg indeed enables the designer to have easy job to install the radial engine. The Soviets have had no problems to come out with La-5, nor the Japanese with Ki-100. Since I will not put any armament in fuselage, the task is even easier.
The roll rate maybe did not was a strong point for the D-9 as it was for Antons, but few if any complaint can be heard about that. The Antons were good rollers, but were not miracles of maneuvering.

Sure, but there was never any single engine powerful enough to make this work. Post-war it would be fine, but given the technical constraints up to 1945-46 its just not viable; have it be backburner research for 1946.

Several things can help. 1st start the design job on jets earlier. 2nd, start 1st with centrifugal compressors, put axial compressors on a backburner. 3rd, start developing the air cooled turbine blades.

Push pull had too long of a lead time to be ready by 1944; it would have to start development in the mid-1930s. If there was enough foresight, having jumo of db powered push-pull fighters would have been indeed awesome by 1942-43. The problem is starting the research early enough. A smaller Do-335 in 1942-43 would have been ideal IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
The project didn't really start until 1939 and it took serious development before the Do-335 could even be contemplated in 1942 when the design started. I looked into the pre-official project and it wasn't able to be moved up without starting push-pull fighter research in 1935/36.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göppingen_Gö_9
Even having the concept research start in 1937 wasn't enough; I don't buy the complaint that Goering cancelled research in 1940, as the Go-9 flew in 1941 after the supposed cancel order.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
You'd have to start in 1935 with the Go-9 to get something like that ready by 1942 in combat. As to the Fw187 I think it has viability until about 1943; at that point there are too many other more viable options (not the Me210/410). Then its all about the Ta-152 IMHO.
Sure, but the development of the push-pull meant it wasn't ready until late 1944, which is too late.

You do have the Do-18 flying in 1935. Actually, the Do-16 uses the push pull concept in 1922. SOme aircrfat were using the concept in ww1 IIRC. The idea is there, better get to the job to produce the push pull aircraft ASAP.

 

[Shortround6]

Handley Page V 1500 in 1918.

can we please stop the idea that "push pull" was new or innovative or even German in the 1930s.

Please note the use of 2 bladed propellers on the tractor engines and 4 bladed props on the "pushers".
Close coupled "push-pulls" had problems with disturbed airflows on the Pusher props. Dornier may have had patents on extension shafts or thrust bearings transferring the "thrust" to the air-frame without going through the engine but the idea was not new and with out a fair distance between the props was less efficient than 4 tractor propellers. So for a 4 engine plane you had to trade reduced frontal area/drag for lower efficiency of the rear propeller.

The idea was there but please point out the number of aircraft that have used the idea since the end of WW II in any numbers?

The Cessna 337

was probably the biggest user by far and the air flow of both the forward and rear props is not the best due to the large fuselage. This plane also points out another fact. You don't get two engines into the frontal area of one as you still need scopes/bumps/bulges for the cooling of the 2nd engine. It is less than using 2 engine nacelles.

 

[wiking85]

No one was claiming it was a German invention or unique to the 1930s. The problem was creating a high performance push-pull fighter/fast bomber/night fighter with high output engines before late 1944. It was a hard development that took time.

 

[Shortround6]

Just trying to head off another contributor.

I am totally baffled as to why the Do 335 is repeatedly held up as the solution to Germany's high speed piston engine aircraft needs in near the end of the war. It may have been fast but it seems to have a lot of other things going against. More of a "solution"
in search of a problem than the answer to a real question.

 

[wiking85]

Just trying to head off another contributor.

I am totally baffled as to why the Do 335 is repeatedly held up as the solution to Germany's high speed piston engine aircraft needs in near the end of the war. It may have been fast but it seems to have a lot of other things going against. More of a "solution"
in search of a problem than the answer to a real question.

It was a back up in case jet research didn't produce an operational aircraft by the end of the war, then it was just another 'let's throw what we've got at the enemy' situation in desperation in late 1944.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The idea was there but please point out the number of aircraft that have used the idea since the end of WW II in any numbers?

...

The DO-16 and Do-18 make together 420 pieces. Not overwhelming a number, but that was between the wars.

No one was claiming it was a German invention or unique to the 1930s. The problem was creating a high performance push-pull fighter/fast bomber/night fighter with high output engines before late 1944. It was a hard development that took time.

Quirk is that one don't need high output engines in order to extract high performance out of push pull aircraft. One can have decent speed even with Jumo 211s on board.

 

[wiking85]

The DO-16 and Do-18 make together 420 pieces. Not overwhelming a number, but that was between the wars.



Quirk is that one don't need high output engines in order to extract high performance out of push pull aircraft. One can have decent speed even with Jumo 211s on board.

For a small aircraft though they need to worry about torque and several other issues stemming from the unique engineering challenges of building two rotating propellors at each end of the fuselage; they also need to work on an ejection seat otherwise the pilot could not bail out at all in case of emergency lest he get chopped up by his rear prop. Apparently there was a lot of issues that had to be worked out to get performance that would actually make the project worthwhile; just having a marginal edge over the traditional twin engine fighters isn't worth the problems that come with a push-pull design on a fighter (on a bomber its a different story). I for one though don't know why they didn't try and do a push-puller layout for a strategic bomber. I know some versions of the Amerika Bomber had this layout, but you'd think it would be a viable option for the Bomber A.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry if it was like I was claiming that Germans, or Dornier in particular, invented the push pull layout. That was not the case.

The torque emanating from two 1000-1200 HP engines is certainly much smaller than there it is fromtwo 1600-1800 HP ones; those were 'tamed' in Do-335 case. Americans and British were managing to handle the torque of single 2000-2800 HP engine in reasonably sized airplanes. Calling the push pull design business having "the unique engineering challenges" is a bit too much for me, though.
The ejection seat is one way to do it, and Germans were not shy to deploy that piece of machinery in 'classic' aircraft. Too bad for them that ejection seat was not employed on major scale.
Another way to do it is to have explosives to detach rear prop, as the Mixmaster had. BTW: were the P-38 pilots afraid that they might hit the horizontal stabilator when ejecting from the A/C?

Apparently there was a lot of issues that had to be worked out to get performance that would actually make the project worthwhile; just having a marginal edge over the traditional twin engine fighters isn't worth the problems that come with a push-pull design on a fighter (on a bomber its a different story).

The Do-335 was some 140 km/h faster than Me-410, when on same engines. Both have bomb bays. But, one can survive P-47 or P-51 infested airspace, the other cannot. Seems worth the effort.

 

[stona]

they also need to work on an ejection seat otherwise the pilot could not bail out at all in case of emergency lest he get chopped up by his rear prop.

It was thought at the time that an ejection seat and the removal of the rear propeller and part of the tail assembly was needed to enable a pilot to bail out. It wasn't so, of the handful of pilots who did abandon a Do 335 at least one made a completely 'normal' exit from an intact aircraft after both the tail jettison and ejection seat had failed.

The ejection seat was dangerous, one pilot made a wheels up landing after the seat failed to operate following a fire on a test flight, only to have it work as he touched down, throwing him from the aircraft and depositing him on the runway. A more serious, and fatal in at least one instance, problem was the propensity for the jettisoned hood to strike the pilots head, rendering him unconscious or even killing him.

The Do 335 wasn't seen as the solution, just a solution and an aircraft capable of many roles. Just look at the size of the thing

Cheers

Steve

 

[wiking85]

It was thought at the time that an ejection seat and the removal of the rear propeller and part of the tail assembly was needed to enable a pilot to bail out. It wasn't so, of the handful of pilots who did abandon a Do 335 at least one made a completely 'normal' exit from an intact aircraft after both the tail jettison and ejection seat had failed.

The ejection seat was dangerous, one pilot made a wheels up landing after the seat failed to operate following a fire on a test flight, only to have it work as he touched down, throwing him from the aircraft and depositing him on the runway. A more serious, and fatal in at least one instance, problem was the propensity for the jettisoned hood to strike the pilots head, rendering him unconscious or even killing him.

The Do 335 wasn't seen as the solution, just a solution and an aircraft capable of many roles. Just look at the size of the thing

Cheers

Steve

IMHO its worth researching just in case, but its mooted by the invention of the jet engine.