'Next gen' German bombers with hindsight?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
As I demonstrated via sources, including the head engineer of the Jumo 222 project the engine was mass production ready at 2000hp by 1942. The 2500hp version (only for boost, not max continuous), the A/B-2 engine was mass production ready by December 1942 at the very latest.
Jumo 222 in 1942....
Use the BMW801 just for prototype testing until the 222 is ready. The first such prototype, the V5 of the Ju288, flew in October 1941. With the lower weight of a two man cockpit, slim-line, plus no defensive armament and minimal armor, the original short wingspan could have been viable. Same with the landing gear. It seems that the RLM increased the payload requirements (text in the book I'm using doesn't give specifics), so they increased the wingspan and had to reinforce the landing gear, which led to the 1 ton weight increase, since that also negatively impacted the fuselage and that also required reinforcement. All that before the Ju288B version with the 4 man cockpit. Milch really did develop the aircraft to death, because the original V5 prototype worked well from what I can find and the problems all came later with all the modifications demanded; as they met those he'd issue more modifications and repeated that over and over. Same with the Jumo engine.
Agreed.
Now this makes sense. The Germans never got the gun turrets working, they couldn't get the electrics right. Ditching the idea is a great one and frees up resources.
Now, just gotta work on that engine...
That's only partially correct. The first modifications Milch suggested were what made the B model, the one the RLM wanted for production. The Jumo's issues had nothing to do with this, in fact it was riddled with problems well before the Ju 288 even flew for the first time, ignition problems and stalled production in 1939 and 1941.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Nope, the first ones were increasing the payload, which led to increasing the wingspan and the weight, which is all noted in the Karl Heinz Regnat book on the Ju288 in the prototype section. The Ju288B only came after that, but used the wing modifications and other enhancements that raised the weight 1 ton even before the 288B cockpit was used.
The Jumo engine was a separate issue. The A/B-1 worked fine by 1942 per the head engineer of the project. He doesn't explicitly list what the issues were between the various subtypes of A/B engines, but there were the -1, -2, and -3 versions, the last one being the proper 2500hp version. The -2 version could boost to 2500 for short periods, but couldn't continuously run at that for 30 minutes like the -3 version. The -2 version increased the bore and RPMs, which introduced vibration issues when reaching HP levels over 2000hp.
The original 2000hp A/B-1 series was fully ready by 1942 (and in fact used to power the October 1941 flight of the V5 Ju 288 prototype that Brandner, the head engineer of the engine project, managed to fly in), it was the -2 series that was still having issue until March 1942 when it had those problems resolved. The A/B-2 should have been ready to enter mass production on August 30th had the RLM ordered it, but they opted to wait for the A/B-3 version which would have only entered production in October 1944 since the gestation issue of raising the 30 minute max rating by 20% would take time to iron out. Had the A/B-1 series been selected it should have been able to enter series production early in 1942 and mass production when the Ostmark facility were ready in July/August.
Aaand the reason why they made these changes? The Ju 288A was not sufficient to go into production. There was no way that aircraft offered any benefits the way it was. Sure it was faster and had a bigger bomb load than the Ju 88, but at what price? No defensive armament to speak of, a crew of three is totally insufficient and for bomb load, that's what a heavy bomber is for, so why do you think these changes were made?
It had no defensive armament and the type was supposed to have defensive barbettes. These were never finished, in fact the Ju 288C was planned to have a manned rear turret. Now the Luftwaffe is not going to put a bomber into service without defensive armament in 1942, especially after the losses it suffered over Britain in 1940.
The Ju 288B represented a viable service option, the Ju 288A did not. Making changes they did, which despite your claims of sabotage by Milch had the full support of the RLM, otherwise it would not have gained a production order.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Go back and read my info post on the last thread you apparently ignored.
No mention in any of your posts about defensive armament. Yes, I get what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with you about the details of the project, which line up with the information I have, but there is no way that the Ju 288A was production and service ready without such modifications, not in the eyes of the RLM. After the Battle of Britain, offering no defensive armament and a crew of three was just not going to cut it. Since the armament was not ready (and never was) increasing the crew size only made sense.
Last edited:
From what I've read it wasn't an issue between the two variants, the A and B model Jumo 222s differed in reduction gearing. The problems were with ignition. He must mention that production on the engine was stalled twice because they had problems with the A and B models. It also didn't quite make 2,500 hp, which didn't help matters.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
I wasn't talking about the defensive armament. It was whether then 228A was production ready. It was in its original form, the RLM changed spec to delay the project. Bradner himself says so, so does Lutz Budrass, so do other additional sources that looked into the issue. When an agency continually keeps changing the spec and delaying the project that is sabotage. If it were a single change from A to B then that would be one thing, but it wasn't simply that, it was from A to A1 then to B then to C all with different engines tried and the 222 decoupled from the project right after Udet died and Milch could then issue any change demands he wanted.
If the armament wasn't ready, why would increasing the crew size 'only make sense'? Reducing the crew size and eliminating that armament was the better option. Speed at altitude was survival. The Ju88 was similarly undermined in concept by the repeated silly changes like dive bombing and increased defensive armament (which happened BEFORE the war). Why did the Ju288 change only get ordered a year into the war after the original design was getting close to being ready?
Who said anything about a different between the A and B? I said A/B 1, 2 and 3.
Forget the letters and focus on the numbers. Seems like you're purposely trying to misunderstanding things to deflect what I was actually saying.
Where are you getting that the ignition was the issue? That was no one of the problems Bradner mentioned in his memoir.
The 'stalling' of production had more to do with the production facility being majorly behind schedule and development taking the normal amount of time, which was a year longer than allowed for by the RLM in their accelerated production schedule. "Shockingly" by not listening to the engineers things fell behind an artificially accelerated schedule. Instead the RLM for some reason went with the production of even less ready engines the DB603, Jumo 213 (ready after the 222 anyway), and DB606/10. Sheer insanity.
Last edited:
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Accidental double post.
Have any of your sources looked into why? If the aircraft is not ready, it makes no sense putting any effort into building an aircraft and putting it into production then, does it. Once its inadequacies are revealed in service it takes a shedload of effort to change them once there are airframes rumbling down the production line. The Ju 288A was simply inadequate for what the Luftwaffe needed at the time, and the RLM knew that, despite an intent to put it into production, but remember, all things need to be put into context. By 1942 the war and German attitudes to it were very different from when the Ju 288A was first proposed.
Milch had nothing to do with the issues with the Jumo 222A and B models! It was suffering issues right from the start before Milch had any influence. In 1939 production was stopped on the engine and again in 1941, these were not because of changes made by the RLM, these were because it was suffering faults.
From Kay, (2004): "The first example of this powerful engine began running on the test stand on 24 April 1939 and the first test flight on 3 November 1940 with the engine installed in the nose of a Junkers Ju 52/3m. Production of a few 222A-1 and 22B-1 engines, which differed mainly in the gearing ratio of the airscrew drive, took place in 1939 but was soon stopped because of ignition problems. Production was restarted with the 222A-2 and 222B-2 series, which had redesigned ignition systems, but this did not cure the problem and production stopped again in late 1941."
Nothing to do with Milch.
Reducing the crew size and eliminating the armament... wow, you've solved it! If only the Luftwaffe had the hindsight that you did. Junkers promised a bomber with remotely operated defensive armament and did not deliver this at all. The RLM cannot be blamed for that. Yes, it made lots of bad decisions (luckily for us - you behave like that was a bad thing), but again, the RLM is not to blame for Junkers not being able to develop defensive armament for the Ju 288.
Since you've raised this remarkable concept of a high speed unarmed bomber, please show me within a German context that this was considered, because in the context of the Ju 288 it most certainly was not. I should add that from a fantasy point of view this makes perfect sense, as I mentioned earlier, but in reality, the idea was not taken up by the Germans.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Wasn't that the RLM's MO?
wuzak
Captain
Let's look at the He 177.
I think its best role is as a long range maritime patrol/reconnaissance/bomber aircraft.
In that role the dive bombing requirement can be ditched.
4 DB 601/605s would be sufficient. That could be arranged as a traditional 4 engine aircraft, or with a push/pull arrangement on each wing, or engines mounted in tandem driving separate coaxial tractor propellers - could not a drive shaft fit in the space reserved for the cannon?
As the goal would be to operate largely over open water, the defensive armament would not need to be as extensive as that for a heavy bomb operating over land. A top turret and rear turret should be plenty - and use manned turrets, not remote turrets.
The bomb bay should be able to carry 2 PC1600 or 3 PC1400 armour piercing bombs, or auxiliary fuel tanks for longer range when using wing mounted guided weapons, such as the Fritz-X.
The He 177 would also replace the He 111 as V-1 bomb carrying aircraft.
I think its best role is as a long range maritime patrol/reconnaissance/bomber aircraft.
In that role the dive bombing requirement can be ditched.
4 DB 601/605s would be sufficient. That could be arranged as a traditional 4 engine aircraft, or with a push/pull arrangement on each wing, or engines mounted in tandem driving separate coaxial tractor propellers - could not a drive shaft fit in the space reserved for the cannon?
As the goal would be to operate largely over open water, the defensive armament would not need to be as extensive as that for a heavy bomb operating over land. A top turret and rear turret should be plenty - and use manned turrets, not remote turrets.
The bomb bay should be able to carry 2 PC1600 or 3 PC1400 armour piercing bombs, or auxiliary fuel tanks for longer range when using wing mounted guided weapons, such as the Fritz-X.
The He 177 would also replace the He 111 as V-1 bomb carrying aircraft.
don4331
Senior Airman
Kawasaki Ki-64 does exactly that - runs the drive shaft from the rear motor through the space normally occupied by the cannon. The Ha-201 engine combination is one of those evaporative cooling system engines that went nowhere, but same could be done with normal DB 601/605 with normal radiators. The Fiat AS.6 in the Macchi M.C. 72 does the same.
Lots of other ways to solve the issue:
The Arsenal VB 10 and Bolhovitinov Sparka run shafts on both sides of the front engine (not surprising as the Klimov M-100 was a license built Hispano-Suiza 12Y, and the M-103 was a development of the M-100).
The Bugatti 100 canted the front engine to the right and the rear to the left to allow the driveshaft from the rear engine to pass the front to the combined reduction box.
The problem for the DB606 starts with the DB60x engine's tendency to foam the oil* and foamy oil doesn't lubricate very well. After a rod failure from un-lubricated bearing that punches a hole in the block, oil is thrown out over the exhaust of the still running sister engine and you have your Ronson.
Allison V-3420 doesn't have the same issue as a rod failure does throw oil over the exhaust as it is upright V engine.
*Messerschmitt and Daimler-Benz went back and forth on whether it was horseshoe shaped oil tank or engine that was the issue. Messerschmitt installed an oil/air separator and solved the issue.
The original design was for a fast bomber, true, but Udet demanded to turn the aircraft into a dive bomber. The V6 was built as such, and all series production aircraft from the A-1 onwards were dive bombers (remember the attack on the Ak Royal in 1939?)
I don't think the A-series fuselage would have made carrying bombs larger than 250 kg internally practicable, but going by weights alone 4X250 kg in the forward and 2X250 kg in the aft bomb bay would have been possible (18 X 50 / 10 X 50 kg as built). Junkers was planning the Ju 88B series to have a large underfuselage bomb bay for bombs up to 2000 kg and no external carriage; that project was lead by Brunolf Baade. The B series would have had better defensive armament and higher-powered engines (Jumo 213) and still was seen as a dive bomber, but was pushed back until it morphed into the Ju188/388.
The Jumo 222 had a Stöckicht epicyclic propeller reduction gear. The difference between the A and B models was simply that the reduction gear of the B made the propeller rotate in the opposite direction from the A; this same relation exists between the C/D and the E/F models. The engines themselves all rotated in the same direction. Easier to do than modify the engine for opposite rotation, as was done with the Merlins on the DH Hornet.
Excellent info, thanks Mike, certainly simplfies the designation description.
