Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936

[wiking85]

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.
The plans for schräge musik existed, confirmed at Mr. Hermanns book (2 x MG 131)

I stand corrected. But it loses it maneuverability with this, so will be a different aircraft in effect; what advantage would this offer over a Jumo 213 powered Ju88G?

 

[stona]

This is just the same silly diversion.....plans......estimates.......but nothing real. I don't think it serves this thread to go there........again.

Twins invariably cost more than singles. Didn't a P-38 cost the same as two P-47s ? I may have remembered that wrongly.

If you can develop powerful enough engines to lift your required armament in an aircraft with one engine then the benefits of developing a type with two engines need to be substantial to be worth it. In the example above it was the range of the P-38 that made it worthwhile, particularly in the PTO.

Cheers

Steve

 

[davebender]

funding a development of the DB 603 since 1937 could offer a DB 603A at 1942 in mass production

If it happens that way so be it. DB603 produces 1,900hp when running on same C3 fuel as 1942 version of BMW801 engine.

 

[tomo pauk]

Steve, it was one P-38 for two P-51s. Your last passage in post #102 is right on the money.

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.

I admit that I didn't remember re. Fw-190C as being a night fighter project.
The Bf-109G-2 was able to beat 660 km/h mark on 2600 rpm and 1.30 ata, but I've never seen a any test data for the G-2 on Notleistung (2800 rpm, 1.42 ata). The G-6 was a step back in aerodynamics of the 109, with gun bulges, fixed tailwheel and wing bumps for U/C.
The 187V2 seem to be at 545 km/h vs. serial produced A-0 at 530 km/h?

BTW, the Fw-187 with 2000-3000 HP on board should burn much more fuel per mile than Fw-190 with 1500-1800 HP - not such a great proposal for ww2 Germany. It would not roll as good, would be a significantly bigger target, pilot would lack a 360 deg field of vision, and will have two engines to impair his field of vision.
Basically, all the arguments in P-38 vs. P-51 debates apply: the twin is cool when the engines are in 1100-1300 HP range. Once the engines are in 1600 HP range, the single engined job is a better choice.

 

[stona]

Steve, it was one P-38 for two P-51s.

Thanks, that makes sense as the P-47 was a complex and presumably expensive machine to produce.

No one, not even the Americans as some seem to believe, had limitless supplies of cash and there were many military projects and programs competing for that cash, not just aviation related.

Steve

 

[rinkol]

It should be noted hat scaling up an engine operating close to the edge, such as the DB601, by increasing cylinder dimensions introduces a host of issues including mechanical stresses, lubrication, and thermal issues. It is not a straightforward proposition. And DB certainly struggled with serious problems afflicting the higher powered versions of the DB601 and the DB605. One of the fundamental issues with virtually all of the DB engines was that the use of a dry cylinder liner aggravated thermal issues. The DB609 received new cylinders with wet liners - I don't know how these worked out, but suspect there must have been strong motivations for making such a major change. Admittedly, the V16 configuration of the DB609 was questionable - probably the only way of ever building a V16 that would be satisfactory for aircraft use would be to effectively split it into a pair of V8s as was done by Chrysler.

For sure there was room to rationalize the DB engine development programs. Certainly, the double V12 DB engines were more trouble than they were worth and should have been dropped at an early stage. Also, the surface evaporation engine cooling schemes were another waste of time and effort. And as noted, the DB609 was a questionable concept. There were many other abortive engine developments, particularly those involving various supercharger arrangements. Aside from the lack of focus, it is not clear to me exactly why DB had so much trouble with two stage superchargers. Does anyone know exactly what the situation was with the DB601D?

 

[DonL]

Steve, it was one P-38 for two P-51s. Your last passage in post #102 is right on the money.



I admit that I didn't remember re. Fw-190C as being a night fighter project.
The Bf-109G-2 was able to beat 660 km/h mark on 2600 rpm and 1.30 ata, but I've never seen a any test data for the G-2 on Notleistung (2800 rpm, 1.42 ata). The G-6 was a step back in aerodynamics of the 109, with gun bulges, fixed tailwheel and wing bumps for U/C.
The 187V2 seem to be at 545 km/h vs. serial produced A-0 at 530 km/h?

BTW, the Fw-187 with 2000-3000 HP on board should burn much more fuel per mile than Fw-190 with 1500-1800 HP - not such a great proposal for ww2 Germany. It would not roll as good, would be a significantly bigger target, pilot would lack a 360 deg field of vision, and will have two engines to impair his field of vision.
Basically, all the arguments in P-38 vs. P-51 debates apply: the twin is cool when the engines are in 1100-1300 HP range. Once the engines are in 1600 HP range, the single engined job is a better choice.

As I have written in my plans the FW 187 is a strategic complement a/c, it replace the Me 110 at the original LW. At the beginning of the war till 1942/43 it had the same duties as the Me 110, except in my plans I have a stop gap night fighter with the Do 215 Kautz III. (enlarge Genshagen production at 1939).
The FW 187 with DB 60x was planed with a 12,45m fulsage and 1300 Liter internal fuel.
In my plans the FW 187 is only a light night fighter to hunt enemy night fighters through her speed (1-3 Gruppen).
After 1942 it could be fill shortages, because with the FW 187 you has also the option to develop her as an one seater interceptor (plans from Mr. Hermanns book) with a take off weight of 6100kg also 1300 Liter internal fuel.

Compare to this, the FW 190A till the A8 had only 540 Liter internal fuel and the BMW wasn't as fuel efficient then the DB 605, especially at cruising speed.
Also after the plans in Mr. Hermanns book, the FW 187 could carry 900 Liter in drop tanks, which made 2200 Liter fuel, I think that's enough for long range normal and maritim support.

Edit:

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?

After the original FW clearance from 1940 to the RLM, for the last two FW 187 A0, the FW 187 (incl. 2 x Jumo 210) was 137911 RM.
So my estimation at a real mass production with 2 x DB 60x will be at 150000 RM.
That's original the double price of a Bf 109 (incl. engine) and 50000 RM less of a Me 110. At the moment I have no price for the FW 190 A.

 

[DonL]

It should be noted hat scaling up an engine operating close to the edge, such as the DB601, by increasing cylinder dimensions introduces a host of issues including mechanical stresses, lubrication, and thermal issues. It is not a straightforward proposition. And DB certainly struggled with serious problems afflicting the higher powered versions of the DB601 and the DB605. One of the fundamental issues with virtually all of the DB engines was that the use of a dry cylinder liner aggravated thermal issues. The DB609 received new cylinders with wet liners - I don't know how these worked out, but suspect there must have been strong motivations for making such a major change. Admittedly, the V16 configuration of the DB609 was questionable - probably the only way of ever building a V16 that would be satisfactory for aircraft use would be to effectively split it into a pair of V8s as was done by Chrysler.

For sure there was room to rationalize the DB engine development programs. Certainly, the double V12 DB engines were more trouble than they were worth and should have been dropped at an early stage. Also, the surface evaporation engine cooling schemes were another waste of time and effort. And as noted, the DB609 was a questionable concept. There were many other abortive engine developments, particularly those involving various supercharger arrangements. Aside from the lack of focus, it is not clear to me exactly why DB had so much trouble with two stage superchargers. Does anyone know exactly what the situation was with the DB601D?

Mostly I agree with your post.
Next to the DB 606 and DB 610 coupled engines, the DB 604X (since 1938 ) for the Bomber B project was also a wast of time and resources.
The info with the use of a dry cylinder liner that aggravated thermal issues is new to me.

But I disagree with your supercharger statement, the DB 601 E and DB 605 supercharger offered with ram effect a very good altitude performance.
The DB 605 AS with the enlarged DB 603 supercharger was also very good. Till now, I have no criticism on the DB single stage supercharger with a hydraulic clutch

 

[rinkol]

The DB601E and DB605 were decent performers when introduced, but their altitude performance was soon eclipsed by that of the two stage Merlins and the US engines with turbosuperchargers. The DB605AS had a much needed improvement in altitude performance, but was late; it did not appear in numbers until 1944, well after the service introduction of the two stage Merlin. It also seems to have been an improvisation necessitated by the failure or at least non-availability, of the advanced DB605 derivatives, such as the DB605D (initial version), DB605L, DB616, DB621, DB625, and DB 628.

While we are on the subject of misguided efforts, another one worth noting was the HZ-Anlage. Realistically, this was never going to be useful except perhaps in reconnaissance aircraft. The weight of the engine installation would have probably been increased by 50% due to the fuselage mounted engine and all the associated ducting without any increase in takeoff power. Obviously, the increased weight, fuel consumption and loss of fuselage space would impose severe limitations on the payload of any aircraft using it.

The Germans were not alone in unsuccessful engine development programs. The various "hyper" engine development efforts in the US never amounted to anything and were a serious waste of resources.

 

[DonL]

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

I agree with mostly of your post.

Some things I want to add or do a statement.

Can you please name the technical help germany received from the UDSSR?

I understand the intention of you post and I agree with you, but weather the nazi ideology nor the leadership had any interest in any help or support. This was system immanent, as you can best see at the murdered jews, which could be workers, farmers, engineers or soldiers.

The whole system was from the beginning on the looser side, because it/they didn't want any cooparation or help, it was forbidden from their racist ideology.

To come back to you post, I think the most technical help came from Scoda and Gnome Rhone. I can't see much else.

But I agree with you that 100% of this issue goes to the leadeship of the nazi regime and other german people which were involved.

 

[tomo pauk]

As I have written in my plans the FW 187 is a strategic complement a/c, it replace the Me 110 at the original LW. At the beginning of the war till 1942/43 it had the same duties as the Me 110, except in my plans I have a stop gap night fighter with the Do 215 Kautz III. (enlarge Genshagen production at 1939).
The FW 187 with DB 60x was planed with a 12,45m fulsage and 1300 Liter internal fuel.
In my plans the FW 187 is only a light night fighter to hunt enemy night fighters through her speed (1-3 Gruppen).
After 1942 it could be fill shortages, because with the FW 187 you has also the option to develop her as an one seater interceptor (plans from Mr. Hermanns book) with a take off weight of 6100kg also 1300 Liter internal fuel.

Compare to this, the FW 190A till the A8 had only 540 Liter internal fuel and the BMW wasn't as fuel efficient then the DB 605, especially at cruising speed.
Also after the plans in Mr. Hermanns book, the FW 187 could carry 900 Liter in drop tanks, which made 2200 Liter fuel, I think that's enough for long range normal and maritim support.

The Ta-152 was outfitted with wing fuel tanks, that about doubled internal fuel tankage (up to 1065L total, if all 6 inter-spar stations were used). Also the late Doras in some versions were to carry fuel in wing tanks. Both Ta-152C and Doras have had basically identical wing as it was on Fw-190A. In case one wants to turn the Fw-190 into a LR fighter, that can be done without much of compication.
The BMW-801 was consuming fuel at maybe 50% greater rate than DB-601/605. Trick is that Fw-187 uses 2 DBs, making it's total fuel consumption 1/3rd greater than of Fw-190A.
I do agree that the Fw-187 with DB's would be a good asset, however, against RAF, in MTO and in SU. I'd try to employ it solely as a high performance, long range fighter.

 

[wiking85]

Out of curiousity what is the time frame it would take to get a low altitude Jabo type FW-190C or Ta-152C into service with the DB603 not being cancelled in 1937? Assuming its being developed in parallel with the FW190A that is. Is 1942 too early?

 

[DonL]

I would say at the same time line as a FW 190 D-9, so end of 1942 beginning of 1943.

But the question is why?
You would have the BMW 801 and radials could always take more damage then liquid cooled inlines, which would be better for a Jabo.
The BMW 801 was optimized for low to mid altitude and the new big inlines are needed to give the german fighters and bombers better altitudes, which is much more easy with there given horsepower.

 

[wiking85]

I would say at the same time line as a FW 190 D-9, so end of 1942 beginning of 1943.

But the question is why?
You would have the BMW 801 and radials could always take more damage then liquid cooled inlines, which would be better for a Jabo.
The BMW 801 was optimized for low to mid altitude and the new big inlines are needed to give the german fighters and bombers better altitudes, which is much more easy with there given horsepower.

Long range operations due to the better fuel consumption rates of the liquid cooled engine compared with the radials. They have longer range then without needing more fuel. Not only that though, but the fact that the DB603 didn't need C3 fuel to achieve 1800PS would also help, as the DB603 with B4 would generate 1750hp, which IIRC you agreed with. Using C3 with the DB603 would generate 2000hp or so and increase range due to the higher octane allowing for better compression rates. Also getting it into service about then would be helpful for later development of the high altitude version, which was going to be delayed due to the failure of the 'Kangaroo Pouch' on the historical FW190C. Then we don't need the FW190G with permanent externally mounted fuel tanks, which made them more vulnerable to ground fire anyway radial engine or not. It also removes the need for long range heavy fighters like the Ju88 that was used for train busting, freeing them up for more profitable tasks like night fighting or bombing.

Plus the lower altitude FW190C/Ta-152C would be an excellent longer range fast recon aircraft.

Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Specifications_.28BMW_801_C.29

Specific fuel consumption: 0.308 kg/(kW·h) (0.506 lb/(hp·h))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_603#Specifications_.28DB_603A.29

Specific fuel consumption: 0.288 kg/(kW·h) (0.474 lb/(hp·h))

 

[tomo pauk]

The C3 was allowing up to 1900 PS (in low gear, 1.58 ata) or up to 1700 PS (in high gear, 1.65 ata) for the BMW-801D. Tests were performed in late 1943 (serial produced Fw-190A-5 as a test bed), applied in 1944. link Unfortunately, I don't know the limits for the 801D on B4 fuel, indeed don't know if it was ever allowed for the B4. Help!
The DB-603A was using only 410 L/h in max cruise setting, vs. 460 for the BMW-801D, while making more power in same setting, 1400 vs. 1180 (801, high gear). That the LW never pushed for the DB-engined Fw-190 seem like quite a blunder, even if we consider problematic DB-603A in 1943.

 

[DonL]

You should take in mind, that you have only a given production capacity.
I have said this again in this thread, this is to my opinion not a mythical myth thread.

What do you do with the BMW production capacity? Do you think you can easily retool radial engine factories to inline factories?
There are some thinks to think over. The BMW 801 is in production, it is a good engine for a Jabo, the FW 190 A is in production with the BMW 801 and it is not difficult to make this a/c in a Jabo. And every FW 190 F/G with 4 x 20mm MG's could do the train busting with the same effect as Ju 88.

You can't have it all!

 

[tomo pauk]

I did not suggested that 801s are canceled. You might read in my posts that I think those were fine engines (despite problems), with superb installation, and well matched to the 'rest' of the historical Fw-190. I've suggested some things, namely the earlier start more focused development, and a more wide application of external air intakes that were test proven to increase altitude capabilities.
With that said: what were excellent choices in 1942, were proven to be not up to the task in 1944. The DB-603A (as only historical engine that can be installed on the Fw-190 airframe in winter of 1943/44, ie. when mattered, in reasonable numbers) was offering a straightforward, timely simple way of increasing the performance of the 190. Looking at power charts, the performance of the DB-powered 'Fw.190C' should be pretty close to the historic Fw-190D-9, but was available a full year earlier.
Earlier in the thread, I also proposed two-stage BMW-801, turbo 801 (with hollow blade turine, allowing for compact installation), along with two stage derivatives of the DB-601 and Jumo 211 lines. That is until the jets catch up.

 

[wiking85]

You should take in mind, that you have only a given production capacity.
I have said this again in this thread, this is to my opinion not a mythical myth thread.

What do you do with the BMW production capacity? Do you think you can easily retool radial engine factories to inline factories?
There are some thinks to think over. The BMW 801 is in production, it is a good engine for a Jabo, the FW 190 A is in production with the BMW 801 and it is not difficult to make this a/c in a Jabo. And every FW 190 F/G with 4 x 20mm MG's could do the train busting with the same effect as Ju 88.

You can't have it all!

Agreed; the FW190A and F were both necessary and would use up radial engine production; inline liquid cooled engines were better for bombers and some fighters; clearly there needed to be a inline high altitude fighter, which is what the FW190C/TA152C would be; rather than building up major radial engine capacity, save some for the DB603, such as having a Ostmark factory built earlier for it. Upping DB engine capacity is better than more radials; frankly the only use for the 801 IMHO is for the FW190; all other uses would have better results with an inline engine due to better fuel economy and altitude performance. IMHO a major issue was building up so much BMW capacity during the war, which should have gone into getting inline production up earlier; saving the radials for just the fighters would decrease the production capacity needs.

 

[tomo pauk]

Any thoughts about a real 'Schnellbomber', ie. a fast bomber? Hopefully with close to no guns? Was the dive bombing requirement such a bugaboo?

 

[DonL]

@ tomo my post 116 was a direct answer to wikings post not yours, sorry for not quoting.

Edit:

1938:

- dividing the development of the Ju 88, continuing the fast Bomber as planed and new development of dive capacity till 55 degree
- funding of the offered Do 217 to develop
- comparation flight between the Me 110 and the FW 187
- canceling of the Me 110 to mass produce and developing stop of the Me 210
- order to put the FW 187 (two seater) in mass production
- mass production of the Ju 88 as fast level bomber