Post-BoB: workable options for Luftwaffe

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

What's the timeline for fixing the BMW-801 valve issues, when were the C and D respectively cleared for full power? If there is a fair amount of communication between the companies/RLM, how soon do you think the DB-605 valve issues could be fixed? Even a few months earlier compared to OTL is an improvement, and perhaps bringing forward by that much the MW boosted versions too. Did the DB-603 had same problem presumably? And if say the Jumo-222 is just cancelled in 1941, presumably all that effort put into the Jumo-213 will get it ready a bit earlier too.

Another small change is only adopt the BMW-801D 1,65 ata setting obtained by "fooling" the komandogerat rather than the C3 injection, at least some C3 fuel will be saved which can be put to better uses, perhaps on Bf-109Gs.
 
tomo pauk said:
A proper Me 210 is indeed interesting, however a bombed-up Fw 190 might've be doing the similar (single 2200 lb bomb), with better economics? Granted, a bombed-up Fw 190 has no rear defences, and Me 210 will be rangier as-is.
Click to expand...
The problem is that many targets are better handled with several smaller bombs than one large one.
And hanging a 1000kg demolition bomb (SC-1000) under the 190 may kill enough speed to make attacks too dangerous. SC-1000 has a diameter of 654mm.
I am not sure if the 210 can hold two SC-500s or only two SD-500s. The SC 500 is 396mm in diameter and the SD is 470mm.
 

For BMW 801C - 'book' full power was probably always allowed.
Some circumstantial 'evidence' points out to the very late 1941, like the flight tests flown at 2700 rpm in high gear, although the manual says that 2550 rpm is the limit in high gear. Extra 150 rpm there is a boon IMO, it helps with high alt power and thus performance. Granted, I don't know whether the 2700 rpm limit/2nd gear was being communicated and allowed for service use for 1942.
For BMW 801D - seems like October 1942 is the date when the engine was cleared for full power.

Even a 6 month earlier lift of the ban on 2800 rpm/1.42 ata setting for the DB 605A would've been an improvement for the Bf 109s & 110s in service, since 1943 saw the Allied onslaught in Med, West and big air battles above Russia.

mack8 said:
Did the DB-603 had same problem presumably? And if say the Jumo-222 is just cancelled in 1941, presumably all that effort put into the Jumo-213 will get it ready a bit earlier too.
Click to expand...

DB 603 was with reliability issues even in 1944 (and in 1943 it was very problematic), so debugging it with better lubricating system and valves is a much needed 'medicine'.
Yes, I'd also kill the 222. Better have Jumo use their resources to improve the 211 (bigger/better S/C, swirl throttle), the 004, and probably the 213 (so both 004 and 213 are in series production by late 1943). A 2-stage supercharged 211 woud've been interesting.
Swirl throttle would've been also great on the DB 605 & 603.

mack8 said:
Another small change is only adopt the BMW-801D 1,65 ata setting obtained by "fooling" the komandogerat rather than the C3 injection, at least some C3 fuel will be saved which can be put to better uses, perhaps on Bf-109Gs.
Click to expand...

Seems like the 'simple' overboosting was in use historically on the BMW 801D from mid-1943 on.


Luftwaffe have had problems with fast bombers during the best part of the war IMO. Not helped by MTT botching the 210 job, and by over-reliance to the complicated engine projects (Jumo 222, Db 606/610). With late 1940 as the starting point, we look for 1941-42 as scramble to either came out with a fast-ish bomber, or with making proper LR fighter (not Mustang-class, but something better than a Bf 109 with a drop tank) - probably both are needed to get the job done?

How bad a suggestion is to have Fw 190 'bomber' outfitted with 'cone' under the fuselage to streamline the bomb installation?
(roughly illustrating the idea)
A Fw 190 with nose like what P-40 had (but obviously with DB 601 engine), with bomb behind the coolers?

As much as I don't like the Me 210, rethinking the project during the late 1940 (even if just the longer fuselage is adopted) seems to be at least a band aid to the problem.
Any worth in Bf 110 with a bomb tray/'cone'?

By 1943, a proper fast bomber is very much needed.
 
A bit about guns' firepower.
Germans made a number of useful cannons and MGs, some more suited for the needs of air combat than another ones. Late 1940 leaves them with MG FFM, the MG 151/15 is in the pipeline closely followed by the /20, while the MK 101 was supposed to provide really heavy firepower. Later, the MK 108 is on the 'lighter' side of the spectrum, while bigger guns were up to 55mm.

Me, I'd forget the fancy stuff, and concentrate on the guns that are best suited to the actual aircraft to carry them - 1st priority to consider being limitation of a platform. Eg. MK 101 or 103 will require a lot of time, effort and sacrifice (like the number of rounds carried) to fit on the Bf 109, let alone on the Fw 190A, so all of the theorethical firepower is just, well, theoretical.
If a gun can still fit within the wing of the Bf 109, that is well worth a look IMO.

Some suggestions:
- Go with belt-feed MG FFM, a.s.a.p, these can fit on the small fighters without problems, guns are with low weight and recoil, ammo is very light as far as the 20mm ammo goes. Sped it up for 1942/43. A good fit for the night fighters, too, and can probably fit better on a turret than the next size 20mm.
- A 'MG 151/23' - big brother to the /15 and /20, fires Madsen 23mm ammo. Good fit as a motor cannon, for NFs, and as wing rot gun.
- Big MG FFM, talk 25mm.
- Similar gun - the MK 108 but in 25mm; both the 25mm guns can use French barrels and shells to sped up development.
- 'Alt MK 108' that fires a 250-270g shell from the longer barrel and with bigger propellant load, for better MV and hit probability.
- An in-between gun sitting between MK 108 and 103 - talk 'big MK 108' or 'baby MK 103', so it is an easier fit for the fighters, 300-330 g shell at 750-700 m/s.
- If the MK 103 is proceeded with, make sure that 1st version is already the motor-cannon suitable one. I'd go with a ~400 g M-shell for it, too.

As you can note, I'm not suggesting that revolver cannons is developed.
 
Some random thoughts:

  • Stock up on the critical metals for things like valves and turbine blades before the war. In the end, relatively small amounts of these are needed, so should have been doable.
  • Setup a proper high volume program for producing competent aircrew.
  • As for rationalizing various R&D programs, both engines and aircraft, yes absolutely. Of course this is much easier to do in hindsight when we can clearly see which projects were dead ends. For the BMW radials in particular, forget about the 802/803 etc. and focus on improving the 801, including by adding a 2S2S supercharger and an automatic MW50 system. Mass produce a slightly detuned 801 capable of running on B4 fuel (still with the 2S2S supercharger and MW50 system) as the standard bomber engine, replacing the Jumo.
  • For bombers, I think Germany in the end had neither the need nor capacity for a large scale heavy bomber fleet like the US/UK. Also, Germany pretty much ended the war with the same bombers it had when it started, all the various development projects were largely failures. So lets pick, say, the Ju88 with the above detuned 801's as the standard bomber, mass produce that and use it until jet bombers (Ar 234?) arrive in volume. Increase focus on maritime strike capability, be it through Fritz-X/Hs293 style guided bombs or something else. Delivering a devastating blow to the Atlantic, Arctic and Mediterranean convoys critical for the Axis war effort.
  • Jets probably critical if Germany intends to prolong the war longer than it historically took. Though this would have required quite a foresight to massively increase R&D no later than the late 30'ies.
  • Develop equivalent of VT fuzes as well as missile based AA (IIRC they did have some early versions under development) to counter allied heavy bomber fleets. For light flak, focus on getting the historical 37mm Flak 43 in use and volume production sooner, replacing the quad 20mm flak.
  • As for guns, for all the failings of WWII German military aviation, IMHO guns where one area where they did quite well. The Mg 151/20 was certainly good, and about the right size for anti-fighter work. The Mk108 packed a devastating punch in a small, lightweight, and cheap to manufacture package. Perhaps something like an Mg 151 enlarged to a high velocity 25mm and increased rpm could have been the 'ultimate' WWII aircraft gun well suited for both anti-fighter and anti-bomber work, but, well.. And yes, the MG FF/M could have been a nice upgrade for bomber defensive armament. Forget about the >30mm aircraft guns (except maybe these tank buster aircraft etc.)
 
I have to agree with a lot of what you say but I would add one contentious suggestion and one less contentious suggestion.

After the BOB drop the Me109, past the 109G2. It was too small and lacked a lot of development potential. The Fw190 was far and away the best fighter in the world when it entered service. Concentrate on the production and development of that and develop a new fighter for high altitude work, better armed than the Me109. Let this development replace the 109

When attacking Russia concentrate on the oil fields as a shortage of 100 Octane fuel was a major handicap for Germany. With plentiful oil Germany can concentrate on increasing the production of higher grade oil, not synthesising oil from coal.
 
Glider said:
When attacking Russia concentrate on the oil fields as a shortage of 100 Octane fuel was a major handicap for Germany. With plentiful oil Germany can concentrate on increasing the production of higher grade oil, not synthesising oil from coal.
Click to expand...

It's 2700 km from Lvov to Baku. That's one hell of a long flank.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
It's 2700 km from Lvov to Baku. That's one hell of a long flank.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on the land war in Russia and could easily be very wrong. That said, my understanding is that Germany made a fatal error in trying to attempt too much. They could have got the oil fields or Moscow but not both. My choice would be the oil fields.
 

I'm no expert either, but even in 1941 they would've had theirs hands full defending a front of that length, especially with the Soviet forces in the north unmolested. There's also plenty of time to thoroughly destroy the installations even should the Germans get that far.

And yes, they certainly tried too much. They did that by attacking the USSR before defeating the UK.
 

There was the BMW 801R project with 2-stage 4-speed (it was probably 2 independent speeds for each stage, IMO), that was not produced. There was also the project BMW P 8028, loosely looking like a BMW 801 with an auxiliary stage & intercooler added, in P&W 2-stage radials' fashion (remained as paper project).

Agreed 100% on killing off the 802 and 803.

For the BMW 801, already outfitting it with an improved 1-stage S/C is a boon. A BMW 801E with a 3-speed S/C (3rd gear rated altitude - without ram effect - at around 7.5 km? no ram) might be easy to pull off by mid-1943, with 802 and 803 being binned. Granted, the Mustang menace will require either a 2-stage engine on the Luftwaffe side, or, even better, a jet engine.


A "MG 151/25" or a "MK 108/25" has a nice ring to it.
Talk a 60-70 kg cannon, 600-700 rd/min, 700-750 m/s for a mine shell of 250-200 g. One fits as an engine cannon, Fw 190 can carry at least two, same with 1-engined jet (4 on 2-engined jets), NFs 3-5...
 
Long-rage fighters suggestions (will be needed for the Med & NA, as well as Eastern Europe and Bay of Biscay):
- Bf 109 with two drop tanks and some extra fuel in the place where later the MW 50 tank was carried
- Fw 190 powered by DB 601E or 605A, with two drop tanks, and possibly with some extra internal fuel (BMW 801 will not cut it due to the very high fuel consumption); just two MG 151/20 cannons

A supply of the bigger drop tanks for the fighters - 400-500 L - would've been handy.
I'd avoid 2-engined fighters for this role (or any role that is not night fighting).
 
tomo pauk said:
Long-rage fighters suggestions (will be needed for the Med & NA, as well as Eastern Europe and Bay of Biscay):
- Bf 109 with two drop tanks and some extra fuel in the place where later the MW 50 tank was carried
Click to expand...

I suspect the Bf109 was just a too small airframe to carry a significant amount of extra fuel.

(I don't really agree with the earlier suggestion to get rid of the Bf109 after the G2, the Bf109 all the way to the end of the war in the K model was a very dangerous opponent if competently flown, also consider all the production shortfall from switching over production lines etc. Though probably the K version is the end of the road in terms of development potential, and if Germany manages to drag the war on for longer, would probably make sense to start switching 109 production lines to jets.)

(BMW 801 will not cut it due to the very high fuel consumption)
Click to expand...

Was 801 fuel consumption that bad? I recall an earlier thread on this forum where the general takeaway was that radials had entirely respectable BSFC numbers at cruise speed, but at full power the fuel consumption was atrocious due to running very rich to keep cylinder head temps reasonable. Or was there something particular to the 801 that caused it to have poor fuel consumption also at cruise speed?

Anyway, if the conclusion is that the 801 will not cut it either for long range use, or high altitude use, switch to the inline engined versions ASAP and tell BMW to focus on jets. The DB 603 and Jumo 213, particularly the J and potential follow-up variants, are probably the most promising designs with the most legroom, so concentrate on those (as historically happened with the FW190D and Ta152).
 
I think the Germans need to get their heads out of their butts and figure out that the 109 is too small to be upgraded to future (near or far) requirements.

The 109F was huge improvement, But the 109G was large band-aid, the further into the 109G series you go you are shooting yourself in both feet, not just one.
The 109 will not carry the weight of armament needed in the later years and it will not carry the fuel. The more money you spend on new variants and more money you spend on increase production the more you are locked into the 109 and it's inherent problems and the less money you have for R & D for something new and the tooling for the new fighter.
Granted the Mustang was sort of the gold standard but the Mustang I with it's Allison -39 engine was faster than the 109F at low level while carrying 70% more fuel inside. The four .50s and four .303s and ammo weighed a lot more than the guns in most 109s. Granted the Mustang didn't climb very well.
If the Germans had built something like the Ki-61 with the DB 601E (18% more power and higher up) engine in early 1942 it might have solved a few problems. 35-40% more fuel without the drop tank.
Germans had figured out the through the engine gun so three MG 151/20s and two MG 131s for armament giving more time to figure out the 'trick' guns. Larger radius of action over the Russian Front. Less loss of drop tanks on operations. Possibility of using four 50kg bombs or two 250kg bombs under wing?
Has wide track undercarriage for fewer landing and take-off accidents.
Can be upgraded with the DB 605 while the next uber fighter is worked on.
 

Bf 109 will still be needed as a fighter to supply to another Axis forces. It was fast and cheap to produce, and with a bit of improvements can still be very useful even into 1944. Requires a dedicated post
The real heir to it on the production lines is something jet-powered, I agree.

I don't expect a lot of internal extra fuel to be carried, but even an extra of 80-100L can make a difference on a small and light fighter. 480-500 internal + 400-600 external for a total of 900-1100 is a lot on the 109.


The 801C was with a worse specific fuel consumption when compared with the DB 601E; yes, difference was smaller on lower power settings. The 601E in the nose will also make a bit less power, will be lighter and more streamlined, so the differences add up at the end.
The 801D was a bit better than the 801C wrt specific fuel consumption (mostly due to increase of compression ration?), but still a bit worse than the V12s, and with weight and drag penalty that will eat into the mileage.


BMW 801 will cut in for the high altitude job provided better S/Cs are designed and produced for it (we can note that Ta 152 was with an engine with a 2-stage S/C). Granted, big V12 is an improvement still, if mostly due to the lower drag.
 

There is a lot more hardware needed to be send to the chopping block than the Bf 109
A Bf 109 can carry 3 cannons as early as late 1940. For 1943, have these cannons be 25-30 mm as motor cannon, and belt-fed MG FFM in the wings; no cowl guns, no gondolas.


Stick the DB 601E on the Fw 190 and Bob's your uncle?
 
I have to totally agree with Post 53, the Me109 was too small and didn't have the ability to carry the weapons needed or the additional fuel. Basically it lacked development potential.

Something along the lines of the Ki61 is a good suggestion and others would include the Fiat G55. These are all a little bit bigger, used the same engine and had the additional weapons needed for combating later allied aircraft, plus the ability to carry a decent bombload.
 
tomo pauk said:
A Bf 109 can carry 3 cannons as early as late 1940. For 1943, have these cannons be 25-30 mm as motor cannon, and belt-fed MG FFM in the wings; no cowl guns, no gondolas.
Click to expand...
The Germans had enough trouble fitting 2 and 3 different guns with different ballistics (times of flight) to their aircraft.
The 20mm Hispano and the .50 cal Browning actually have pretty similar ballistics, at least out to 600yds or so.
The German guns are all over the place.

The MG FFM was a crap gun after the first few years. The MG 151 isn't that much heavier. 14-16kg? For that you get around 25% higher fire rate and you get around 100m/s more velocity for shorter times of flight.
The German mine shell had some very good advantages, long range gunner was not one of them. It retained velocity like a ping-pong ball.
 
Well i'd focus on getting the ju-288 to work, even with the db-610s, they were reasonable enough and most of the engine`s problems seems to stem from the he-177 tight cowlings.
For 1940 however:
  • Scrap all do-17 production, lower he-111 to the maximum, get a 4 engined jumo 211 he-177 approved immediately
  • Get the Do-217 mass produced asap
  • Keep the jumo-222 to the original output of 2000-2200
  • Use Czech, French and Austrian industries more
  • Keep developing the french aeroengines
  • Replace the ju-52
  • Add armor to the bf-110, make it a stopgap groundpounder
  • Fix the Me-210 and make it into a fast light bomber and nightfighter
  • Get jets asap, mass produce the he-280, sell the designs to japan in exchange for naval technology and torpedos
 
tonycat77 said:
Scrap all do-17 production, lower he-111 to the maximum, get a 4 engined jumo 211 he-177 approved immediately
Click to expand...
Do-17 production stopped in 1940 (?).
You need as many He 111s as you can get until you get your He-177 - 4 flown, tooled up and in production.
tonycat77 said:
Get the Do-217 mass produced asap
Click to expand...
They were getting into production. Problem is that it needs engines. The BMW 801 was a minimum
tonycat77 said:
Keep developing the french aeroengines
Click to expand...
Why? they were several years from getting anything useful.
tonycat77 said:
Replace the ju-52
Click to expand...
OK, that is a given.
 
Surrender lol, that would have been the best long term bet.
Short term, perhaps better communicatin between firms for information sharing to get existing technology into production much sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Reduced power 7-8mm cartridges post ww1?
Replies
16
Views
665
GreenKnight121
Luftwaffe vs IJAAS/IJNAS
Replies
17
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
SplitRz
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
The Stannum Liberator
Z
Germany goes for centrifugal flow turbojet engines?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register