Shortround6
Major General
Strongly worded letter to the TIMES.
Most Useful Plane Not Produced
- Thread starter kitplane01
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #82
kitplane01
Airman 1st Class
- 135
- Apr 23, 2020
I dunno. It's not obvious that what Germany needs is a heavy bomber. If I was to allocate resources, I'd spend it several different other wats.
True, if only it could have happened. The problem I have with the Fw 187 fan base is the statements that it would have swept in unopposed. The British knew about it and if its performance was so good, then yes, the aircraft would have kept the RAF on its toes initially, but what would the British have done if it did prove to tip the scales? Just sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders? What would have transpired differently had the Fw 187 gone into service and proved excellent?
The same thing happened with the Me 262 and German jet programmes. Bombing raids on aircraft and engine factories, acceleration of jet fighter development in Britain and the USA, attacks on German airfields and test facilities etc. Can't guarantee that a response to the Fw 187 would not have meted out some course of action to counter it effectively.
Shortround6
Major General
My problem with the Fw 187 is that it requires not just changing the engines but several other modifications.
The one prototype that flew with DB 601s was using experimental engines with some sort of hybrid evaporation cooling system. Stick conventional radiators on it (109 or 110 type) and the Performance, while very good, is no longer in a class of it's own.
As an escort fighter the single seat version has a few of the same problems as the 109 had. If equipped with the same radio as the 109 you can't talk to the bombers (or to base).
You have two more mgs than the 109 but no more ammo. 500rpg rather than the up to 1000rpg of mg ammo the 109E carried (110 had 1000rpg for the mgs) and we run into the limited cannon ammo. This is glossed over by claiming the the Germans could have used bigger drums or developed a belt feed for the MG FFs, but for the BoB this would have to be done in a hurry, faster than the did historically. Or you stick in the guy in the back seat, have him operate the long range radio and change drums on the cannon, like was done on the 110.
It is never just change one thing on the FW 187, it always seems to need 2,3,4 changes in addition to just sticking the DB 601s of the same type the 109s or 110s were using, on it.
Also since the last prototype was built in early 1939 the chances of it having either armor or self sealing tanks is about zero so again, actual flight performance and estimated flight performance may vary.
The one prototype that flew with DB 601s was using experimental engines with some sort of hybrid evaporation cooling system. Stick conventional radiators on it (109 or 110 type) and the Performance, while very good, is no longer in a class of it's own.
As an escort fighter the single seat version has a few of the same problems as the 109 had. If equipped with the same radio as the 109 you can't talk to the bombers (or to base).
You have two more mgs than the 109 but no more ammo. 500rpg rather than the up to 1000rpg of mg ammo the 109E carried (110 had 1000rpg for the mgs) and we run into the limited cannon ammo. This is glossed over by claiming the the Germans could have used bigger drums or developed a belt feed for the MG FFs, but for the BoB this would have to be done in a hurry, faster than the did historically. Or you stick in the guy in the back seat, have him operate the long range radio and change drums on the cannon, like was done on the 110.
It is never just change one thing on the FW 187, it always seems to need 2,3,4 changes in addition to just sticking the DB 601s of the same type the 109s or 110s were using, on it.
Also since the last prototype was built in early 1939 the chances of it having either armor or self sealing tanks is about zero so again, actual flight performance and estimated flight performance may vary.
Last edited:
How about we turn the tables and look at what an Allied aircraft project looked like.
Before the war it was decided that current heavy bombers in service would not have the range and payload for long range raids across the ocean, so the army wanted a bomber that could carry a larger payload over 3,000 miles. In December 1939 the army issued a specification for a SUPERBOMBER that could deliver 20,000lb of bombs to a target 2,667 miles away and at a speed of 400 mph. The big bomber company submitted its proposal in May 1940. It offered full pressurisation and it met the bomb load specs, as well as having remotely operated turrets. IT WAS THE MOST ADVANCED BOMBER IN THE WORLD.
Despite issues with its engines, four 2,200hp turbosupercharged radial engines, the bomber entered service in 1943 and proved itself capable of BETTER performance than ANY OTHER BOMBER in service at the time. It carried out long range attacks against the enemy from friendly bases and had a maximum speed of 357mph, cruised at 220mph and a ceiling of 31,850ft and could carry a maximum standard load of 20,000lbs across short distances, but a normal load on 1,600 mile range missions was more like 12,000lbs. It was also capable of carrying a secret ATOM BOMB then under development. With enough of them, it could have reduced cities in enemy countries to waste, and it could have dropped an atomic bomb and brought about the END OF THE WAR.
Yup...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Build the B-33 and build it earlier to have available for replacements of B-17s and 24s for mid 1943 European bomber offensive. Saves about one hour enemy airspace transit time for Berlin mission. Saves lives, maybe many.
Put the R-1830-76 engine (used in the F4F-3) in the P-66, fix the nagging problems, and ship to Australia to support Papua New Guinea and Guadalcanal theaters. It would have provided the AAF with a fast, good climbing aircraft, almost as fast as the P-40E (maybe faster at 19k) and better climbing. The P-40E Allision Provides 1150 hp at 11.8k, the R-1830-76 provided 1100 hp at 19k, 1200 hp at 14k. This would have given the P-66 about a 6k feet service ceiling advantage over the P-40E, something the AAF desperately needed as the Japanese could fly high. As it was, only the Navy in their high flying F4Fs was able to defend high altitude attacks until P-38s finally came (General Kenney (AAF) and Admiral Ghormley (Navy) both complained about this.
Put the R-1830-76 engine (used in the F4F-3) in the P-66, fix the nagging problems, and ship to Australia to support Papua New Guinea and Guadalcanal theaters. It would have provided the AAF with a fast, good climbing aircraft, almost as fast as the P-40E (maybe faster at 19k) and better climbing. The P-40E Allision Provides 1150 hp at 11.8k, the R-1830-76 provided 1100 hp at 19k, 1200 hp at 14k. This would have given the P-66 about a 6k feet service ceiling advantage over the P-40E, something the AAF desperately needed as the Japanese could fly high. As it was, only the Navy in their high flying F4Fs was able to defend high altitude attacks until P-38s finally came (General Kenney (AAF) and Admiral Ghormley (Navy) both complained about this.
Greetings nuuumann,
I think the B-29 might be a better example of why the He-277 wasn't developed rather than why it should have been. In addition to being the most expensive weapons system of the war (more expensive than the manhattan project) it was incredibly costly in its use and ultimately failed to deliver in its intended use as a high altitude strategic bomber. Only the United States had the resources for this project especially if we consider that the development of the B-29 also included the development of a potential back up bomber, the B-32, and an alternative engined version, the XB-39. The plane was so developmentally challenged that every B-29 left the factory to go to a second factory to be rebuilt to incorporate necessary design changes. From a logistics perspective, the plane was an enormous drain on resources. The China missions required herculean efforts to manage a single mission with minimal effect. Tinian, Saipan, and Guam were later invaded to establish usable bases for the B-29 and later Iwo Jima to serve as an emergency base. This is an incredible investment of men and material to make a weapons system successful. Somewhere I read that the B-29 most certainly would have been cancelled if it not for its planned role with the atomic bomb. The strategic bombing campaign that began from the Pacific Islands was also moderately successful at best until the offensive switched to low level, night time, incendiary bombing. This strategy negates many of the technological advances of the plane such as pressurization, remote controlled defenses, and so forth. Had the atomic bombs not been dropped and the invasion of Japan had occurred, there was little strategic targets left for the B-29. On the other hand, there were plans to modify the plane to drop Americanized versions of the Tallboy bomb against Japanese defensive structures such as bunkers and tunnels.
The great cost of the B-29 was able to be absorbed only by the United States and then only because it was tied to another weapon system that was anticipated to affect the outcome of the war. Its hard to see how Germany with its limited resources could have invested in the development of the He-277 as well as supporting infrastructure without diverting much needed resources from other areas. As we saw with the B-29, very high altitude bombing was ineffectual and a disappointment further increasing the resource burden of such an aircraft. The He-277 is intriguing in the sense that it corrects many of the design misconceptions of the He-177, but I can't see how developing it would have altered the course of the war.
Kk
The R-3350 2-engine version or the R-2600 4-engine version?
How about P-36/Hawk 75's?
Or the CW-21?
I saw a documentary which discussed the B-29 in some detail. It was a 4 engine bomber like no other. Loss rates that were accepted with the B-17 and B-24 couldn't be considered. This was not only because of the cost of the planes themselves but also the crews, the flight engineer needed more flying time than the pilot and those hours need a huge amount of time and fuel. When the LW attempted what was called the "baby blitz" it wasn't a success in part because it had lost its crews capable of doing it. By 1943/44 Germany had neither the fuel to train crews nor the free space to run the training missions for a plane like the B-29 even if a god of miracles gave them a few hundred.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
To nuuuumaaan's point:
Had the B-29 been developed by Arado or Henschel; It wouldn't just be the B-29. It would be the star of half of the History channel's programming. It would be the ultimate wunderwaffe. Every time anyone said anything negative about Nazi Germany the internet would erupt with "yes, but they made the B-29! What if they had been able to develop more!?" It makes half the "Luft46" fantasy stuff look meagre. It would be the focal point of many misguided "political" 13 year old's instagram accounts.
It WAS damn impressive. And a quantum leap.
Was it worth the cost? Did it really (atomic bombs notwithstanding) have a strategic effect to justify itself? Big questions.
Is it under-appreciated as a technological benchmark because it didn't have balkenkreuz? Definitely.
Had the B-29 been developed by Arado or Henschel; It wouldn't just be the B-29. It would be the star of half of the History channel's programming. It would be the ultimate wunderwaffe. Every time anyone said anything negative about Nazi Germany the internet would erupt with "yes, but they made the B-29! What if they had been able to develop more!?" It makes half the "Luft46" fantasy stuff look meagre. It would be the focal point of many misguided "political" 13 year old's instagram accounts.
It WAS damn impressive. And a quantum leap.
Was it worth the cost? Did it really (atomic bombs notwithstanding) have a strategic effect to justify itself? Big questions.
Is it under-appreciated as a technological benchmark because it didn't have balkenkreuz? Definitely.
Look at the post war passenger plane market?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Lots of myths being tossed about with that B-29 commemt up there.
First of all, the B-29's Atomic bomb capability was a later bonus and wether or not the B-29 program continued had nothing to do with it.
The B-32 itself had quite a few problems that delayed it's development, including the SAME engines as the B-29.
The high-altitude capabilities of the B-29 were intended both for Europe and Japan, the fact that it entered the war after the Allies were able to provide long-range escort for the European theater does not diminish it's accomplishments in the PTO.
Claiming that "islands had to be taken for it to operate" is is nonsense. Islands had to be taken anyway. Iwo Jima and Okinawa both were major enemy complexes that allowed the Japanese to attack/defend for a considerable distance. And to add to this point, what other bomber currently in Allied service could have reached Japan from the same airfields with the same bombload?
As far as what the B-29 delivered to the Japanese home islands conventionally, the high-altitude bombing was stopped because of a weather anomaly never encountered before in strategic bombing: the Jet Stream. This was the reason for terrible inaccuracy and the same reason the bombing had to be conducted at lower altitudes.
Claiming that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project is apples and oranges.
Every weapon system developed has a cost, so why not compare the B-29 program to the cost of total wartime U.S tank production? That was 64 billion (in modern dollars).
How much did the U.S. Navy spend on aircraft carrier production between 1941 and 1945? Just one Essex class carrier cost 1 billion (in modern dollars) to build.
And for the record, the Manhattan Project total cost for the war, was 20 billion (in modern dollars).
There are some sites on the internet claiming the B-29 cost more, because they are comparing a certain part of the Manhattan projects expenditures in 1945 dollars to the B-29's cost in modern dollars.
So how much did the B-29 program cost? 3 billion in modern dollars for 3,970 airframes built AND it was in service until 1960, long beyond a vast share of other expensive WWII hardware - which means that money used to develop and produce the B-29 was well invested.
First of all, the B-29's Atomic bomb capability was a later bonus and wether or not the B-29 program continued had nothing to do with it.
The B-32 itself had quite a few problems that delayed it's development, including the SAME engines as the B-29.
The high-altitude capabilities of the B-29 were intended both for Europe and Japan, the fact that it entered the war after the Allies were able to provide long-range escort for the European theater does not diminish it's accomplishments in the PTO.
Claiming that "islands had to be taken for it to operate" is is nonsense. Islands had to be taken anyway. Iwo Jima and Okinawa both were major enemy complexes that allowed the Japanese to attack/defend for a considerable distance. And to add to this point, what other bomber currently in Allied service could have reached Japan from the same airfields with the same bombload?
As far as what the B-29 delivered to the Japanese home islands conventionally, the high-altitude bombing was stopped because of a weather anomaly never encountered before in strategic bombing: the Jet Stream. This was the reason for terrible inaccuracy and the same reason the bombing had to be conducted at lower altitudes.
Claiming that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project is apples and oranges.
Every weapon system developed has a cost, so why not compare the B-29 program to the cost of total wartime U.S tank production? That was 64 billion (in modern dollars).
How much did the U.S. Navy spend on aircraft carrier production between 1941 and 1945? Just one Essex class carrier cost 1 billion (in modern dollars) to build.
And for the record, the Manhattan Project total cost for the war, was 20 billion (in modern dollars).
There are some sites on the internet claiming the B-29 cost more, because they are comparing a certain part of the Manhattan projects expenditures in 1945 dollars to the B-29's cost in modern dollars.
So how much did the B-29 program cost? 3 billion in modern dollars for 3,970 airframes built AND it was in service until 1960, long beyond a vast share of other expensive WWII hardware - which means that money used to develop and produce the B-29 was well invested.
Shortround6
Major General
Been over this a bunch of times.
part of the problem is timing.
Grumman built F4F-3As because there weren't enough 2 stage engines being built by P & W in 1940/early 1941.
Grumman built 98 of the engines in 1940 and 507 in 1941 and 327 of them were in the last 4 months of 1941. This is well after most if not all of the Vultee Vanguards had been completed. Lets remember that the Vanguard/P-66 had been rejected by the US Army and had been rejected by the British when they were offered, although they thought they might do OK as trainers. This was before they got to fly their first P-39s at the Bell Factory. Then the British decided they could release them for use by the Chinese and this was months before Pearl Harbor.
FIxing such 'nagging" problems as the weak structure and the propensity to ground loop might not have been so easy. 15 of the 40-50 P-66s used by the 14th pursuit group in California are supposed to have been lost due to ground loops in just a few months.
Sticking the two stage engines into existing airframes may not have been easy either.
Experimental P-40 with P & W two stage engine.
This was the 10th P-40 no letter airframe off the production line so it was not far removed from the P-36. Size of the scoop marked 'Carb. Air' may have also been used for the intercooler air. I don't know what scoops were used for what on this airframe but you need the intercooler/s to get the high altitude performance you are after.
changing the cowl is easy. Finding the room for the intercoolers and ducting may not be.
And again, every P-36/Hawk 75 built is a P-40 not built. Same Factory, same workers, much of the same jigs/fixtures/tooling.
No.
Submarines and eventually Liberators, Lancasters and Lincolns would have done the job.
Most importantly, don't ask USSR to get involved with Japan.
In both cases, sometimes less is more.
Are you referring to the R-3350 engines?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Possibly the Boeing 377?
Shortround6
Major General
Sometimes the advances are rather hidden. Building the B-29 gave Boeing leg up in designing large aircraft structures even if the 377 Stratocruiser was something of a commercial dud.
How much they were able to transfer to the B-47 and then to commercial jets I don't know but quite possibly more than The British aircraft industry was able to transfer or build on from their 4 engine bombers.
Glider
Captain
Looking at the question from a different angle the one thing the RAF lacked pre war was a good transport. The only example I can think of would be the DH95 Hertfordshire. It wasn't as good as the DC3, being more similar to the DC2 but it was still a lot better than anything else that was home grown.
Shortround6
Major General
The DH 95 was probably closer to the Lockheed 14 or 18.
Glider
Captain
True, I didn't think about the Lockheed 18.
