Luftwaffe vs. IJA

[FLYBOYJ]

I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.

A car fuel injected engine is a lot different from and aviation fuel injected engine. You'll find very specific operating parameters in flight manuals with reagrds to start up and engine warming.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From a P-51 -1. You should see these numbers before take off...

Check the instruments for the following limitations: Desired Maximum
Oil Pressure 70-80 lbs/sq. in. 90 lbs/sq. in.
Oil Temperature 70 deg C - 80 deg C 90 deg C
Coolant Temperature 100 deg C - 110 deg C 121 deg C
Fuel Pressure 12-16 lbs/sq. in. 19 lbs/sq. in

 

[kool kitty89]

By 1939 Lufthansa has the Fw 200 kurrier/condor which can carry about 3 tons cargo 2200 miles and maybe 4400 miles with special tanks in the cabin and a small load. If one wanted to fly to Bejing/Peking or Shanghai 2 refuelling stops.

However if you can fly out of Baghdad Iraq, Iran or even the Capitals of the Balkan states you can reach the Sth Western Provinces of China by flying over the Himalayas. Who in Afghanistan or Tibet will notice?

Even is range isn't the limiting factor (which would heavily depend on the configuration of the Fw 200), altitude is. With BMW 132 or Bramo 323 engines, the Fw 200 would bve hard pressed to navigate the high Himalayas than the C-47, let alone C-46 or B-24. (B-17 might have fared better still, but that's a separate topic).

Turbocharged variants using similar engines, or perhaps Jumo turbo diesels (though the 207 wouldn't be available early on), or adopting DB 601 or Jumo 211s might have been enough to make the difference. (and offer better cruise performance over the radials)

Besides the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 there is the Blohm Voss BV 142 with about 4000km/2400 miles range with cargo using its Diesels and the Dornier Do 26 Flying Boat offering ranges of nearly 9000km/5500 miles. The Seaplane version of the BV142, the Ha 139, like the Dornier Do 26 can be catapult launched from ships. There might also be a sea plane route using rivers and lakes.

I overlooked all three of those aircraft in my previous comments about pre-war designs possibly attractive to develop in this scenario (for civil or military use). BV The 142, 139, and Do 26 all have merits there, and the 142 has a high enough ceiling to make it more useful for crossing the Himalayas.

Higly capable transports such as the Ju 252 and Ju 290 would ease the problem considerably though these are 1942 aircraft not 1939 aircraft. A Me 109 can easily be broken down by removing both wings, removing the engine and propeller and the horizontal tail. it might fit in the Fw 200.

I'm still not sure the Ju 290 would have been economically attractive to develop in this scenario, but the 252 likely would be, and perhaps the Fw 206 would see continued development. (... or work out a license for the DC-3)

If the cooperation of the states of the middle east can be secured this can be done by airlift. I would imagine an aircraft would require 3 days for a round trip and 1 day maintenance suggesting 4 aircraft would be required to get 3 tons in by air per day. Hence a fleet of 40 would be required to transport 30 tons per day.

Me 109 fuel tankage never increased much beyond the 400 Litre 87 Imp Gallon fuselage tank unless one counts the 130L supplementary tank from 1944 onwards that could carry either MW50 or extra fuel, the latter not quite compensating for the increasingly more powerful and therefore thirsty engines. Nevertheless the DB601/DB605 somewhat compensated by remaining very economical in high speed cruise.

At optimal cruise power/speed, the DB 605 shouldn't have reduced range over the 601 on its own, though the overall increase in weight (and resulting drag) would be significant.

The Me 109 wings seem to have been full of the pilots liquid oxygen supply though there must have been some room as I believe the Nitrous Oxide might be carried there as well.

In an alternate history where more range was needed, the redesigned wings of the 109F might have taken fuel capacity into account as well. (in addition to possibly adopting the rear tank sooner) How that would fare against similarly engined 190 derivatives being developed around the same time, I'm not sure ... aside from the 190 likely being easier to fly and land.

I thought the P-40B was actually pretty hampered by its modifications:
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The P-40B had a capacity of 160 US gallons in metal tanks with external self sealing material somewhat similar to the sort of protection used late in the BoB. The P-40C switched to totally new self-sealing tanks that reduced capacity to 134 US gal but added provisions for a 52 US gal drop tank to be fitted, more or less restoring maximum range. (though added empty weight and weight/drag losses from the drop tank may have lessened this somewhat)

The P-40B had a rather ambitious maximum ferry range claimed of 1230 miles (compared to a more plausible max range spec of 945 miles for the P-40C). US range figures tend to be calculated with zero allowance and the 1230 mile figure was for ideal minimum cruising conditions likely with the engine at 1600 RPM and being manually leaned down.

The P-40E increased its internal and external fuel capacity ( to approximately 149 US gal I believe), but gained a lot of weight and a bit of drag from the larger radiator.

At high speed, the drag of the P-40 might have been vaguely similar to the 109E, but at economical cruise speeds, I'd think the weight induced drag of the P-40 would hamper it more than the 109. (both aircraft have fairly efficient cruise engines, somewhat more or less depending on the specific model compared -the Allison might have gained a bit more from 100 octane fuel allowing leaner mixtures without risking detonation, DB-601N aside)

601A vs 601N fuel consumption figures (and cruise altitudes) might be a significant factor in range as well.

Fuel Charts for the Me 109F4 with DB601E are Here, the Gothic German might be hard to decipher.
Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 4 - Range table

Using those figures to apply to the somewhat higher drag 109E airframe and the altitude/fuel consumption performance of the DB 601A using B4 fuel (not the 109E-4N), performance will likely have been somewhat worse either in range or cruise speed, or both. That said, I'd still believe the useful maximum range was well beyond 400 miles ... ferry range around 700 miles on internal fuel would be believable at optimal speed/altitude (probably more believable than the 1230 miles for the P-40B) and perhaps over 500 miles, maybe approaching 600 in combat.

But also remember that cruising at lower speeds increases vulnerability, though cruising at higher altitudes can partially mitigate this. But also consider that you can perhaps count on being able to patrol at high alt, but entering combat and losing lots of altitude and energy means either making the return trip at lower altitude or expending more fuel to climb. (either is going to cut range significantly) Practical combat radius with a drop tank would probably be less than 400 miles, maximum ferry range with a 300 L drop tank might be over 1000 miles though. (for cases of patrol, recon, and scouting, long range, relatively low speed, long endurance mission profiles might skew figures somewhat)

It would be useful to compare the cruise speeds of contemporary Japanese aircraft as well. (I know the likes of the F2A at least achieved its long range at pretty modest cruise speeds well below 200 MPH)

The large gain in speed using pretty much the same power (1175-1200) certainly points to a very large reduction in drag as does the improved turning performance and climbing performance.

The drag reduction in the low power low speed flight envelope might not have been as extreme between the 109E and F, though as above there's also the greater differences between the models using the 601A vs 601N. I still think the 410 mile figure is a bit conservative if lower cruise speeds are considered (or that ranges of Japanese aircraft cruising at higher speeds should be considered -as well as the metrics generally used for Japanese range performance), but approximately 800 miles (combat) with drop-tank to the 109F's >1000 miles seems reasonable.

 

[Shortround6]

Even is range isn't the limiting factor (which would heavily depend on the configuration of the Fw 200), altitude is. With BMW 132 or Bramo 323 engines, the Fw 200 would bve hard pressed to navigate the high Himalayas than the C-47, let alone C-46 or B-24. (B-17 might have fared better still, but that's a separate topic).

Turbocharged variants using similar engines, or perhaps Jumo turbo diesels (though the 207 wouldn't be available early on), or adopting DB 601 or Jumo 211s might have been enough to make the difference. (and offer better cruise performance over the radials)


I overlooked all three of those aircraft in my previous comments about pre-war designs possibly attractive to develop in this scenario (for civil or military use). BV The 142, 139, and Do 26 all have merits there, and the 142 has a high enough ceiling to make it more useful for crossing the Himalayas.

Please look up the Americans actually flying the Hump. It took C-87s (cargo B-24s), C-54s, C-46s to really bring in the tonnage. It also took special C-47s, hundreds if not several thousand C-47s were built with two-stage supercharged R-1830 engines for this duty. Granted other theaters were siphoning off aircraft but it took quite a while to build up enough airlift to actually support an offensive air force. This was flying from forward airfields in India. While you can reach China from Iran it is well over double the distance and cargos would be small( minuscule?) as most of the 'payload' would be fuel.
The Germans may have had suitable designs (or designs that could be modified) but you needed transports by the hundreds if not several thousand for such an air lift scheme even with Indian air fields.

A C-54 had about 10,000lbs more payload capacity (fuel and cargo) than a FW 200.

At optimal cruise power/speed, the DB 605 shouldn't have reduced range over the 601 on its own, though the overall increase in weight (and resulting drag) would be significant.

In an alternate history where more range was needed, the redesigned wings of the 109F might have taken fuel capacity into account as well. (in addition to possibly adopting the rear tank sooner) How that would fare against similarly engined 190 derivatives being developed around the same time, I'm not sure ... aside from the 190 likely being easier to fly and land.

The 109 was only so big. If you are trying to build a long range plane to take-off from crappy airfields keeping the small wing was probably not the way to go. Using something more like the 109T wing or even bigger might have worked better. 109s with the extra tank in the fuselage were using heavier engines than the early 109s (and bigger oil coolers and such.) sticking in the rear tank with the small engine, even if there was room might not work out so well.
Crashing planes on landing and take-off isn't good when you are only a few hundred miles from the factory and replacements. When you are thousands of miles away and replacement aircraft are weeks if not months in coming using planes or modifications with dubious handling qualities takes on a whole new aspect.






http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-b-2.jpg

Fuel consumption figures for a 109E. rows across are manifold pressure, rpm, kph and liters/km. Upper 4 rows are with external load (?) lower 4 are without (?).

Changes in range/cruising speed with altitude are often due to increased power needed to drive supercharger in high gear vs lower drag at high altitude. US Navy planes with 2 stage superchargers had the 2nd stage in neutral (no power being used to drive the aux stage) at low levels.

Max range is often NOT the same as max endurance as best climbing speed is usually the lowest drag speed, most surplus power to be devoted to climb. However flying at climb speed in formation is tricky as as you are flying on and "edge". just a few mph slower and drag goes up as a higher angle of attack is needed to maintain lift. a few mph faster and drag starts to rise also. You also have a problem with some engines and/or engine controls. What rpm and boost pressures give the best power to the prop for fuel burned? Internal friction is related to the square of the rpm but boost pressure is not. low rpm and high boost (relative) gives better cruise due to lower internal friction. However not all engines/control setups allowed for the same amount of manual leaning of the mixture and the same amount of independent boost control vs rpm. Some American engines allowed for a number of varied adjustments. This worked well for impressive "book" ranges but assumed pilots well versed in the varied combinations. It also meant over-worked pilots in combat as the early control systems were often independent. Pilots in combat had to keep adjusting a variety of levers/knobs vs single lever or two lever control systems.
I am assuming that most pilot's manuals gave a good recommendation for max range and flying slower than recommended wasn't going to get you much, if any further. In fact you might not make it as far.

Go back to the P-40E chart just for illustration sake:
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf

Go to column IV. at sea level the plane is doing 203mph IAS ( and at sea level that is pretty much the true airspeed) while running 1950rpm and 28 MAP. It is burning 40 US gallons an hour so it's "nominal" range is 630 miles on 120 gallons after deducting the 28 gallon allowance for warm-up, take of climb to 5000ft.
Now go to 15,000ft. plane is running 2100rpm at 27in MAP (probably all the supercharger will provide at that rpm and altitude.) and is burning 51 US gallons and hour. It is doing the same 203mph IAS but it's true airspeed is something over 250mph (one conversion formula gives 264mph) so while the fuel burn went up 27.5% the distance traveled per hour went up 28-30%. it does take an extra 12 US gallons to get to 15,000ft (from 5,000ft)however and the plane is traveling at and average 140mph IAS while climbing and it takes 7 minutes. This is at 7500lbs.

I would note that the Allison was a single speed supercharger so power to the supercharger only went up a little bit. When cruising many 2 speed engines stayed in low gear at higher altitudes than when operated for max power. Planes with automatic supercharger change over may or may not have an override or control that measures/compares ambient air to desired manifold pressure.

You also have to be rather careful about comparing different planes. A P-40B needed 600hp at 15,000ft to "cruise" at 286mph according to one test. A P-36A at 15,000ft using 600hp went 264mph and needed 750hp to reach 285mph.
Extra drag of the R-1830 required 25% more power to go the same speed. and from the fire wall back they were pretty much the same plane (OK different landing gear doors and few more MGs in the wing a a lot more weight) Trying to compare V-12 powered planes to things like the Brewster Buffalo gets rather difficult. The Buffalo changed over to high gear in the supercharger when looking for best power at around 7500-8000ft so it is doubtful that it used low gear even for cruise at 15,000ft. High gear took roughly double the power to drive the supercharger than low gear did.

Many countries put out these "book" or 'yardstick' ranges as a way of comparing designs (and sometimes with bias) but they were in no way used for operational planning.

We may not have good information on Japanese test results but we do know what they were capable of on operations and their operational results/capabilities were in excess of what US/British aircraft were capable of. Since the German aircraft didn't seem to enjoy any such marked difference in range/radius over the American/British aircraft in Europe it is a bit puzzling why people think they would magically gain such an increase in range/radius when flying in China? Ginseng root extract added to the fuel?

 

[Koopernic]

The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was designed to cruise passengers at 10,000ft, the highest it was regarded as comfortable to fly passengers without oxygen or pressurisation.

One reason it was not produced in great numbers was that the 'cell' was built as a lightweight single piece that required a large area factory. It couldn't be broken down into sections and that's not how things had to be done in WW2 Germany. It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.

The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. It's hard to find a service ceiling for this aircraft, one site gives 21000ft which seems rather to low and probably refers to operational ceiling (where climb rate drops to 500ft/minute). Either way this aircraft with 4,410 lbs. (2000 kg) of payload had a range of 4,100 miles (6600 km) and would make air supply quite plausible but with First Flight in October 1941 its hard to see it in service till May 1942. The wooden built follow on to the Ju 252, the Ju 352, was slated for the BMW 801 and would have had cracking performance with that engine.

The long range Heinkel He 116 was actually designed to fly over the Himilays but its Turbo charged Hirth engines never seem to have entered production and it was only a 4 seat mailplane.

The Me 109F4 range with climb and 10% reserves, which I calculated, as 916km/568 miles would be about the same for the Me 109E1 given the low cruising speed 0f 370kmh/224mph wouldn't give an big advantage to the slipperier 109F. To put this in context the air miles from Hamburg to Munich, close to the entire length of Germany is only 320 miles. An Me 109 could be ferried that distance in less than an hour with reserves at maximum cruise. It must have seemed enough.

Recon versions for the Me 109G could carry 3 external 66Imp gallon 300L drop tanks and I suspect this would increase the range to about 1700 miles if the tanks were dropped and maybe about 1400 if carried. This would allow the Me 109 to self deliver with its own drop tanks, though I doubt the Me 109E would be up to it unless stripped down.

In regards to the Me 109, its DB601 has a reputation of high fuel efficiency at high speed cruise. I consider it somewhat of a technical accomplishment that it was competive in power to engines using 100 octane instead of 87 and seemed to have better fuel consumption outside of the turbocharged engines.

My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions. Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.

 

[tomo pauk]

A rough comparison between V-1710-39, or V-1710 F3 (chart taken from manual for the Mustang I) and DB-601N. Figures used for the 601N are 1175 PS at 4.9 km (1159 HP at 16080 ft), 1260 PS at 2.1 km (1243 HP at 6890 ft) and 1175 PS for TO; all from this graph.
Plenty of caveats for this graph. The authorized WER figure for the F3 engine should be about 1490 HP at 4300-4500 ft, the subsequent engines with same S/C gearing and reinforced crankcase (like the F4R and E6) will have 1580 HP at 2500 ft - there was a reason why the P-40 and P-39 were very good fighters under 10000 ft.

The Db 601N is one tricky engine The graph is for 2600 rpm and max boost of 1.35 ata. The 601N installed in the Bf 109F was supposed to be rated for 1.42, however the Kennblatt notes that 1.35 ata is to be used as max boost? Hopefully someone could translate the footnote at pg. 6 of the Kennblatt for the Bf 109F1/F2, that can be downloaded from here. With 1.42 ata, the power should be easily above 1220 HP (above 1240 PS), since the Kennblatt says that engine on 1.35 ata will have 6% less power than when on 1.43 ata? The chart also does not show the power values when over revving at 2800 rpm is used, allowed above rated height - that would significantly boost altitude power.
Further to the Bf-109F: this table (notes as of 1939) says, in the bottom sentence, that engines installed in this aircraft have an improved supercharger. Maybe the same one from late 601A model? The 601N in the Bf-109F is allowed for 3 min of max power, not just 1 min of duration.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. ...

Not two stage, but 2-speed supercharger. The Jumo 211J have had more power at any altitude than 211F.

In regards to the Me 109, its DB601 has a reputation of high fuel efficiency at high speed cruise. I consider it somewhat of a technical accomplishment that it was competive in power to engines using 100 octane instead of 87 and seemed to have better fuel consumption outside of the turbocharged engines.

The 33L engine should be at least as good as a 27L engine, when using similar technology The 'seemed to' sequence seem to be redundant - the numbers are posted several times on this board alone, and give 10% better mileage to the DB 601 vs. single stage Merlin or V-1710.
The Bf-109 was a small aircraft, many times it was also well streamlined (F and early G at least), those two properties make it cruise fast with modest power. It still need like 50% more internal external fuel (talk what Zero have had) to be really useful for vast Asian expanses.

My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions.

Did the DB-powered He-112 carried anything more than 3 MGs any time? The cannons (in versions that have those) were either in wings (MG FF cannons) or as an motor-cannon (that heavy 20mm).
The undercarriage was probably a far better thing than what Bf-109 have had. The cockpit should be far better than what Bf 109 offered, the tailwheel was retractable from day one, though the wings do look thicker. More drag, but MG 151 can fit?
Once the Bf-109F is available, I'm not that sure that Daimlerized He-112 would offer better performance.

Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.

But could it be easily mass produced from wood? Further, the fuel was 101+101+115 liters = 317 liters total in 2 wing and 1 fuselage tanks - not going to cut it for anything than local defense once 1100+ HP engine is installed. Better to go with more Bf-109s?

 

[Shortround6]

The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was designed to cruise passengers at 10,000ft, the highest it was regarded as comfortable to fly passengers without oxygen or pressurisation.

One reason it was not produced in great numbers was that the 'cell' was built as a lightweight single piece that required a large area factory. It couldn't be broken down into sections and that's not how things had to be done in WW2 Germany. It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.

The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. It's hard to find a service ceiling for this aircraft, one site gives 21000ft which seems rather to low and probably refers to operational ceiling (where climb rate drops to 500ft/minute). Either way this aircraft with 4,410 lbs. (2000 kg) of payload had a range of 4,100 miles (6600 km) and would make air supply quite plausible but with First Flight in October 1941 its hard to see it in service till May 1942. The wooden built follow on to the Ju 252, the Ju 352, was slated for the BMW 801 and would have had cracking performance with that engine.

Ok, can we have a reality check please?

It is 2500 miles from even Western Afghanistan to the Chinese city of Kunming (base of the flying Tigers and Chinese Air Force). For an effective air lift you have to bring in more supplies (like fuel) than it takes to complete the round trip. The C-54 came in several different models which varied a bit in fuel capacity but a basic rating had the C-54 carrying 16,500lbs of cargo over 1500 miles. With max fuel (around 3600 gallons/21600lbs) it could carry 5400lbs of cargo 3900 miles. It was roughly 500 miles from the air bases in Assam to Kunming (there were at least 4 bases, some a little closer some a little further) which meant a C-54 could lug in 16,500lbs (or more) and turn around and fly out without refueling. Or least only a minor addition to the fuel needed for the return trip depending on weather.

Flying transport planes on one way trips is certainly unsustainable. Please remember that the source of aviation fuel in Kunming was what was brought by the air transports. No railroad, no river traffic and no truck road after the Burma road falls. Granted the Japanese do not close off the Burma road until early 1942 (aside from the British closing for 3 months in 1940 due to Japanese diplomatic pressure) but the Burma road was no picnic either. Rail from Rangoon to Lashio and then hundreds of miles of dirt road through a number of mountain ridges and rivers.
Germans in 1939-41 would do better to send heavy duty trucks to Burma than fool around with air transport. Unless they can get air bases in India air supply is just not a realistic option.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-29 raids on Japan from Chinese bases had to be put on hold after a few missions because they couldn't get enough fuel fast enough from India. What does this say about that "fly in fuel and supplies" theory?

 

[kool kitty89]

Please look up the Americans actually flying the Hump. It took C-87s (cargo B-24s), C-54s, C-46s to really bring in the tonnage. It also took special C-47s, hundreds if not several thousand C-47s were built with two-stage supercharged R-1830 engines for this duty.

My comments regarding C-47 like aircraft were more an aside and should have been prefaced better. It was more in terms of general purpose medium range wide body transports, I was getting off topic.

Otherwise yes ... and the Ju-290 was more in the range of the DC-4/C-54, but wouldn't have been available early on (perhaps some earlier derivatives of the Ju-90 adapted to higher altitude) and the Ju 252 would be the closest counterpart to the C-46.

The 109 was only so big. If you are trying to build a long range plane to take-off from crappy airfields keeping the small wing was probably not the way to go. Using something more like the 109T wing or even bigger might have worked better. 109s with the extra tank in the fuselage were using heavier engines than the early 109s (and bigger oil coolers and such.) sticking in the rear tank with the small engine, even if there was room might not work out so well.
Crashing planes on landing and take-off isn't good when you are only a few hundred miles from the factory and replacements. When you are thousands of miles away and replacement aircraft are weeks if not months in coming using planes or modifications with dubious handling qualities takes on a whole new aspect.

All that is also reasons that shifting priority to the Fw 190 family (likely developed more heavily with range requirements in mind) would have more likely been the sensible option.

The 109T is interesting at least, and even without the wider gear it could have improved takeoff/landing performance somewhat due to lower wing loading. Aside from the possible range modifications, there's also the potential of actually establishing a Naval air arm and continuing aircraft carrier development, but with just one carrier online in 1939/1940, use against the IJN would be pretty limited. (plus building up their naval air arm might strain things further with Britain ... maybe if they shifted priorities to escort carriers specific to defending merchant and military transport fleets it would have posed a different image?)

But on the topic of Bf 109 wing modifications, adding wing-root extensions more akin to the Bf 109H may have been more useful for expanding fuel tankage, easier to protect and plumb into the fuel system, and move the landing gear outward.

The existing tooling and manufacturing infrastructure for the Bf 109 in 1939 would be a cost/time advantage to consider, of course, over other alternatives. Perhaps supplanting 109E production with 109T derivatives followed by introducing 109H (or somewhat smaller) root extensions on the 109F?

It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.

Some of the 132 and 323 engines were already tuned for higher altitudes at the expense of take-off power, with critical altitudes around 10,000 ft. The 323-R series used on several of the military variants of the Fw-200 had 2-speed superchargers allowing 1200 PS on take-off with WM/50 and 940 PS at 4,000 m. (the R-1 lacking WM/50 injection was limited to 1000 PS on take-off)

Power and fuel consumption are still poorer at altitude than Jumo 211B-D series or DB 601A engines, though. (low-alt tuned supercharger models aside)

My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions. Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.

Is there any indication it would have been able to accept the Jumo 211 more easily than the He 100 would have? The relatively tight design of the latter apparently limited re-engining options, or at least the modifications were overall unattractive enough to turn Heinkel off to the idea. (at least on top of conflicts with RLM negotiations)

Given the timeframe we're discussing, the He 100 as a whole seems more attractive than the He 112, and Heinkel did address several of the shortcomings of the He 112 (particularly parts count and manufacturing complexity) and would have already invested in development prior to any changes in government in this thread's premise.

That said, with a radical shift in 1939, continued development of the He 100 itself may have changed. Earlier abandoning of the surface cooling system and possibly considering a longer span wing would have been significant. (not just for potential weight growth, but general handling and potential to handle smaller, rougher airfields) The wider track, outward opening landing gear already seem at least as good as the He 112.

Though one more point would be Heinkel compromising the historical He 100 design's practical improvements by focusing far too much on making a record setting aircraft rather than an efficient, practical military design. For that matter, it's rather a shame the He 100 wasn't developed with a modular engine approach, particularly one using an installation as similar as possible to that used for the DB/Jumo powered He 111. (itself somewhat mirroring the He 112 models using the retractable radiator) This would be a fantasy aircraft at this point, but having something with better than Bf 109 performance and still close to equal performance using the less ideal Jumo 211 while having friendlier handling, range, and cockpit visibility would be very significant. (advantages of a true bubble canopy over the He 100's arrangement depend on the design in question, and a bulged hood type canopy would probably be a more significant upgrade than the full bubble configuration)

The existing He 100 supposedly could have mounted MG 151s in the wing roots, meaning potentially 3 cannons in the DB powered models (but 2 with the Jumo -and no ability to use the MGFF), whether the weight of 3 cannons was worth it over lighter armaments is another matter though. (including provisions for cannon outboard of the landing gear on a longer span wing may have been useful)


That said, this is all just brining the design closer to the Fw 190 itself, and unless Heinkel's design remained significantly lighter and still competitive in range to similarly engined 190 variants, there doesn't seem to be too much advantage there. Plus, the Fw 187 had been on the scene earlier and more certainly could have been adapted to a wide variety of engines and roles along with heavier armaments and certainly long range. (the ability to use even the Jumo 210 or -likely- Bramo 323 and still have useful all-around performance would be very significant, though the Jumo 211 would be better, and DB 601 ideal -aside perhaps for durability advantages of the bramo)

Germans in 1939-41 would do better to send heavy duty trucks to Burma than fool around with air transport. Unless they can get air bases in India air supply is just not a realistic option.

Agreed.

Honestly, hypothetical tech discussion tangents aside, I was initially suggesting air routes specifically for transporting personnel and working around the diplomatic niggles of trying to transport them otherwise.

 

[fastmongrel]

I presume the Japanese will just sit back whilst Germany transports its "Condor Legion" to China. Doesnt anyone think that as soon as the Japanese hear about a transport plane landing or Ship docking they will go and plaster it with bombs.

I like what ifs but they have to make some sense this is about as likely as Japan invading California.

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the Japanese have a better chance of "invading" California. Stick a bunch of troops on merchant ships, sail to California and unload/invade (best done before Pearl Harbor). Actually being able to sustain the invasion force/succeed is another story.

Germans need to send ships to India or Burma(best case scenario) unload, use exiting crappy rail system/s to move to jump off point and then use trucks over really crappy local road system for hundreds of miles to reach a Chinese city of any size. Partial air lift requires Indian air bases. Once Japan has Burma it can use land based air + ships to block traffic in the Bay of Bengal forcing ship traffic to unload on west side of India.

Trans Siberian railway is hundreds (many hundreds) of miles from the Chinese border let alone any significant Chinese city. Trans Mongolian railway didn't exist before/during WW II. Trying to move supplies by truck (or build hundred of miles of rail line) through Kazakhstan or Mongolia would be a massive undertaking. Truck traffic would be limited by weather ( summer offensive has to wait for spring thaw as no/few trucks make it through in winter? It may be around 1200 miles from Kunming to the southern Mongolian border.

Air lift without a jump off point is a joke. It is just under 4400 miles from Bucharest to Kunming. The Germans have planes that can make the distance (given good winds or at least not adverse winds) but carrying minuscule cargo and no fuel to get back out again. Even a single intermediate airfield just means you can deliver 1/2-2 tons per trip while burning thousand of gallons of fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

There is little doubt that IF a force of 109Es, 110s and He 111s had been able to arrive in 1939 they would have dominated the area they were in (assuming adequate fuel/ammo/etc). What happens as time goes on gets iffier.
With the Ki 27 and A5M both shown to be totally obsolete how fast can the Japanese replace them? DO the Japanese change design philosophy?

The German air industry was larger and in general, more capable than the Japanese industry, and may be able to react or introduce new designs faster, Germans shot themselves in both feet by trying to be too revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Japanese did the same thing and it is a fine line when you only have a certain amount of design teams or staff. DO you try to make a big leap forward so you are not left behind and then stumble leaving you producing old designs or do you improve old designs knowing at some point you will be beating dead horses?

What if the Japanese give up on the Ki-43 and build a big wing Ki-44. Not as fast as the Ki-44 and not as maneuverable as the Ki-43 but as fast as a 109E and more maneuverable while carrying two 7.7mm and two 12.7mgs for starters?
What if, the Japanese facing stiffer opposition in 1939/40, decide a Kinsai powered Zero might be a good idea for early 1942?

Assuming (logistics aside) that a German "Legion" shows up in 1939 and stays until 1942 or after and the Japanese change nothing in their aircraft design/procurement is a mighty big assumption.

 

[Koopernic]

The Germans shipping materials through British controlled India or Burma sounds complicated. Politically it might be possible but I think Japanese sea power even would preclude much in that way.

American 1942/43 transports flying the hump are definitely sound superior to German 1939/40 transports. Nevertheless they have the aircraft do a reasonable job.

Case 1 the Blohm and Voss BV.142, could transport 30 fully equipped soldiers over 4,000km /2480 miles.

Case 2 the Dornier Do 26A had a range of 9000km / 5400 miles. One 14 February 1939 the veteran Lufthansa pilot Flight Captain Siegfried Graf Schack von Wittenau embarked on a mercy flight from Germany to Chile, taking 580 kg (1,279 lb) of medical supplies for earthquake victims in Chile. The 10,700 km (6,600 mi) flight lasted 36 hours.

Case 3 is the Fw 200S which flew over 4000 miles from Berlin to New York. Surely shorter routes with several tons of cargo are practical, more so if the more powerfull engines applied the the Fw 200C are used.

It is extremely difficult to find data for the Fw 200B (civilian version) most often data given is for the Fw 200C3 Kurrier which had the extra weight of two dorsal guns positions, a massive ventral gondola for guns, gunners, bombardier and bombs and protected fuel tanks as well as reinforcement to help the extra weight. In that configuration it could fly over 2200 miles though it could carry drop tanks and internal tanks.

The most plausible link I can find is 1600km/1000 miles from Mashhad in Eastern Iran to a city in Xinjiang such as Kashgar China. A round trip by Fw 200 without need to refuel in China is possible.

These are both Silk route cities with substantial populations and cultural links. Politically it might be possible in 1939/41.

Rezā Shāh had ascended the throne in 1925. Iran had been invaded by the British in an attempt to use it as a route to interfere with the Soviet Revolution, as a result the Soviets annexed all of those so called Southern Soviet Provinces.

Rezā Shāh tried to balance the influence of the imperialist countries such as Britain and Russia. For instance he disallowed British Imperial Airways and gave Lufthansa European rights to fly to Iran. He worked to maintain good relations with Nazi Germany and many hundreds of German technicians helped build the Iranian economy.

Rezā Shāh fought to keep his country neutral. A combined British and Soviet Invasion in 1941 made him a captive of the British for the rest of his life and made him abdicate in favour of his son, the final Shah of Iran who was deposed by the Iranian Islamic Revolution of Khomeini. The final shah was little more than a puppet at this time and the reputation for his regime being a puppet of Anglo American oil interests remained and lead to his over throw.

Britain was not regarded as benign in the middle east and if the Germans offered an escape it would be taken.

Other possible routes are from Turkey, neutral but Friendly and helpful to Germany. A direct flight from the Eastern Provinces of Turkey to Western China might be 1400 miles.

The Ju 252 could carry 2.5 tons 4100 miles more cargo. It had been held up due to WW2 in 1939 and 1940 but might have been flying in 1940 if the trappo klappe is not used.

This is definitely the most economical aircraft possible. The Ju 290 would also be a capable beast.


You might try flying by Sea plane such as the Do 26 from Eastern Turkish Lakes to Lakes in China such as Bosten Lake or a city on the Tarim River which then immediately gives navigation. This would provide a supplementary service to regions deeper into China.

The short range of the German fighters is somewhat compensated for by their speed as interceptors, the advantages of German Radar in portability and accuracy. In 1940 aircraft such as the Ju 88A1 are also available, they can self deliver with ferry and drop tanks and provide a unique way of accurately delivering bombs. They would be hard to intercept by the relatively slow Japanese fighters.

I understand we are talking of only 2 tons per flight so hundreds of aircraft and several take-off and landing fields would be required.

The bare minimum of 650 tons per day (20000 tons month) that was regarded as necessary to keep the 6th Army at Stalingrad barely going gives an indication that 330 successful missions per day would be required and suggest that almost twice as many aircraft would be needed.

Hence only a few squadrons of fighters and light bombers and 2-3 divisions could be realistically maintained by the Germans. Assuming they scrape together 100 Fw 200 and fly in 50 sorties of 2.5 tons per day we are delivering 125 tons.

You probably need 700kg per Me 109 mission of fuel, oil, ammunition, spares, drop tank (on most occasions) giving you about 180 missions/day
A Ju 88 mission probably would take 4 times as much giving you 45 missions/day.

Split the difference and you can maintain two squadrons of 16 Ju 88 flying a daily mission and 5 squadrons of Me 109 (80) flying daily missions.

Of course you then need to maintain the air base, air base security, FLAK, radar, maintenance crews which double the transport requirements from 100 to maybe 150-200 plus another 100 to supply a few German Battalions.

It's tremendously expensive.

This would become a lot easier with the Ju 252 as it would be shifting in twice as much cargo. It could also take in small trucks and AFV.

I believe the USAAF achieved 50,000 tons/ month in the last year of the war flying the hump.

 

[wiking85]

There is little doubt that IF a force of 109Es, 110s and He 111s had been able to arrive in 1939 they would have dominated the area they were in (assuming adequate fuel/ammo/etc). What happens as time goes on gets iffier.
With the Ki 27 and A5M both shown to be totally obsolete how fast can the Japanese replace them? DO the Japanese change design philosophy?

The German air industry was larger and in general, more capable than the Japanese industry, and may be able to react or introduce new designs faster, Germans shot themselves in both feet by trying to be too revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Japanese did the same thing and it is a fine line when you only have a certain amount of design teams or staff. DO you try to make a big leap forward so you are not left behind and then stumble leaving you producing old designs or do you improve old designs knowing at some point you will be beating dead horses?

What if the Japanese give up on the Ki-43 and build a big wing Ki-44. Not as fast as the Ki-44 and not as maneuverable as the Ki-43 but as fast as a 109E and more maneuverable while carrying two 7.7mm and two 12.7mgs for starters?
What if, the Japanese facing stiffer opposition in 1939/40, decide a Kinsai powered Zero might be a good idea for early 1942?

Assuming (logistics aside) that a German "Legion" shows up in 1939 and stays until 1942 or after and the Japanese change nothing in their aircraft design/procurement is a mighty big assumption.

The Ki-44 though would be running into the Fw190 and Me109F/G in 1942.

Actually the Japanese have a better chance of "invading" California. Stick a bunch of troops on merchant ships, sail to California and unload/invade (best done before Pearl Harbor). Actually being able to sustain the invasion force/succeed is another story.

Germans need to send ships to India or Burma(best case scenario) unload, use exiting crappy rail system/s to move to jump off point and then use trucks over really crappy local road system for hundreds of miles to reach a Chinese city of any size. Partial air lift requires Indian air bases. Once Japan has Burma it can use land based air + ships to block traffic in the Bay of Bengal forcing ship traffic to unload on west side of India.

Trans Siberian railway is hundreds (many hundreds) of miles from the Chinese border let alone any significant Chinese city. Trans Mongolian railway didn't exist before/during WW II. Trying to move supplies by truck (or build hundred of miles of rail line) through Kazakhstan or Mongolia would be a massive undertaking. Truck traffic would be limited by weather ( summer offensive has to wait for spring thaw as no/few trucks make it through in winter? It may be around 1200 miles from Kunming to the southern Mongolian border.

Air lift without a jump off point is a joke. It is just under 4400 miles from Bucharest to Kunming. The Germans have planes that can make the distance (given good winds or at least not adverse winds) but carrying minuscule cargo and no fuel to get back out again. Even a single intermediate airfield just means you can deliver 1/2-2 tons per trip while burning thousand of gallons of fuel.

Yet the Soviets managed to get huge amounts of aid to the KMT between 1937-40, how did they do so when the ports were blocked?

 

[GrauGeist]

I'll repost my earlier sentiments about this scenario and add to it that establishing a transport route across Asia to supply an expeditionary force is a perilous gamble. Like I mentioned in this post, the Japanese have a considerable amount of assets and personnel (many with combat experience) throughout the region.

Even if the Germans were to get fighters into the area, how many would it take to be able to achieve the upper hand against the superior numbers of IJN and IJA fighters? How would the Wehrmacht be able to gain a toe-hold against the numerous divisions of IJA that would be ready to oppose them?

Might also mention that the monsoon season and violent weather also restricted Allied flights between India and China by a great deal...this needs to be considered as well.

Allowing overflights and "tons of trade" to pass through the Soviet Union is one thing, but to move entire Armies (men and equipment) is another. And again, even *if* Uncle Joe was to set aside his paranoia and allow Germany to move the bulk of it's army through Soviet proper, how would the German logistics handle the unforgiving Russian winters and the swampy quagmires of the Russian spring? Or perhaps the war with Japan would only be a seasonal affair?

Hitler or not, the Germans of the time viewed Russia with a cautious eye and the historic "neutrality" between Germany and the Soviet Union was a facade and both knew that a showdown was inevitable.

There is a subdued enmity between Japan and the Soviet Union that had been simmering for years and it flared up briefly along the Mongolian border. The the Soviet Union was able to press a victory out of the confrontation with Japan is because the Northern Army was not authorized by Tokyo to engage the Soviets and was therefore not on a full battle footing nor supported. There was also the issue to the northern Japanese islands that Japan always felt that Russia "stole" from them and they intended to have them back. So the peace with the Soviet Union was an uneasy one. Allowing Germany access to China by way of the Soviet Union would most certainly antagonize the fragile peace and most likely lead to a declaration of war.

In 1940, Japan historically had 29 divisions of IJA in mainland Asia with a large reserve. The IJA air service had well over 1,600 aircraft. The IJN had 10 Battleships, 6 Carriers, 16 Heavy Cruisers, 17 Light Cruisers, 99 Destroyers, 63 Submarines and IJN had over 1,400 aircraft. The IJN also had Imperial Marines stationed in mainland Asia.

All these numbers were being added to by a large number, especially prior to 7 December 1941.

Now even assuming that the Germans were able to establish a route across the Asian continent, how would they protect the transports from Japanese interceptors? The Germans would need to establish forward bases to allow for air support and these would not go unchallenged by the Japanese. We can use the AVG as an example of a "toe-hold" in Japanese territory, but even with the AVG's successes, it did not stem the tide of the Japanese and even the AVG was handed setbacks. Considering in this case, the Japanese are not tied down against Allied targets and were able to focus their strategy against the incoming Germans, it's really hard to envision any reasonable success of a German expedition.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let's also look at the what the Japanese had available by 1940:

Fighters:
KI-10
A5M
A6M
KI-27
KI-43

Attack:
D3A Type 99
KI-15
KI-51
B5M Type 97
B5N Type 97
KI-36
B4Y Type 96

Bombers:
KI-48
G3M Type 96
KI-21
KI-30

Recon:
E7K Type 94
H6K Type 97
F1M Type 0
E8N Type 95
E14Y Type 0

Granted, some of these aircraft were nearing the end of their front line usefulness and there were also many types that were in the last stages of development or preparing for production/introduction in 1940.

The point being that Japan had a considerable amount of types that were on hand or soon to be available to challenge anything the Germans would have tried to get into theater.

Since Japanese assets weren't occupied and drawn away against Allied points, the IJN/IJA would be able to concentrate against a German expedition.

 

[Shortround6]

It is not enough just to land a plane somewhere in China. It is over 1800 miles from Kashgar to Kunming. It is about 1000 miles from Berlin to Moscow. 1400 miles from Berlin to Stalingrad. In Eastern Europe you had railroads at least part way. There was no railroad connecting Kashgar with the rest of China. The ONLY railroad connecting Kunming to anywhere went to Hanoi, Veitnam. The "silk road" was a network of camel trails. It doesn't matter what size Kashgar was or any other city in far western China if their connection to eastern China was an over 1000 mile camel journey, and more likely 2000 miles.

The Tarim River doesn't actually go anywhere, it used to dead end in a salt encrusted lake bed in a dessert area. How navigable the western ends of rivers that reach the more populated areas of eastern China may be subject to question. Yibin is considered the head of navigation on the Yagtze river at 305 meters above sea level. It is about 280 miles NNE of Kunming and in a different river valley. The Yangtze starts in the Himalayas at over 4900 meters. White water rafting may be a good sport, it is a lousy way to move fuel drums and spare aircraft engines.

Since China was producing just about zero gasoline of any sort, let alone av-gas, any ranges of transports have to be cut in half if not to about 1/3 to allow for round trips ( and warm-ups, take-off and climbs when flying back-out plus reserves for weather/wind changes).

You also have to figure out supply routes/areas of operation that avoid the Chinese communist dominated areas.

The German aircraft are just not going to be up to the job. The American aircraft were barely up to the job and had several advantages. The C-54 used P W R-2000 14 cylinder engines (32.7 liters) compared to the German 9 cylinder engines which would have been R-1690s (27.7L) or R-1640s (26.8L) using US designations. The R-2000 also maxed out at 2700rpm. Throw in the 100/130 fuel and there was no way the German 9 cylinder radials were going to come close in power (initial rating was for 1300hp take-off on 87-91 octane) And in fact the R-2000 could match the Jumo 211 pretty well for power, Not only 1450hp for take-off at sea level (for high airfields take of 2% per 1000ft and for hot airfields it gets worse) but 1100hp at 16,000ft military power and 1000hp max continuous at 14,000/17,000ft depending on model/fuel. A tri-engine plane using Jumo 211s wasn't going to match a C-54.
The C-46 with it's pair of 2000hp R-2800s was considered under powered. Max continuous of 1450hp per engine at 13,000ft left them a bit lacking in altitude performance too. and that is a true max continuous, as long as the fuel lasts, not a 30 minute climb rating. They could pull 1600hp at 13,500ft military power.

BMW 132J had a 810hp climb rating at 12,400ft and the Bramo 323 with two speed supercharger was rated at 770hp climb rating at 14,700ft. One R-2800 was worth a bit under two of the German 9 cylinder engines.

The american planes were newer, had newer engines and had better fuel. They are not direct comparisons with the German older transport designs. I am not trying to argue which was better, just use the American planes as a bench mark. If they had trouble with air supply over a 500 mile stage then how can older, lower powered aircraft actually form and air bridge over triple or quadruple the distance?

 

[GrauGeist]

The american planes were newer, had newer engines and had better fuel. They are not direct comparisons with the German older transport designs. I am not trying to argue which was better, just use the American planes as a bench mark. If they had trouble with air supply over a 500 mile stage then how can older, lower powered aircraft actually form and air bridge over triple or quadruple the distance?

And even still, the "hump" is still littered with numerous wrecks to this day, of those flights that never made it...

 

[Just Schmidt]

This is so beautiful it makes my eyes water.

Instead of launching Europe into a six year nightmare, the Germans suddenly decides to embark upon an unparallelled sustained humanitarian effort to save their asiatic brethren from the vile Japanese agressor. Discarding any narrow Eurocentric notions about strategic georgraphy, they then fine tune their development programmes for asiatic warfare, and devote most of their national resources, the very best in aircraft and their finest pilots, to at any given time denying the Japanese the satisfaction of terror bombing two or three Chinese cities, of their choice.

In the process, by infusing incredible amounts of money and resources into the numerous staging points on the (by neccessity seasonal) several supply routes to inland China, they help the world economy to finally overcome the depression, without the need for grinding away unfathomable amounts of human lives and materiel.

Everyone is happy (With the possible exception of the Japanese), and Deutschland über alles is played worldwide on a daily basis throughout the rest of the milennium on every radio station.