P!mp my He 111

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
One of the workhorses of the Luftwaffe as we know it. Of sleek lines and good bomb-lugging capabilities when introduced, it became obsolete with Allieds introducing better fighters, while LW was spott, at best, with providing an efficient escort.
So let's give it some love, improving the design for the ww2 within the boundaries of what was possible in ww2 Germany. Better speed, or better payload, better defensive weapons (not going overboard, though), etc. Better range if possible/if needed.

(yes, LW will need to step-up their LR fighter escort, so we have that base covered as much as possible)
 

GTX

Master Sergeant
2,334
6,729
Dec 18, 2015
Turning to the silly side if I may, here are some I did years ago:

Radial engined version?

111h6R.jpg


Post war CASA 2.111Bs with turboprops:

Casa2111T.jpg


With tail mounted jet engine:

111H6J.jpg


Addressing the need for fighter escort:

He111Me109Mistel.jpg
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
I will show myself the door now...:salute:
Errr, no, we might still need you here :)

Eg. we'd need the bomb pannier that extends forward from the 'bathtub' defensive position.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
A historically p!mped-up He 111 - up to 3600 kg of bombs under the racks. Much have been a joy for the pilot to fly it:

111 bmbs.jpg
 

mack8

Airman
29
30
Jan 4, 2023
Well, it's not quite pimping, but it's love, in a moment rationality they cancel the He-177 and just keep going with the good old 111. At least it works, it's reliable and dependable, even if dated. Could still give valuable service, maybe give some to the allies ( f.e. Romania was scrounging for anything that flew in 1944, old Savoias, PZL-37, Potez 633, PZL-23... a single group of He-111s would have looked like a godsend) Maybe they could improve defensive weapons by using some elements from the 177?

They could easily build two 111s for every 177. Also a good way to use the overproduction of Jumo-211 engines, i am reading that even in 1945 there were still 7000 UNUSED engines!

That would leave the DB-606/610 siamese twins to be finished as normal 601/605s, about 6000 of them available. (Actually in my TL another moment of rationality gets the Me-210 cancelled too, at least the good old Me-110 works, doesn't try to kill it's pilots AND is a nightfighter, many of those DB can go to extra 110s and preferably to as many of the badly needed 109s too)
 
Last edited:

mack8

Airman
29
30
Jan 4, 2023
Interesting - care to elaborate a bit on that?
Well, in the book German Aircraft Industry 1933-1945 it says that in 1945 there were on hand 2645 Jumo-211s and reserve stockpile of 4814, total 7459. Most were F to P models. These total were much higher than any other types like DB-605, not to mention DB-603, Jumo-213 or BMW-801. Also there were quite a few BMW-132s, 2940 of them.

I have read that in 1942 there was a 25% overproduction of Jumo-211s, over 16000 were built, and same number in 1943.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
I have read that in 1942 there was a 25% overproduction of Jumo-211s, over 16000 were built, and same number in 1943.

In that case, this:

190 211.jpg

makes all the sense :)
(Jumo 211-powered small-wing cab-forward Fw 190)
 

mack8

Airman
29
30
Jan 4, 2023
That, and a few hundred for my IAR-80. :)
What kind of performance should be expected from a Jumo powered Fw-190?
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
What kind of performance should be expected from a Jumo powered Fw-190?

(this is with wing of 14.9 sqm, and the Jumo is 211)
We'd probably emulate speed the Bf 109E even with 10% less power, or do as good as the 109F with same power? Jumo 211A (920 PS at 5.2 km for 5 min) should more than suffice to beat 550 km/h. 211B/D can do that power, but for 30 min; 1000 PS was supposed to be available at 5 km in Notleistung (by reading the power graph) - talk 580+ km/h?
The 211F (start of 1941) gives 1060 PS at 5200m for 30 min, and 1190 PS at 5 km (Notleistung). In between the Bf 109F1 and F4?

The 211J and N will give another 5% more power, the P again 5% more over these. If the turboed 211 can be produced, a.k.a the 211Q (= twice the HP at high altitudes vs. the J/N/F), this will be a fine hi-alt fighter. The 211R is also another option, but this engine was probably not made in some meaningful quantity (this might be the impetus to make more of them?). Power was comparable with the DB 605A (tad worse that 605A at mid altitudes, tad better above 20000 ft).
Best option would've been a 2-stage version, though; not that it was ever made to the best of my knowledge.
 

mack8

Airman
29
30
Jan 4, 2023
Probably veering way off course here, but just very curious, would the performance of Jumo-211F/J/P etc. powered FW-190 be at least equal to the BMW powered one?Does the Jumo have better altitude performance which as i understand was a weakness of the BMW? Or probably it will still need C3 fuel to mach the OTL performance at least?

Hmm, based on those figures, it still seems that boring out the normal Jumo-211 to 155mm for 37,4 litres capacity and just increase rpm slightly to 2800rpm would still get us a 1750 PS engine. This instead of the OTL 3250rpm Jumo-213 which took so long to get it ready.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,819
3,596
Apr 3, 2008
Probably veering way off course here, but just very curious, would the performance of Jumo-211F/J/P etc. powered FW-190 be at least equal to the BMW powered one?

At least the 211N or, even better, the 211P should be needed to came close to the Fw 190A1/A2 - Antons have more power, the 211-powered have lower engine-related drag and less draggy wing.

Does the Jumo have better altitude performance which as i understand was a weakness of the BMW? Or probably it will still need C3 fuel to mach the OTL performance at least?

BMW 801 has the better altitude performance. C3 fuel will be nice to have, it would've improved the engine power under 5km of altitude.
Unfortunately, we don't have much of a good (or any) feedback wrt. Jumo 211 series actually pushed into 'Notleistung' (short-term, or emergency power) beyond the take off - manuals for the engines and the aircraft using them are pretty silent about that, too, bar the thin line in the graph (but nothing in the data tables).

Hmm, based on those figures, it still seems that boring out the normal Jumo-211 to 155mm for 37,4 litres capacity and just increase rpm slightly to 2800rpm would still get us a 1750 PS engine. This instead of the OTL 3250rpm Jumo-213 which took so long to get it ready.

Out-boring it, the 4-valve heads, better/bigger/2-stage S/C, MW 50, swirl throttle - options abound :)
More capable superchargers will be needed mostly IMO.
 

Shortround6

Major General
19,747
11,725
Jun 29, 2009
Central Florida Highlands
it still seems that boring out the normal Jumo-211 to 155mm for 37,4 litres
Trouble is you can't bore out aircraft engines like you can bore out car engines.
Aircraft engines are designed for minimum weight to begin with and not burdened with "extra room" for growth.
Like an engine block and crankshaft 25-30mm longer than needed.
You can't take a DB 601 block and bore it out to make a DB 605 ;)

for some reason aircraft engine makers didn't just like to use the same cylinder dimensions, they LOVED using the same cylinder dimensions. Even if using new crankshafts, new crankcases and new cylinders. No computers, change things and you were heading into the unknown .

It could be done but if often meant an awful of R & D into vibration, burn rates (how the burn expanded across the piston tops) and heat transfer.
Note the burned pistons, down rating and problems with the DB605. They got it to work but it wasn't as quick and easy as they thought.
 

Shortround6

Major General
19,747
11,725
Jun 29, 2009
Central Florida Highlands
My own Idea for a pimped 111 are pretty simple in concept, harder to do actually.

Fit the the most up to date Jumo 211s instead of last years left overs. (easy)
Design and build a turret with two MG 131s powered in both traverse and elevation (not a remote barbette), this seemed to escape German capability for the entire war, go figure ;)
I like Tomo's idea for the Pannier. Fair the lower rear gun position into it. MG 131 (or two?) perhaps even power assist?
See it you can fit a pair of 1000kg SC bombs. See if you can fit two pairs of 500kg SC bombs (with the uppers going into the fuselage where the old internal bomb racks went?)
Getting back to the drag of the "clean" 111 instead of bombs hanging all over the bottom.

MG 131 in the front? suggestions?
Not too big, no extra crew.
 

Users who are viewing this thread