Luftwaffe in 1936-41 improvements?

[GrauGeist]

We (obviously) like to discuss warplanes, too - and we occasionally enjoy what-ifs, however, when we do a what-if, we try and work out the historical context to see if it was possible.
For example: someone.could say "let's build the P-51 in 1936" and.it might sound like a good idea, but the events that led to the P-51 hadn't transpired yet, so it was impossible.

So again, what-ifs can be fun if they are done with context.

 

[VA5124]

so yall arent mad at me

 

[GrauGeist]

so yall arent mad at me

Noooo
Not at all.

 

[VA5124]

Noooo
Not at all.

well how do we do this without the 110

 

[SaparotRob]

im sorry i wasted yalls time im just a man thats love planes and loves discussing them

You're not wasting anyone's time here. These are folks who are quite knowledgeable, and even passionate, about aircraft. Discussing airplanes is what is done here. You state an opinion and then be prepared to back it up. These guys are enjoying telling you why "it won't work". Some of the responses you got are because you're hanging on to an untenable position. They might be a little exasperated right now because of a couple of threads in which people, who should know better, stick to a clearly ridiculous position. Just read their responses. It's aviation gold. Read why, and understand why it "it can't be done" can't be done. I truly got to understand center of gravity issues because a member (was it Wes?) used an example of a paper airplane. No math, no theory.
I think possibly we may have lost our sense of wonder along the way. Being a responsible adult is a buzzkill. It WOULD be cool to have bunch of B-70's. It's a freaking AWESOME airplane. A tour de force for a non-existent mission. Oh, and welcome to the forum. You are the first member I welcomed to our group. I felt I just wasn't here long enough.

 

[VA5124]

You're not wasting anyone's time here. These are folks who are quite knowledgeable, and even passionate, about aircraft. Discussing airplanes is what is done here. You state an opinion and then be prepared to back it up. These guys are enjoying telling you why "it won't work". Some of the responses you got are because you're hanging on to an untenable position. They might be a little exasperated right now because of a couple of threads in which people, who should know better, stick to a clearly ridiculous position. Just read their responses. It's aviation gold. Read why, and understand why it "it can't be done" can't be done. I truly got to understand center of gravity issues because a member (was it Wes?) used an example of a paper airplane. No math, no theory.
I think possibly we may have lost our sense of wonder along the way. Being a responsible adult is a buzzkill. It WOULD be cool to have bunch of B-70's. It's a freaking AWESOME airplane. A tour de force for a non-existent mission. Oh, and welcome to the forum. You are the first member I welcomed to our group. I felt I just wasn't here long enough.

if we cant bulid all three what do we about getting rid of the 110

 

[SaparotRob]

Leave that to Park and Dowding.

 

[VA5124]

Leave that to Park and Dowding.

here my thing with the 110 i love it so dont take this wrong but it was dated when it was bulit from a performence point

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't have an opinion on this topic. When I do, GrauGeist will tell me what it is.

 

[Shortround6]

here my thing with the 110 i love it so dont take this wrong but it was dated when it was bulit from a performence point

It often gets a bad rap because it could NOT dog fight the British single engine fighters. But then nobody's twin engine/multi seat fighter could dog fight single engine single seat fighters.
BTW it was faster than a Hurricane MK I
The 110 was pretty good at ranging ahead of the bombers and shooting up airfields or planes just after take-off and not up to speed yet,
It was the best recon platform the Germans had in 1940-41.
It could do longer over water patrols than the 109 could.
It was a better fighter bomber. What kind of fighter bomber you could make with a single 2000hp engine is far different than what you could do with a single 1000-1200hp engine.
110s could carry double the bomb load of a 109 to start and with better engines could carry two bombs, each twice the size the bomb the 109 could carry.
Then you get to the night fighter role. It was faster than any of the bombers would be, it was big enough to carry the electronics. It had enough room for the crew to work.

But to some people this all takes a back seat to it's failure as a close escort in the BoB.
Of course the 109s weren't very successful as close escorts either.

 

[SaparotRob]

The night fighter variant does look pretty cool with night camouflage and the radar antennas.

 

[VA5124]

It often gets a bad rap because it could NOT dog fight the British single engine fighters. But then nobody's twin engine/multi seat fighter could dog fight single engine single seat fighters.
BTW it was faster than a Hurricane MK I
The 110 was pretty good at ranging ahead of the bombers and shooting up airfields or planes just after take-off and not up to speed yet,
It was the best recon platform the Germans had in 1940-41.
It could do longer over water patrols than the 109 could.
It was a better fighter bomber. What kind of fighter bomber you could make with a single 2000hp engine is far different than what you could do with a single 1000-1200hp engine.
110s could carry double the bomb load of a 109 to start and with better engines could carry two bombs, each twice the size the bomb the 109 could carry.
Then you get to the night fighter role. It was faster than any of the bombers would be, it was big enough to carry the electronics. It had enough room for the crew to work.

But to some people this all takes a back seat to it's failure as a close escort in the BoB.
Of course the 109s weren't very successful as close escorts either.

ok maybe keep it but still ramp 109 production

 

[GrauGeist]

here my thing with the 110 i love it so dont take this wrong but it was dated when it was bulit from a performence point

I think Shortround covered the Bf110 perfectly.
The Bf110 provided a valuable service that would have been hard to fill by any other types the Luftwaffe had in service if it were eliminated.

Now there were two aircraft that could have replaced it in the night-fighter role, and that was the Ta154 and/or He219.
However, both were developed later and had issues recolving their getting into production.
If we're eliminating the Bf110 solely to free up more DB601s, then the BF110's rival, the Ar240 (which also had development issues) would be out of the question, as it used DB601s also.

One of the reasons why the Fw190 was approved (aside from Tank's fantastic design), is because it used a radial engine.

The He100 (which also had design issues) *may* have gotten a green light from the RLM, if Heinkel could use a different engine (like a Jumo inline) instead of the DB601 because at the time, they were hard pressed to manufacture enough to go around.

 

[VA5124]

I think Shortround covered the Bf110 perfectly.
The Bf110 provided a valuable service that would have been hard to fill by any other types the Luftwaffe had in service if it were eliminated.

Now there were two aircraft that could have replaced it in the night-fighter role, and that was the Ta154 and/or He219.
However, both were developed later and had issues recolving their getting into production.
If we're eliminating the Bf110 solely to free up more DB601s, then the BF110's rival, the Ar240 (which also had development issues) would be out of the question, as it used DB601s also.

One of the reasons why the Fw190 was approved (aside from Tank fantastic design), as because it used a radial engine.

The He100 (which also had design issues) *may* have gotten a green light from the RLM, if Heinkel could use a different engine (like a Jumo inline) instead of the DB601 because at the time, they were hard pressed to manufacture enough to go around.

why not bulid the the 110 to use the jumo inlines then you keep it and the 109

 

[nuuumannn]

ou're not wasting anyone's time here. These are folks who are quite knowledgeable, and even passionate, about aircraft. Discussing airplanes is what is done here. You state an opinion and then be prepared to back it up. These guys are enjoying telling you why "it won't work". Some of the responses you got are because you're hanging on to an untenable position. They might be a little exasperated right now because of a couple of threads in which people, who should know better, stick to a clearly ridiculous position. Just read their responses. It's aviation gold. Read why, and understand why it "it can't be done" can't be done. I truly got to understand center of gravity issues because a member (was it Wes?) used an example of a paper airplane. No math, no theory.
I think possibly we may have lost our sense of wonder along the way. Being a responsible adult is a buzzkill. It WOULD be cool to have bunch of B-70's. It's a freaking AWESOME airplane. A tour de force for a non-existent mission. Oh, and welcome to the forum. You are the first member I welcomed to our group. I felt I just wasn't here long enough.

Great post Rob. Golden.

 

[nuuumannn]

here my thing with the 110 i love it so dont take this wrong but it was dated when it was bulit from a performence point

The problem with the Bf 110 was not the aeroplane itself, but its intended use. Looking at it purely from a performance and capability perspective it proved an excellent and reliable aeroplane, but when you factor in why the Germans built it, things get complicated and people's opinions about it focus on its performance during the Battle of Britain. Here's what the Zerstorer or Destroyer concept amounted to. A twin-engine long-range fighter that had a crew of three, an internal bay for the carriage of cameras and a bomb bay (which was not fitted to the Bf 110), with the capability to carry bombs externally. The expectation that an aircraft with these things could also serve as a fighter was extremely optimistic and it is crazy that the RLM couldn't see that what they were trying to do was impossible with the technology of the day. In the flesh the Bf 110 is similar in size to the Bristol Blenheim bomber, the figures and weights for both aren't much different either.

The Bf 110 on display in the Deutsches Technik Museum in Berlin.

Europe 270

A Canadian built Bolingbroke masquerading as a Bristol Blenheim bomber at the RAF Museum, Hendon.

RAFM 196

There was also a fighter variant of the Blenheim, but, like the Bf 110 it couldn't measure up to single-seaters. The Bf 110 was a very capable aircraft, but arguably, like a few German frontline types, it stayed in service longer than intended because of delays with its replacement, the Me 210. Despite this, the Bf 110 proved to be the Luftwaffe's most successful night fighter. This is a Bf 110 night fighter at the RAF Museum, Hendon.

RAFM 216

 

[GrauGeist]

All one has to do, is look at what Schnaufer and others were able to accomplish with their Bf110s and it becomes clear that the Bf110 was a key component in the defense of Germany.

 

[nuuumannn]

All one has to do, is look at what Schnaufer and others were able to accomplish with their Bf110s and it becomes clear that the Bf110 was a key component in the defense of Germany.

Definitely true. One of the fins from one of Schnaufer's Bf 110s on display in the Australian War Memorial, Canberra.

DSC_5940

 

[Akuma]

Drop the Ju-87 in favor of the Hs-123. Since the 123 was using extended range/drop tank in 1937/1938 in Spain this might have led to earlier adoption of drop tanks for Bf-109 etc. Payload of 87B not appreciably superior to 123, also 123 had better record for survivability during it's operational life. In terms of cost two 123s could be built for price of one 87B (probably three for 87C/D). 123 sturdy enough to gain reputation for being able to operate under conditions where other aircraft, including 87 could not.
Possibility in line with thread starter: more extensive testing of He-118.

 

[Admiral Beez]

this might have led to earlier adoption of drop tanks for Bf-109 etc.

Drop tanks shouldn't be necessary for anything but extreme long range work, and should not be necessary for short flights from the French coast to Britain and back.

To that point, the Germans are better off designing a single engine, single seat fighter with sufficient internal fuel. The P-51B carried 696 L (184 US Gallons) of internal fuel. The Bf 109E carried only 333 L (88 US Gallons) internally for a paltry cruise range of 700 km (435 miles). Considering the Nazi plan was always to fight across the vast spaces of the Russian steppe why did they make their primary fighter so short legged as to be unable to conduct simple internal flights from, for example the primary Bf 109 factory in Augsburg to Königsberg on the Polish border?

The Bf 109E and P-51B had similar engine power and performance. The Bf 109 should have been made with twice its internal fuel plus provisions for drop tanks, allowing the fighter to escort and fight over Moscow, let along Coventry.