Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936

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

davebender said:
DB603 only needs to produce 1,600hp with 25 hour reliability to beat 1941 version of BMW801. That's not a terribly high performance bar.
Click to expand...
At a lower RPM it could easily reach that at 100 hours between overhauls in 1941. By 1942 1750PS is very doable with around 100 hours assuming continuous funding since 1936 and a DB604 program that either doesn't exist or is cut off and assuming nothing silly like the DB613 or the DB609 taking away resources from development.
.
 
Focke-Wulf Ta 153 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If Focke Wulf fighter aircraft is designed for DB603 engine from beginning the wings will be in right place to make aircraft balance without adding a rear fuselage plug. Hence performance should be slightly better then Fw-190D9.

Not sure how you would do the reverse conversion (from DB603 to BMW801). Perhaps fuselage plug would be forward of the wings. If nothing else the additional nose space should improve BMW801 cooling.
 

The funding wouldn't be before 1937, The first prototype was built 1936/37 and offered at 1937 to the RLM. Only 1 prototype.
It was a direct development out of the DB 600 with a pantograph, at the same technical level as the DB 600 from 1936.
So a funding and development couldn't begin before 1937 on the technical base of a DB 600!

So you want to tell us that this engine was further developed then a BMW 139 which was in the air for the first time 1938 and started development 1935?

A DB 603 has to have major basic engine work to sort out the reliability problems, plus all steps of the DB 601 to the DB 605 which include direct fuel injection, pressurised water cooling, more boost, more rpm etc. This must be all developed to function proper.

The original DB 603 1941/42 was a harum scarum engineered engine, where at a short time, all learned experiences were put together without real testing and engineering to the bigger engine deplacement. It had major problems!

So funding a development of the DB 603 since 1937 could offer a DB 603A at 1942 in mass production, nothing else.

A DB 603A on 2500 RPM offers 1510 PS on 2400 RPM something about 1380/1400 PS and more then 2400 RPM at 1940/41 are total illusion. Where is the big advantage of such an engine in mass production at 1941?
 
Last edited:

The rest of the post is already covered.
The Ta-152 minus a 2 stage engine is not a Ta-152. The Ta-152C was to be equipped with a two stage DB-603L or 603LA, and if the historical power levels are expected, than they need 'boost systems' (water injection) since there was no inter-cooler.


Tail plug is not something that should cause worries. If we have a V-12 engine with plenty of power, but not overly heavy, to supplant the 801, then tail plug will not be needed anyway.
 
To do the justice for the DB-603A, here is the power graph, with added red line for the BMW-801D operating unrestricted, the power deduced for the amont needed for turning the cooling fan. The DB-603A will have substantial power advantage between 1.5 and 6 km, even when operating on 'relaxed' setting (2500 rpm and 1.30 ata), due to it's variable speed drive for the supercharger. The blue squares denote the power of the DB-628, one of the 1st German two-stage engines, based on DB-605.



One will now ask: what kind of performance increase will our 'Fw-190C' have vs. it's radial counterpart? The comparable Fw-190D-9 was good for 685 km/h at 6.6 km (without MW injection, 1600 PS at 5.3 km, no ram, pink squares line on the graph) vs. the 660 km/h at 6.3 km for the Fw-190A-3 (1440 PS at 5.7 km, no ram). Above 7 km, the 'Fw-190C' should be as fast as the D-9, even when on 'relaxed' rating (2500 + 1.3 ata), or maybe a tad slower since the exhaust thrust was already smaller than it was the case for the 213A. Call it 670 km/h at 7 km, vs 655 for the A-3?
What our BMW can do about that? It can use external air intakes. The internal air intakes spoil the harvesting of ram effect, as we can see comparing the full throttle heights of the engines installed in Tank'f fighters. The gain in FTH is only 600 m for the Fw-190A-3 (5.7 km vs. 6.3), against 1.3 km for the Fw-190D-9 (5.3 km vs. 6.6). The external air intakes can earn up to 30 km/h.(link) Call it 20 km/h and the 'new' Fw-190A-3 can be fast every bit as the 'Fw-190C'. It should be also at least as good climber (lighter engine) and more maneuverable.

Exhaust thrust at Notleistung: BMW-801D - ~260 lbs at 5.7 km, DB-603A - 284 lbs at 5.7 km, Jumo 213A - 340 lbs at 5.3 km (~325 at 5.7 km)
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking about this for a while and to be honest believe that the Luftwaffe got a lot of things right. Their development of the 109, 110, He111, Ju88, Ju87, He115, Ar 196 for the start of the war were all pretty much on the nose. The only significant alteration to these aircraft would be to remove the dive bombing ability from the Ju88. It would have reduced development time and increased performance. Imagine the BOB with the Do17 replaced by a faster Ju88, it would have been a significant problem.
As follow development, the Fw190 was a world beater when it entered service and the Do217 was second to none as a medium bomber.

Re aircraft the two areas where the Luftwaffe made mistakes were not developing a heavy bomber and not replacing the Ju52 with a DC3 like transport. There is no reason to doubt that Germany could have got a license to build the DC3 after all Japan did. As for the bomber, the He 177 as a four engine design from the start without dive bombing ability would have been a first class bomber, again they almost got it right.

A properly integrated version of Coastal Command designated and trained to work with the navy would have been invaluable in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Condor was good at its job but they needed more of them and more importantly co-ordinated tactics.

The biggest change for the Luftwaffe would be the training and support side. Training was always seen as a second tier area with the aircraft often used on operational missions in particular the transport units. In the RAF and US forces front line pilots were rested and used to train new crews. They often moaned and bitched about it, but it did ensure that training was done by people with front line experience, it also kept them alive, so when they re-joined squadrons the squadrons got a number of pilots who already knew how to fly and fight in combat. They often need training in the latest tactics, but they were experienced pilots who knew the basics. This was often not the case for the Luftwaffe, where trainers (and test pilots) had limited experience.

Commanders in the first half of the war tended to be bomber trained and lacked the understanding as to how to deploy fighters. They also lacked the confidence to stand up to the leaders when changes were demanded as they owed their position more to political influence, than ability.

Finally the production and training should have been on a war footing from the start of the war. I know this applied to the whole of the German war machine but its worth a mention.
 
Last edited:
Many times in these debates we tend to overlook the fact that Germany was against four, if France is counted in, major powers Each of those have had capabilities to match German industry in quantity, if not even in quality. One cannot hold for too long against that. What ever minor mistakes Germans did in these design procurement, they didn't have a capable ally to help them out. Unlike what Allies had.
 

no, they didnt. Germany has been estimated at controlling about 15% of world GDP in 1938. The US was about 40%, but did not enter the war until the end of 1941....outside the parameters of the scenario. Britain and the Commonwealth accounted for about 10-12% of world GDP, but did not begin really to re-arm until 1938. France controlled about 6% of world GDP. Italy about 2%. The USSR really could not be measured by these standards,neither could japan, but variously they have been estimated to be about 10% and 4%. The rest of the world accounted for the rest....about 11%...

The problem is that Germany was preparing for war from about 1935, whilst her two principal opponents did not begin rearmament until 1938-9, and even though the Germans didnt have a lot of numbers on the ground, they had undertaken design work, stockpiled resources, and organized their industries and workforces. this gave them a huge lead in the early part of the war. The French estimated in 1939 that it would take 2 years for them and the British to catch the German lead and begin serious offensive moves....which was a remarkably accurate estimate when you think about it.

Germany began the war on her own, matched up against france, britain and Poland. That was a considerable risk. By 1940, she had eliminated Poland and France, gained italy as an ally, and was receiving a large amount of help and technical exchange from the USSR. She had virtually the whole mof Europe to draw resources, expertise, design help and the like from. She chose not to exploit those advantages very well, but the potential; was there. Britain did not begin to receive substantial help from the US until the 2nd quarter of 1941. They had received some critical assistance like the destroyers for bases arrangements, but assistance until 1941 was strictly cash and carry, and that placed a limit on the extent of help received from the US to whatever resources the British could lay their hands on, and that wasnt much.

In addition, whilst Germany had no real assistance technically from either Italy or Japan, both these countries were a resource drain for the British. The British had to find the resources to try and counter both these threats, and more resources spent on these threats, meant less resources that could be used against the Germans, including R&D costs.

If we assume that Japans GDP was met by half that amount by the Brits, and Italy was matched , then Britains 12% GDP is reduced to 8%, to counter 15% for the germans. The Germans from June 1940 until 1941 had roughly twice as much resources as Britain, until she decided to open a second front in June 1941. She squandered the potential of occupied Europe and alienated the local populations, but that came later , after 1941, for the most part
 
There's more then one way to solve the same problem. If 1936 Germany opts not to begin immediate development of DB603 and Jumo213 V12 engines they should make a beeline for 2,000hp V24. Stand firm on the original 2,000hp specification and get that engine into mass production during March 1942. It will be contemporary with American R2800 radial engine.

Meanwhile I would stick with DB601 / DB605 for Me-109 and Fw-187 fighter aircraft. V24 engine is for Ju-88 neuer/Art and Do-317 level bomber (which replaces He-111).

Speaking of Fw-187....
If Germany mass produces this fighter aircraft they don't need Fw-190 and it's expensive radial engine program. Focke Wulf would be just as happy to build 20,000 Fw-187s as they would 20,000 Fw-190s.
 
davebender said:
Speaking of Fw-187....
If Germany mass produces this fighter aircraft they don't need Fw-190 and it's expensive radial engine program. Focke Wulf would be just as happy to build 20,000 Fw-187s as they would 20,000 Fw-190s.
Click to expand...

And how would it fare in 1944/5 against a Spitfire XIV, a late P-51 or a Tempest?

Steve
 
stona said:
And how would it fare in 1944/5 against a Spitfire XIV, a late P-51 or a Tempest?

Steve
Click to expand...

I have no doubts that a from 1938-1944 developed Fw 187 with DB 605 A, AS or D fare very good against this a/c's.
But that's not the point, in my LW the FW 187 is planed as multirole long range escort, especially maritim, light destroyer, light night fighter and also interceptor.
But as a strategic complement a/c and I think without this whole up and downs (retooling) of the Me 110 production and no Me 210 weather planed nor produced, 10000 a/c's are possible

From the data's we have discussed this enough, and I don't do it again,if a german a/c will ever match the speed or has more speed then your named counterparts, it would be the FW 187. The FW 187 is a multirole Hornet but 1939.

The development of the FW 190 A; D, F, G and also the BMW 801 are indispensable. Also the FW 190 would always be produced in superior numbers compare to the FW 187. Also what Dave didn't understand, that both a/c's didn't stand in any direct link, because the original production of the Me 110 was from "second rated" a/c companies and both a/c's had different engines. So to replace the FW 190 with the FW 187 makes not any sense any single moment.
 
DonL said:
I have no doubts that a from 1938-1944 developed Fw 187 with DB 605 A, AS or D fare very good against this a/c's.................

So to replace the FW 190 with the FW 187 makes not any sense any single moment.
Click to expand...

I have serious doubts about the development potential of such a small aeroplane. A similar problem existed with the RAF's Whirlwind.

On the second point I agree 100%. There was definitely a place for a developed Fw 187 (if it lived up to its potential) but not as a replacement for the Fw 190 series.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I thought we have discussed this and you has also the book from Mr. Hermann.

The FW 187 was planed from the beginning to the 35 Liter 1000PS engine advertisemnet of the RLM (DB 601 and Jumo 211), compare to this the Westland Whirwind was constructed around the Peregrines, that's a major difference.

Also your comparation of the size between the FW 187 and Westland Whirlwind is not correct.

Westland Whirlwind:

Length: 9.83 m
Wingspan: 13.72 m
Height: 3.35 m
Wing area: 23.2 m²

Fw 187 A0:

Length: 11,20 m
Wingspan: 15,48 m
Height: 3,85 m
Wing area: 30,20 m²

compare to Lockheed P-38:

Length: 11,53 m
Wingspan: 15,85 m
Height: 3,00 m
Wing area: 30,42 m²

The FW 187 has nearly the same size as the Lockheed P-38, why do you think that a P 38 has development potential but not the FW 187 from your size argumentation. The FW 187 has good more size then the Whirlwind and was constructed from the beginning to bigger engines.
 
Last edited:
Nothing prevents Germany from building 50,000 Me-109s rather then 30,000 Me-109s plus 20,000 Fw-190s. DB605 engine was more fuel efficient then BMW801 so this option saves some aviation gasoline. Furthermore most of the fuel saved is high octane C3.

Cancelling the expensive BMW801 engine program doesn't mean BMW engineers would be idle. After completing development of BMW132 radial the entire development staff can be assigned to BMW 003 jet engine. That design morphed into highly successful Altar jet engine during late 1940s. With more development resources perhaps BMW can get their jet engine into production before 1945.
 

Fully agree. It was not big enough to be a night fighter for instance, nor able to mount Schragmusik. An enlarged FW187 maybe, but then it wouldn't have been the FW187 and lost is selling point! It might have been okay for the Jabo role, but that's wasting it on something it couldn't do well. Keep it as a long range escort, air superiority fighter, and fast interceptor. Let the FW190 be the workhorse fighter and fighter-bomber. Phase out the Me109 in favor of a combo of the Fw187 and a Ta-152/3, while the latter could also function as a long range jabo/train buster due to its better fuel economy and therefore range. Also a high altitude interceptor of course. So we have three fighters and their variants: FW187, Fw190, and Ta-152/3. Night fighter would still be the Ju88G.
 
I don't buy that Fw-187 with DB-601/605 is a cheaper thing to have than Fw-190 with BMW-801. The opposite should be true, maybe two 187s for three 190s?
Now about performance. If we take a look at this performance graph (HoHun's work? Fw test results and estimates, plus calculated lines), the Fw-187 with DBs is just about as good as Bf-109 with same engines. Granted, it will be better as a platform for multiple cannons than the 109, but I don't see any performance gains nor great savings. The Fw-190 with DB-603A or with BMW-801 and external intakes will be as good as 187 with DB-605s. The 190 would be even better with a two stage engine, plus what ever advantage listed several times here) it had over the Bf-109.

By 1944, the role of high performance fighters needs to be assumed by jets anyway.
 

So you want to tell us that this engine was further developed then a BMW 139 which was in the air for the first time 1938 and started development 1935?

A DB 603 has to have major basic engine work to sort out the reliability problems, plus all steps of the DB 601 to the DB 605 which include direct fuel injection, pressurised water cooling, more boost, more rpm etc. This must be all developed to function proper.

The original DB 603 1941/42 was a harum scarum engineered engine, where at a short time, all learned experiences were put together without real testing and engineering to the bigger engine deplacement. It had major problems!

So funding a development of the DB 603 since 1937 could offer a DB 603A at 1942 in mass production, nothing else.

A DB 603A on 2500 RPM offers 1510 PS on 2400 RPM something about 1380/1400 PS and more then 2400 RPM at 1940/41 are total illusion. Where is the big advantage of such an engine in mass production at 1941?[/QUOTE]

First of all the BMW 139 never became a viable engine and it had to be altered into the 801. So using the 139 as a comparison is not helpful.
As to the rest of what you have to say about the DB603 there are some fallacies there. Historically the DB603 suffered from having to restart in 1940 by building prototypes that incorporated developments from the 601 series which didn't scale to the 603, which had unique engineering challenges due to having a bigger engine and having different cooling issues. So first they had to waste time figuring out the existing work on the 601 didn't scale to the 603, which took until at least 1941, as they needed time to build the prototypes, design bigger parts for them based on 601 research, figure out they didn't work, and starting over; that puts us at square one in 1941. So from 1941-43 they worked on designing and building specific parts for the unique engineering issues of the 603, which previous developments did not help. So 2-3 years from the point that they realized they went down the wrong path with 601 developments being shoehorned into the 603.

Assuming that funding wasn't cut off in 1937 after the first prototype was built based on the DB600 means they start from that point testing the engine and finding specific developments of fuel injectors and cooling systems for the 603 that are 603 specific instead of trying 601 developments on the 603. So we don't lose time on that dead end. So from 1937 we are basically starting from where they were in late 1940/early 1941 historically. From 1937-41 is around 4 years development time that was pretty much lost; considering it took from 1941-43 to make the DB603 reliable, which was 3 years, by 1941 they should have been able to get a 1600hp engine with a minimum 100 hours between overhauls. You can't take the OTL engine as it was with the false starts stemming from trying to shoehorn 601/5 developments into the 603 and make predictions off of that; rather you need to assume they would develop unique parts for the 603 from the get go as they were learning about fuel injection design for the large engine and its unique cooling issues that didn't apply to the 601/605. I'm not saying that some of the research on the 601/5 didn't help to a degree, but it hurt too. Mass production could start planning in 1940 (really 1938-9 if we are talking about just getting the building and assembly lines laid out and built) as by then the major machine tool would have been figured out by then; its a matter of getting specialist machinery once the engine is cleared in Spring/Summer 1941, which puts mass production to Autumn/Winter 1941 at the latest, assuming worst case scenario of 5 years development before being fully cleared (Summer 1936-Summer 1941). Limited production could begin earlier with a smaller plant a la Dessau, while the mass production in a place like Ostmark could start limited production (500 units or so, which is half capacity) if planning started in 1938, the buildings were built in 1939, the major assembly line generic stuff and powerplant machinery is installed in 1940, and machine tools are installed over the course of 1940-41 along with training workers at that point). By 1942 full scale mass production would start, but limited mass production could start by Autumn 1941. That would be at least at the 1600hp mark, with the reliable 1750hp phased in during 1942, probably about the same time the early Jumo 213 is cleared and starts phasing in at 1750hp.
 

You are aware that the graph from Hohun estimated the FW 187 C heavy fighter/ night fighter which was heavily armoured plus schräge musik and had a take of weight of 7100kg.
So please tell me which Bf 109 with DB 605A engines ever reached 680 km/h in a level flight? The G6 without gondulas was good for 650 km/h at it's best days.

It was not big enough to be a night fighter for instance, nor able to mount Schragmusik.
Click to expand...

The plans for schräge musik existed, confirmed at Mr. Hermanns book (2 x MG 131)
 
Last edited:
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
869
Snautzer01
Curtiss SC-1 development
Replies
5
Views
737
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
817
bobolex
B
Menu
Log in
Register