Luftwaffe, a bit better in 1939-40

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

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,503
4,754
Apr 3, 2008
Idea taken from another forum - Luftwaffe that is not all-singing all-dancing, but with set of improvements that can snowball in a more efficient fighting force by mid-1940. So, no He 100s and Fw 187s roaming the skies at 400 mph during the BoB, but something more down-to-earth, and that German economy of 1939-40 can supply (flawed as it was, that economy).
The 'cut-off' date to start thinkering with improvements is March 15th 1939 - start of German annexation of Bohemia-Moravia.
 
Better/faster bombers? Several options that might've been whipped up on such a short notice:
- most of Bf 110s to be used as bombers, instead as fighters
- don't be too smart with Ju 88 - no BoLa, skip the dive bombing modifications, 36 x 50 bombs for the starters in bomb bays, no bomb racks; use it to attack airbases & other 'softer' targets (keep He 111 to carry big bombs)
- Do 17 trades engines with Ju 87 ASAP?
- try to have twin LMGs as defensive weapons instead of singles

Granted, LW will still need fighters that sport both range and performance, all on 1 engine.
 
So, on the fighters.
Engine is hart of the fighter, in Germany that hart was DB 601A during the time of interest here. The production of DB 601 engines was barely increased during the 1st two war years - from ~400 pcs/month in Autumn of 1939, to ~500 pcs/month in winter of 1940/41 (for comparison, Jumo 211 production ramped up from ~350 in Sept of 1939 to around 1000 in winter of 1940/41). My proposal is to ship machine tools to the Avia factory in now annexed Bohemia, so the workforce can be tapped from there for production of the DB 601s.

The main recepient of the DB 601s should be the Bf 109, and production of that A/C needs to be ramped up vs. historical situation (production of BF 110s needs to be toned down in the same time).
 
Bf 109E as standard fighter for this time, no surprises. Some changes, though:
- the 109E1 gets another pair of MGs in the wings, for 6 total
- the 109E3 and E4 might also get another pair of MGs in the wings; experiment with a 90 rd drum for the MG FF and 100 g HE shell (for better MV); a belt-fed MG FFM for summer of 1940?
- plumbing for drop tank
- do the clean-up job: retractable tailwheel, cantilever tail, experiment a bit with ram air intake; all of this can earn 10-15 km/h?
- increase the production, at least +20% monthly

There was ~2430 of Bf 109E1/E3/E4 delivered by June 30th 1940, a 20% increase gives another ~490 109s to play. Obviously, Luftwaffe will also need to step up it's pilots' training program once France & UK declare the war.
 
Don't forget the He112B-2, Tomo.

It used the Jumo210Ga, which left the DB600 series available for the Bf109. It also had comparable speed (or better in some cases) to the Messerschmitt, plus it had better fuel economy and thus range.

It was equipped with two MGFF cannon and two MG17 MGs, making it well armed by contemporary standards.
 

The He 112B is interesting, to say at least. Cockpit seems to offer superior visibility, U/C instills greater confidence than what Bf 109 (although the early 109s don't seem to suffer in that regard as much as later, much heavier and more powerful versions), the wing is a bit thicker so the installation of better/bigger ammo load for the cannon might be an easier task. It also featured the retractable U/C, as well as the cantilever horizontal surfaces on the tail. The undercarriage sports wheel well covers, too.

The fuel economy was in the ballpark. The He 112B carried 2x101+115= 320L of fuel, vs. Jumo-powered 109s having 240L IIRC. The DB 601A-powered He 112 will still need both increase of internal fuel and drop tank to offer a meaningful long range suitability.

With all said, I don't know whether Heinkel was still producing any He 112s past 1938 - IIRC they were making mass producing only the He 111s by 1939?
 
Since the RLM wasn't showing much interest, Heinkel was trying to sell the He112 to international customers but wasn't having much success, so they shut down the production line in 1939.

Heinkel also had other irons in the fire at the time besides the He111, such as the He100, He280, He115, He114, He177 nd was in the process of building the prototype for project P.1055, which was an answer to the RLM's request for a high-speed bomber (which would become the He219).
 
FWIW, I rate the He 112 with DB 601 and a bit more fuel as a better bet than Bf 110C as a day fighter. You can have at least twice of them as much, can tangle with any fighter of the time, and will represent a smaller target both to be spotted, identified and hit by enemy. In the meantime, install in every 4th bomber the 'fighter radio' for the bomber pilot.
 
tomo pauk said:
The DB601A was making 50% more power at altitude, so I wouldn't say that Jumo 210G offered comparable power.
Click to expand...
In 1938, the Bf109C was equipped with the Jumo210Ga at the same time the He112B-2 was equipped with the same Jumo210Ga and allows direct comparison of performance between the two types.

The new fuel injection and management system introduced by Junkets made a considerable difference in performance.
 

The 210 is 19.7 litres.... and the G version has 700PS max (2700rpm)

The 211A is 34.97 litres and has 1000PS max (2200rpm)
The 601A is 33.9 litres and has 1100PS max (2400rpm)

With a 15 litre deficit, you are not going to have much luck, although the 210 does very well for its smaller capacity, mostly due to the
higher crankspeed afforded by having smaller rotating parts which are more amenable to being spun faster.
 

All good. However - Jumo 210, even in it's best version, is past it's sell date for the purposes of this thread, main reason being that it was too small. A 19L engine will not cut it, DB and Jumo were switching to 33-34L engines by late 1930s for a reason.
The best altitude power for the Jumo 211G was 670 PS at 3.7 km. It will not cut the mustard DB 601A (also with fuel injection, as we know well) making 50+% more at that altitude, let alone vs. Merlin II & III making 1030 HP at almost 5000m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
French Army alternatives, 1935-40 (41?)
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
Can we make a faster better performing Wildcat in 1942?
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
13K
z42
Z
Menu
Log in
Register