P-61 alternatives

[jetcal1]

Was going to difficult to get the Me 264 into service before the end of 1941, since development only started around that 1940-41 time frame.

Well, then I guess the whole idea is kinda' a non-starter then ain't it?

 

[Peter Gunn]

Also IIRC, the operational losses to the B-29s in the bombing campaign vs Japan (before the US had emergency landing bases closer to Japan than the TO locations) were horrendous - as high or higher than in the ETO.

Um, no.

In B-29 Superfortress at War David Anderton gives the following stats:
B-29s carried out around 33,000 sorties with a loss rate of 1.38% which meant that about 450 aircraft were lost with all or part of their crew (how many were lost over Japan I cannot say).

Early on more were lost to mechanical failure than to fighters/flak which was ~145

 

[Koopernic]

I don't think you realize just how many escort carriers the U. S. Navy had, 40 +/- Bogue class and 19 Casablanca class in commission (out of 122 total all escort carrier classes) by the end of 1943 alone.

Also, where do you get the idea that they'd be "withdrawn into a defensive posture..."?

I'm sorry, the Navy is many things, stupid is not one of them. I'd wager they'd station escort carriers and their groups along known flight paths leading to the North American continent.

What is a bunch of Avengers and Wildcats going to do to an Me 264 that can do 339mph at 21,000ft and manage 350mph at 28,000ft for 40 minutes with the 600L of Nitrous Oxide it carries? Its probably faster than a B-29 at 20,000ft.

Didn't some of the convoy routes pass under some of the proposed bomber routes? Another sets of eyes, and ears, to spot the bombers.

Conversely the Me 264 is another way to spot convoys and ascertain the strength of their escorts. Reconnaissance would have been the main contribution of a Me 264. Knowing the size, position and defences of a convoy greatly hampered and made the U-boat vulnerable. Reconnaissance Me 264 would be sent ahead. U-boats report.

re "The energy wasted in the ME 210, Ju 288 and He 177 program could have funded the Me 264 1.5 times over."

My apologies, but I am a bit confused about the actual timeline possibilities vs (hopefully somewhat realistic) potential timeline relative to the Me 264 family. If I am understanding Koopernic's argument correctly, it is that the Me 264 could have been developed into at least a nuisance level threat to the US east coast, thereby rerouting resources used against the Germans or Japanese to the defense of the continental US.

I agree that the Germans had the technical ability to develop the Me 264 into an inter-continental bomber. My question is what would be the timeline if this had taken place. I realize we are assuming that the war did not progress exactly as it did in reality, but I would still be interested in getting a better grasp on a potential timeline relative to the successful development of the Me 264 family.

Not sure if this is particularly clear. Obviously - if the Germans could have developed reliable engines early enough, solved the aerodynamic problems early enough, and been able to allocate the resources necessary to develop/manufacture early enough - then the Me 264 would have had some significant effect on the US approach to fighting the war.

An example is the statement that the Germans intentionally did not provoke the US (any more than necessary via the U-boat campaign) in order to delay/prevent the entry of the US into the war. However, once the US entered the war I am quite sure that Hitler etal would very much have preferred to have the option of bombing the US.

Another question I have is the potential for generating more than a nuisance threat, assuming that the war went better for the Germans than it did in reality? Examples being success in the air war of the BoB and a subsequent cease fire of some sort (not an invasion of the UK as that was basically unrealistic) resulting in no bases for 8th AF, and/or spectacular success of Operation Barbarossa along the lines hoped for before it went sideways.

My input into the discussion is that even during the height of the Cold War (late-1950s-mid-1960s) the SAC estimate for a successful round trip of a B-52 (that did not encounter the Soviet air defense system) was less than 40%. Admittedly, the ranges were longer for the US attack against the missile fields and heartland cities in the SU, but navigation technology and reliability of (jet) engines were greatly improved over that in WWII.

Also IIRC, the operational losses to the B-29s in the bombing campaign vs Japan (before the US had emergency landing bases closer to Japan than the TO locations) were horrendous - as high or higher than in the ETO.

The Me 264 V1 had its maiden flight in December1942. It had used 4 x Jumo 211F engines of 1350hp. The 1450hp Jumo 211J was already entering service. These were considered solid and reliable engines, proably the best German engine in that regard, and offered a range of 13000km. With latter BMW801 engines the range grew to 14000km due to the greater load. The problem of the Me 264 was one of engine power to accelerate the aircraft within a realistic take-off length. By Feb 1942 the 1700hp BMW801D2 radial engine of 1700hp was powering Fw 190A3. Versions of this engine. the BMW 801C using B4 fuel and offering 1560hp had been in use on earlier Fw 190A0/A1/A2. The engine had been powering the Do 217E0 and E1 since mid 1940.

So I'm saying the could have directly installed the BMW801 engines directly.

Im suggesting the program could be brought forward 6 months maybe more. The 6 engine version with Jumo 211 engines is about the size of a B29 but sidesteps the issue of requiring advanced engines.

There is no technology that is not found in a He 177, Lancaster. Less advanced than a B17 as no turbo.

I really doubt "their [the carriers'] positions would be known." First, as posted by Mr Gunn, the USN wasn't collectively stupid; they were quite capable of, I don't know, spoofing their own signatures, so "carriers " would be in a lot more locations than the USN had carriers. Second, oceans are big.

The US had the potential to deal with this sort of attack; that it never needed to do so just proves it never needed to, not that it couldn't. The Me264 is still an unescorted bomber with a level of performance inadequate to survive without escort.

Carriers and their Pickets need to keep their radar turned on. They are declaring where they are. Each carrier would need 2-3 sloops to protect against U-boat attack and as a picket. Carrier operations generate RT. Escort Carriers have a speed of 16 knots.

What of the Allied resources?

What would the US need to do differently? They were already on the way to building 100,000 fighters of various types.

How many fighters would they need to hold back to deal with the threat of a handful of Me 264s? A squadron of P-47s ought to be enough.

When are all these wonder engines to be available?

Will they have enough fuel to fly to the US? The Jumo 222E/F "scheduled for production in late 1944" would be available after the Oil Plan had significantly reduced the Luftwaffe's supply of aviation fuel.

The fuel situation was so dire that they even had a program to develop an aviation steam turbine for use in the Me 264, which would run on 70% pulverised coal/30% aviation fuel.

The Me 264 was only fitted with Jumo 211s and then BMW801 because there weren't any of the intended 2400hp DB 603s available at that time. They started to become available in 1944.

The BMW 801 was available at 1700p, probably 1850hp by end 1943 and close to 2000hp by end 1944. Jumo 213 and DB603 were becoming available from the second half of 1944 but probably not of the requisite power till early 1945.

So a raid is possible with Jumo 211 engines (likely with RATO) and as the engines improve range and armament go up.,

Hey Koopernic,

Am I misunderstanding the discussion re the Me 264, from my post#128: "Obviously - if the Germans could have developed reliable engines early enough, solved the aerodynamic problems early enough, and been able to allocate the resources necessary to develop/manufacture early enough - then the Me 264 would have had some significant effect on the US approach to fighting the war."

Is there any question that the Germans, in the real timeline, did not have the time or resources needed to develop the Me 264 into a serious threat?

The Jumo 211J offers 13000km range and the BMW801 offers 14,000km range. This is enough to reach the US East coast. This would be with very light armament.

The two sources in terms of politics are Vann's biography of Willy Messerschmitt and Griehl's Luftwaffe over America. Forsyth book is technically great but doesn't have all the politics.

My point is that vast resources were spent on the He 177 with very little result. Furthermore this aircraft proved unable to do what was needed which is provide long range maritime reconnaissance,

Why waste time on a 4 engine 3000 mile range bomber when to achieve anything in prosecuting the war a 6 engine 9000 miles range machine is needed.

If the Me-264 had been flying and operational in 1940-41? It would have been a great way to hit the Navy Yard in NYC, along with the Grumman and Republic plants on Long Island with nuisance raids. The 264 was a tactical dead end after mid-1942 when the combination of radar and the 56th equipped with the P-47B (Which would have been fine over Long Island Sound.)

(Edit: Let's not forget the Shipyards further up the coast as well.)

The P-47 could do nothing at night.

As engines developed the Me 264 would have gone faster and higher. If 1700hp gets 339mph at 21000ft then what does 2400hp from an engine with a much higher full pressure altitude? 36% power increase is about 11% speed increase using a cube law. So about 374mph plus about 15mph from the lower drag engines ie 390mph probably all the way to 30,000ft. I think the Jumo 222 version was projected at 407mph.

Was going to difficult to get the Me 264 into service before the end of 1941, since development only started around that 1940-41 time frame.

It wasn't resourced as a priority. In part I think because of the acrimony between Milch and Messerschmitt, in part because all surplus resources had been exhausted on the He 177/Ju 288 and Me 210. In general resources was very stretched for the Germans. which meant the stars had to line up.

 

[Milosh]

Production versions
DB 603A, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1750 PS (1726 hp, 1287 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
DB 603AA DB 603A with an improved supercharger, rated altitude of 7.3 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1670 PS (1647 hp, 1228 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
DB 603E rated altitude of 7.0 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1800 PS (1775 hp, 1324 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1575 PS (1553 hp, 1158 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level

 

[jmcalli2]

Those are some tremendous flights, all in a single engine plane!

Here is a film of an interview with the pilots:

 

[Peter Gunn]

What is a bunch of Avengers and Wildcats going to do to an Me 264 that can do 339mph at 21,000ft and manage 350mph at 28,000ft for 40 minutes with the 600L of Nitrous Oxide it carries? Its probably faster than a B-29 at 20,000ft.

Aaand they wouldn't be facing F6F Hellcats because?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, If the Germans manage to get their long range bomber working, the U.S. doesn't get the same benefit for a response?

Also why do the Germans get a free pass? Are all the Lightnings and Thunderbolts taking siesta's on the east coast?

 

[jmcalli2]

I don't think you realize just how many escort carriers the U. S. Navy had, 40 +/- Bogue class and 19 Casablanca class in commission (out of 122 total all escort carrier classes) by the end of 1943 alone.

Also, where do you get the idea that they'd be "withdrawn into a defensive posture..."?

I'm sorry, the Navy is many things, stupid is not one of them. I'd wager they'd station escort carriers and their groups along known flight paths leading to the North American continent.

Also, the entire "if" of this thread allows me to put 437 Midway Class aircraft carriers in the Atlantic, each flying F7F day and night fighters and assorted ASW aircraft. In addition, the US is defended by P-89s armed with nuclear tipped rockets.
Offensively the 12,000 B-36Bs would crater every runway in Europe from 50,000 ft within a week.

I can do this because it makes as much sense as having the Me-264 fully developed and deployed in significant numbers in 1940. Fair is fair.

 

[jetcal1]

"The P-47 could do nothing at night."

As engines developed the Me 264 would have gone faster and higher. If 1700hp gets 339mph at 21000ft then what does 2400hp from an engine with a much higher full pressure altitude? 36% power increase is about 11% speed increase using a cube law. So about 374mph plus about 15mph from the lower drag engines ie 390mph probably all the way to 30,000ft. I think the Jumo 222 version was projected at 407mph.

• Weren't the Germans flying radar directed single engine fighters at night?
• And, what does fuel consumption do at these higher speeds? Running a gauntlet of pickets and interceptors over the Atlantic certainly would have a negative impact on fuel consumption.

From f4u-2:
"Prior to the first flight of the XF4U-1 the Navy commissioned Vought to study a night fighter, version of the F4U-1. Working with the Sperry company and the MIT Radiation Laboratory the necessary radar equipment needed to accomplish the mission was developed and the necessary Engineering design modifications determined for conversion of the F4U-1 to the F4U-2 Night Fighter.
The initial Engineering design of the F4U-2 was complete at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A mock up was complete and ready for review on January 28, 1942. Because Vought was heavily committed to meet schedules on other programs, arrangements were made with the Naval Aircraft Factory at Philadelphia, Pa. to convert production F4U-l's to the F4U-2 configuration. A total of 34 F4U-1's were converted to F4U-2's. Thirty two conversions were made at the Naval Aircraft Factory and two were made in the field at Rio Island, Kwajalein Atoll."

Now, I will happily grant you the fact that F4U-2 combat didn't take place until April 1944 and only the RN was operating the F4U off of carriers at a earlier date. But, since we're talking what-ifs. I'll suggest that bombing the Bath Iron Works and the Boston Navy Yard would focus both procurement and carrier qual efforts using technologies that actually existed and were prototyped before your airplane flew.

 

[SaparotRob]

Could the US spare a few of those Midways for the defense of Malaya?

 

[Milosh]

Table 165 has Very Heavy Bomber (B-29) losses, army_air_forces_statistical_digest_ww2_1945.pdf (91stbombgroup.com)

 

[wuzak]

The Me 264 was only fitted with Jumo 211s and then BMW801 because there weren't any of the intended 2400hp DB 603s available at that time. They started to become available in 1944.

The BMW 801 was available at 1700p, probably 1850hp by end 1943 and close to 2000hp by end 1944. Jumo 213 and DB603 were becoming available from the second half of 1944 but probably not of the requisite power till early 1945.

So a raid is possible with Jumo 211 engines (likely with RATO) and as the engines improve range and armament go up.,

The Me 264 was designed around the DB 603 of 1,750hp. Don't think that 2,400hp versions were even under development in 1940/1941.

 

[Dana Bell]

One of the reasons the B-29 didn't fly combat missions from the UK was runway length - contemporary Brit runways were too short for fully laden Superforts. I would suspect that any aircraft capable of carrying a transAtlantic bomb load would also need a very long runway. The US Strategic Air Forces in Europe would certainly bomb the dickens out of any extended German runways - and if you can't takeoff in the first place, you certainly can't reach New York, let alone require the attention of of US forces in Newfoundland, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the UK, or the mid-Atlantic.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Dimlee]

Here is a film of an interview with the pilots:

"We not take a gasoline, we not take an airplane. We take a steamship! And that's how we fly across the ocean."
Willy was narrow minded and he just wasted time and resources with Me 264. He had to build a steamship. A flying one.

 

[Dimlee]

Could the US spare a few of those Midways for the defense of Malaya?

Only if equipped with P-39s. But with radios moved aft. Or forward... Let me read that other thread again.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Peter Gunn,

My apologies, by "horrendous" I mean the ratio of losses due to all things other than combat relative to combat losses. (Am I using the term "operational losses" incorrectly?) If I am reading the chart that Milosh references above correctly, then the PTO (XX and XXI Bomber Command) B-29 non-combat losses were somewhere around 2x the losses due to combat.

So in comparison, the ratio of non-combat losses to combat losses for heavy bombers in the PTO was 2:1, while for the ETO during the ~same time period it was about 1:5.

The Me 264 etal would be flying around 2x (or more) the distance of the PTO B-29s, so the non-combat losses would (presumably) be at a rate more than 2x the non-combat losses the B-29s suffered.


Hey Milosh,

Thanks for the reference.

 

[jmcalli2]

Only if equipped with P-39s. But with radios moved aft. Or forward... Let me read that other thread again.

P-39s re-engined with V-3420s...

 

[Koopernic]

Production versions
DB 603A, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1750 PS (1726 hp, 1287 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
DB 603AA DB 603A with an improved supercharger, rated altitude of 7.3 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1670 PS (1647 hp, 1228 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1580 PS (1558 hp, 1162 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level
DB 603E rated altitude of 7.0 km, B4 fuel
Power (take-off): 1800 PS (1775 hp, 1324 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1575 PS (1553 hp, 1158 kW) at 2500 rpm at sea level

You are missing the following
DB603EM at 2250hp with MW50 This engine was delivering in Ta 152C0
DB603L 2400hp. This engine was the below DB603LA but had a intercooler. Disruption by bombing prevented its preferential adoption.
DB603LA 2250hp. This engine was delivering in Ta 152C3

Aaand they wouldn't be facing F6F Hellcats because?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, If the Germans manage to get their long range bomber working, the U.S. doesn't get the same benefit for a response?

Also why do the Germans get a free pass? Are all the Lightnings and Thunderbolts taking siesta's on the east coast?

Ive put togther a plausible scenario that doesnt involve anything but supplying resources. No special engines are required.

The Me 264 was designed around the DB 603 of 1,750hp. Don't think that 2,400hp versions were even under development in 1940/1941.

The 2400hp DB603L and DB603H were always projected. 1750hp is on B4 87 octane without MW50.

One of the reasons the B-29 didn't fly combat missions from the UK was runway length - contemporary Brit runways were too short for fully laden Superforts. I would suspect that any aircraft capable of carrying a transAtlantic bomb load would also need a very long runway. The US Strategic Air Forces in Europe would certainly bomb the dickens out of any extended German runways - and if you can't takeoff in the first place, you certainly can't reach New York, let alone require the attention of of US forces in Newfoundland, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the UK, or the mid-Atlantic.

Cheers,

Dana

A MTOW take-off required a 2500m runway and this was seen as a very serious limitation. Hence either RATO would be needed or a wait till 1945 and 2400hp engines.

Also, the entire "if" of this thread allows me to put 437 Midway Class aircraft carriers in the Atlantic, each flying F7F day and night fighters and assorted ASW aircraft. In addition, the US is defended by P-89s armed with nuclear tipped rockets.
Offensively the 12,000 B-36Bs would crater every runway in Europe from 50,000 ft within a week.

I can do this because it makes as much sense as having the Me-264 fully developed and deployed in significant numbers in 1940. Fair is fair.

Maybe go the Joe Baughers site and check out some dates A B36. B-36A or B36B couldn't fly at 50,000ft. Operational ceiling was 35,800ft. The engines didn't exist.
Unlike the B-36 the Me 264
1 Had its maiden flight in a plausible time frame (not post war)
2 Used of the shelf engines available at the time.
It just needed a normal supply of resources.

The Wasserfall Surface to Air Missile was test flying well before the B36 and was designed to engage a 2G target at about 55,000ft. It would have bisected a lumbering B-36 having given plenty of warning time and being no challenge to the missile due to its slow speed. Even a Ta 152H1 could intercept a B36. Britain did well to wait till it had the V bombers.

 

[Milosh]

Prototypes and other versions

• DB 603D, a DB 603A with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
• DB 603F, a DB 603E with propellers rotating counter-clockwise; production unknown
• DB 603G (production cancelled)

Power (max): 1900 PS (1874 hp, 1397 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1560 PS (1539 hp, 1147 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

• DB 603L/LA (prototype with two-stage supercharger, B4 fuel)

Power (max): 2000 PS (1973 hp, 1471 kW)

• DB 603L/M two-stage supercharger, rated altitude of 10.5 km, C3 fuel

Power (take-off): 2450 PS (2416 hp, 1801 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 2100 PS (2071 hp, 1544 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

• DB 603N (prototype with two-stage supercharger, C3 fuel)

Power (take-off): 3000PS (2958 hp, 2206 kW) at 3200 rpm at sea level
Power (max): 2570 PS (2762 hp, 2059 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
Continuous: 1930 PS (1904 hp, 1420 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level

• DB 603S (DB 603A with experimental TK-11 turbo-supercharger) - Intended (not known if actually used) for the Heinkel He 274 prototype airframes.

Power (max): Not known.

 

[Peter Gunn]

My apologies, by "horrendous" I mean the ratio of losses due to all things other than combat relative to combat losses. (Am I using the term "operational losses" incorrectly?) If I am reading the chart that Milosh references above correctly, then the PTO (XX and XXI Bomber Command) B-29 non-combat losses were somewhere around 2x the losses due to combat.

No apologies necessary my friend, I was not sure whether or not you were aware of the loss situation for the B-29 and figured I'd put up some data (in a cordial way (I hope)).

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

Let me read that other thread again.

If that's the case, then see you next spring...