Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936

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

Which is why I mentioned aero-engine capacity specifically; in terms of overall capacity I agree. In terms of aero engine projects one has to wonder what they could have achieved by focusing only on 1 or 2 engines rather than the plethora of projects...just like Jumo.
 
Engines are not developed in a vacuum. While the aero engine dept might be the last word on superchargers, one of the diesel depts might have a good idea about bearing metals or piston rings. Diesels, while lower power often stress certain parts muchhigher than a gasoline engine. The car/truck dept might have a good idea about how to cast engine blocks with a lower scrap rate. Allison improved their engine blocks by adopting a casting technique from a pair of artist/sculptors. Ford developed a casting method for making R-2800 parts, centrifugal casting, metal was poured into a group of molds on a spinning turntable and used the centrifugal force to help the metal flow into the molds and force the air out leaving fewer air pockets/flaws.

One does wonder what the earlier cancellation of some projects might have lead to.
P&W (and perhaps a few other companies) often pitted two design teams against each other in a 'friendly' rivalry. With P&W it was the R-2800 team against the R-4360 team.
 
***MEANINGLESS DRIVEL ALERT!!!***

Just wanted to preface my comment by a disclaimer that my interjection has little to do with this deep and interesting discussion....

However, in answer to the question "Ideal Luftwaffe starting 1/1/1936" the answer has to be a Luftwaffe that's still equipped with gliders. I may let them have a few marsh-mellow shooters so the officers don't get bored during dining-in nights but that's about it. The history of the 1940s would be much different had they been so equipped!

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter!
 
you actually have a pretty good thought on the gliders. you can launch a glider with a truck or a catapult and that doesnt take much fuel. and up until late 43 the interior of germany was pretty safe to fly in...for german planes. the lw and germany should have pressed forward with basic pilot training for all children and boys too young for military service. even planes like the Klemm Kl 107, and the 2 seater 35 would have been economical enough to train students. at the end of the war i have read where some units still had fuel and airplanes but no one to fly them. actually i think germany and the lw were sitting pretty good in 39. the aircraft were top of the line and they were sucessful. it is not the fault of the 109s and 110s that the BoB wasnt a decisive win for germany. germany was just not in the position either resourcewise, etc to keep up in the great airplane race. they introduced the 190 but stuck mainly with those 2 air frames ( 109 and 190 ). i think they should have had a successor to the 109 in the works ( at least in prototype ) by 1940. how possible and practical that was with the type and production of engines...i havent a clue. i admire you guys who can throw out all that kind of info....manifold pressures, hp ratings...supercharger type. that is all way beyond my research or interest at this point....but i like to read it.
 
The engine layout of the Do-18 was employing the additional shaft to power the rear prop; was thinking all the time that rear prop was attached directly to the reduction gear.



Think that we might toss in some historic piston engines from second half of 1944. Eg. the BMW-801S (or 801TS) was making circa 200 PS more than the 801D at most of the altitudes. Please note that the power in the table, at least for the 801S, was not deduced for the needs of the cooling fan*. Eg. the take off power was not 2000 PS, but 1930, with allowance for the fan. AT 18700 ft, the power was probably down for 50-60 PS, ie. 'net' power was at 1640-1650 PS.
Using overbosting in the 801S (1.82 ata, vs. 1.58/1.65 ata for the 801D), the max power in second supercharger gear was probably around 1800-1850 PS, no ram, but at somewhat lower altitude. For the 801D, it was just above 1650, no ram. The fuel consumption was probably horrendous vs. the DB engines The duration of the Notleistung was 5 minutes, vs. 3 min for the 801D.
The production of the Fw-190A-9, featuring the BMW 801S, started in Autumn of 1944. The A-9 was some 20 km/h faster than the A-8, but barely faster than lightweight more streamlined 190s with less fuel, lighter armament ammo, like eg. Fw-190A-3.
Original table is to be found at AEHS site.



*many thanks for Denniss, who provided that data here
 
Last edited:
A table kindly provided my Paul (Micdrow). Seems like the most streamlined Ju-88s was incapable to go faster than 500 km/h, when carrying bombs? Though, the Jumo 211A was weakest of the bunch. Black rectangles under the wings show whether the aircrfat was outfitted with dive brakes. The influence of the external payload is evident.
The Ju-88B eventually evolved into Ju-188.

addition to the previous post: the Germans started with tests pertaining the overboosting the BMW-801D at leas as early as Spring of 1943. 'Simple' over-boosting, ie. without additional C3 injection to serve as anti-detonant liquid, like MW-50. link (yes, that web site is simply great)

 
Last edited:
Very interesting infographic. Where did it come from? Also I think we clearly can see what the Ju88 design was capable of in terms of speed if it had retained its initial design. Add in more powerful engines and things just get better.
 
Drag is cruel, as stated once by Bill (drgondog).
Paul posted the schematics in this thread. People might also want to check out other ladeplans mentioned there. Eg. if the layout of wing spars of the Ju-88 was really as it is depicted in the post #2 there (ie. too close to each other), there is o wonder the wing fuel tankage was far smaller than it would be with spars set more apart. In case the Ju-88 gets built as a high wing A/C, extra fuel can be carried in fixed tanks above the bomb bay, too.
 

Fair point. Part of the issue was that the spec was issued for short ranges, as Germany thought it would only be fighting France, Czechoslovakia, and maybe Poland, rather than Britain. Of course when the spec was issued it was understood that the Ju88 was a specialist airframe that wouldn't be expected to be a jack of all trades, master of none; Wever's LW expected a longer range heavy bomber and medium range medium bomber; the Ju88 was to be a light short ranged bomber. Of course thanks to hindsight in term of organization and design we can suggest improved versions of the OTL aircraft. Still though I think the Ju88 should remain a limited production airframe for specialist roles, rather than a longer range medium bomber that would replace the He111/Do217.
 
The range the He-111-H16 was capable to carry 2000 kg of bombs (8 x 250 kg), all internally, was 1885 km. The range of the Ju-88A-4 when carrying 1800 kg bomb (externally) was 3100 km. Opposite wing rack carried a drop tank?
The H16 was carrying external 1000 kg bomb to the range of 2465 km, vs. the Ju-88A1's range of 2930 km, or Ju-88A5's 4200 km; the Junkers carrying 2 x 500 kg.
Seems like the Ju-88 was a better LR bomber?
 
First of all where are your He111 numbers from? In my copy of Black Cross's He111 book the H16 was capable of 2700km with 1000kg external bombload or 2900km with internal 1000kg.

There is also the question of fuel consumption, IIRC the He111 required less to achieve the same range, especially when using internal bomb loads vs. the Ju88s external loads. Also the He111 had better defenses than the Ju88A4, while the later lost its speed considerably when using external loads.

Edit:
Also couldn't the He111 also fit drop tanks if needed?


Also keep in mind that the Ju88A4 was only available after 1941 in small numbers; it took a while to phase that in. By then if we have the DB603 developed from 1936 without interruption we could have the Do217 available, which would best the Ju88A4. From 1938-41 the He111 was better than the Ju88 A1 and A5; by the time the A4 showed up the Do217 was in service and was better than the A4. So start phasing out the He111 in 1941 in favor of the Do217.
 
The two tables about the H16 can be found here, scroll a bit. The Ju-88 does come a bit late to the fray (how much later due to airframe alterations strengthening, so it can dive bomb and have better defenses?), but even the early A-1 of BoB vintage was capable for excellent bomb loads vs. range values. The He-111 was a fine workhorse, by 1940/41 Germans can field a better bomber, though.
I'd love to see a more 'formal' data re. Ju-88, too.
 

::Junkers Ju88::
::Junkers Ju88::
 
I think you're Ju88 numbers are way off:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88#Technische_Daten
 
tomo pauk said:
There are no my numbers in play
Click to expand...

???


Where are these Ju88 numbers from? I cannot substantial them, only contradict them.
 
I just listed the values from the table attached at post #166 here. 'Bombenlast' means bomb load, 'Luftstrecke' is range.
 
At any rate, I will not bet my house on any of those sets of numbers. If we're to go by Wkipedia's numbers (2030 km with 2 x SD 1000), that is still 150 km farther than He-111-H16 with all internal 2000 kg (8 x 250 kg) bomb load.
 
Some Ju 88 A-1 rangetables here:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 6 - Ju 88 A-1, Rüstzustand B, Beladefall 4

A 1941 Ju 88 A-4/D-1 manual claims ~2400 range with full internal fuel (Rüstzustand C, 3480l in wings and bomb bays). This value is probably with up to 30% tactical reserve but without bombload. This is given for aircraft without Ladeluftkühler so most like early version with Jumo 211F. 211J-equipped A-4 have ~2250 km range.
All these values for maximum continuous power. The Ju 88D-1 is just shown with LLK, having about 100km more range than the A-4 with LLK (both Rüstzustand C)
 
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
868
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
816
bobolex
B
Menu
Log in
Register