I read once, I'm not sure where, It might have been a Tony Williams site, that the Germans tried synchronisation of 30mm weapons however the larger cartridges tended to burn unevently or inconsistantly compared to the smaller ones. 20mm seems to have been about the practical limit.
Taking the Hs 123 back in production during WW2 ?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I read once, I'm not sure where, It might have been a Tony Williams site, that the Germans tried synchronisation of 30mm weapons however the larger cartridges tended to burn unevently or inconsistantly compared to the smaller ones. 20mm seems to have been about the practical limit.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I wouldn't take that approach.
The Hs-123 had a hardpoint under each wing. Can they be modified to accept a 3cm Mk103 gun pod? If not then the Hs-123 is hopeless for CAS vs WWII era armor even if Henschel will sell the aircraft for 1 RM each.
The Hs-123 had a hardpoint under each wing. Can they be modified to accept a 3cm Mk103 gun pod? If not then the Hs-123 is hopeless for CAS vs WWII era armor even if Henschel will sell the aircraft for 1 RM each.
Shortround6
Major General
The Hs 123 would be hopeless with a 3cm Mk103 gun pod under each wing. Normal load was a pair of 50 kg bombs under each wing, or one cluster bomb or one 20mm MG/ff cannon. Trying to double the under wing load isn't going to give very good flight performance.
The cluster bomb might be an idea though??
Not all CAS missions are anti-tank.
The cluster bomb might be an idea though??
Not all CAS missions are anti-tank.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Fw-189 army liason aircraft could carry that much ordnance under the wings. Newer versions of the Fw-189 powered by As411 engines could also carry a pair of MG151/20 cannon in the wing roots.
Fw-189 Production.
6. 1939.
38. 1940.
250. 1941. First year of mass production.
327. 1942.
208. 1943.
17. 1944. Production ends.
.....The Fw-189 was in mass production only three years (1941, 1942, 1943). During those three years production averaged only 22 aircraft per month. Why not increase Fw-189 production to 100 aircraft per month and forget about the Hs-123? I haven't seen a production cost for the Fw-189 but army liason aircraft are normally inexpensive.
Half of the Fw-189s could be a purpose built light CAS variant with more powerful engines. Perhaps the same French built 700 hp Gnome-Rhone radial engines that powered the Hs-129B. With 1,400 total hp you could probably install something in the nose more powerful then the MG151/20.
Fw-189 Production.
6. 1939.
38. 1940.
250. 1941. First year of mass production.
327. 1942.
208. 1943.
17. 1944. Production ends.
.....The Fw-189 was in mass production only three years (1941, 1942, 1943). During those three years production averaged only 22 aircraft per month. Why not increase Fw-189 production to 100 aircraft per month and forget about the Hs-123? I haven't seen a production cost for the Fw-189 but army liason aircraft are normally inexpensive.
Half of the Fw-189s could be a purpose built light CAS variant with more powerful engines. Perhaps the same French built 700 hp Gnome-Rhone radial engines that powered the Hs-129B. With 1,400 total hp you could probably install something in the nose more powerful then the MG151/20.
Shortround6
Major General
there was a version of the Fw 189 built in competition with the Hs 129.
The Fw189C:
It was not a success.
The Hs 123 was out of production by 1940. Part of it's success was due to it's ability to operate from really crappy airstrips, which the heavily armoured twins might not be able to manage.
The Fw189C:
It was not a success.
The Hs 123 was out of production by 1940. Part of it's success was due to it's ability to operate from really crappy airstrips, which the heavily armoured twins might not be able to manage.
GregP
Major
They COULD have just bought Fiat CR.42 biplanes and would have had a faster, more maneuverable biplane.
I am a CR.42 fan, as far as biplanes go anyway, and think it was probably the best of the bunch ... although a 600 HP Boeing F4B-4 was probably a better dogfighter and definitely climbed better.
I am a CR.42 fan, as far as biplanes go anyway, and think it was probably the best of the bunch ... although a 600 HP Boeing F4B-4 was probably a better dogfighter and definitely climbed better.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
So could the Fw-189. It's essential for army liason aircraft to have that ability.
I'm under the impression the Hs-129 beat the Fw-189 for the 1937 CAS contract only because Henschel promised a very low production cost. But the Hs-129 prototype required so many upgrades to make it mission capable that the production version probably cost more then the Fw-189. Anyway the entire CAS procurement process goes against standard Luftwaffe practise.
Late 1930s Germany opted for a single low cost fighter aircraft (Me-109) that was to be produced in large numbers. They also opted for a single low cost light bomber / recon aircraft (Ju-88) that was to be produced in large numbers. Why produce small numbers of Fw-189s plus small numbers of Hs-129s plus small numbers of Hs-123s? Variants of the well liked Fw-189 can accomplish all these missions. So set the Fw-189 up for large scale production and support it with a proper development program. An engine more powerful then the As410 should have top priority. If Argus cannot deliver the 592 hp As411 engine by 1939 the Luftwaffe should look elsewhere. There were all sorts of small air cooled radial engines available during that time frame. The 592 hp Bramo 322 engine would probably work just fine ILO the As411 engine.
I'm under the impression the Hs-129 beat the Fw-189 for the 1937 CAS contract only because Henschel promised a very low production cost. But the Hs-129 prototype required so many upgrades to make it mission capable that the production version probably cost more then the Fw-189. Anyway the entire CAS procurement process goes against standard Luftwaffe practise.
Late 1930s Germany opted for a single low cost fighter aircraft (Me-109) that was to be produced in large numbers. They also opted for a single low cost light bomber / recon aircraft (Ju-88) that was to be produced in large numbers. Why produce small numbers of Fw-189s plus small numbers of Hs-129s plus small numbers of Hs-123s? Variants of the well liked Fw-189 can accomplish all these missions. So set the Fw-189 up for large scale production and support it with a proper development program. An engine more powerful then the As410 should have top priority. If Argus cannot deliver the 592 hp As411 engine by 1939 the Luftwaffe should look elsewhere. There were all sorts of small air cooled radial engines available during that time frame. The 592 hp Bramo 322 engine would probably work just fine ILO the As411 engine.
Shortround6
Major General
DO you even look at some of these engines??
A Bramo 322 is an early version of the Bramo 323, it was not noted for it's reliability and every single 592hp Bramo 322 you make is one 900-1000hp Bramo 323 you don't have.
Both are 9 cylinder radials of 28.62 liters displacement.
It would be like Wright making 750hp Cyclones instead of 1000-1200hp Cyclones.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Widely used by German aircraft manufacturers during the early to mid 1930s. I've got to assume companies such as Heinkel and Dornier knew what they were doing when they selected the Bramo 322 over competing aircraft engines.
Baloney. The number of aircraft engines available to Germany was determined by RLM funding for engine factory construction. If RLM doesn't screw up (again!) then Bramo engine production will match demand.
Shortround6
Major General
Hardly baloney.
The 323 was simply a late model 322. Just like a R-1820-G200 is a late model R-1820F. It takes almost the identical raw materials and man-hours to make one version or the other. If the RLM had spent more money on another factory to make Bramo radials why would they make the 592hp version when they could make the 900-1000hp version for just about the same cost?
The ONLY competing German engine was the BMW 132.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
315 kg. 459 hp. Argus As410.
385 kg. 592 hp. Argus As411. More advanced version of As410.
410 kg. 700 hp. Gnome-Rhone 14M. French engine used to power Hs-129.
465 kg. 592 hp. Bramo 322B.
525 kg. 789 hp. BMW132D.
The inexpensive BMW 132 would be fine if it will fit on the Fw-189. However it was quite a bit heavier then an As410 engine.
The French radial is probably about perfect for the Fw-189. 700 hp with a weight of only 410 kg. Perhaps BMW could be tasked with making a similiar engine to replace the Bramo 322. That would give Argus some commercial competition, which is always a good thing.
385 kg. 592 hp. Argus As411. More advanced version of As410.
410 kg. 700 hp. Gnome-Rhone 14M. French engine used to power Hs-129.
465 kg. 592 hp. Bramo 322B.
525 kg. 789 hp. BMW132D.
The inexpensive BMW 132 would be fine if it will fit on the Fw-189. However it was quite a bit heavier then an As410 engine.
The French radial is probably about perfect for the Fw-189. 700 hp with a weight of only 410 kg. Perhaps BMW could be tasked with making a similiar engine to replace the Bramo 322. That would give Argus some commercial competition, which is always a good thing.
Shortround6
Major General
The only competing engine for the Bramo 322/323 was the BMW 132. The Bramo was 26.8 liters while the BMW was 27.7 liters.
Some of your horse power ratings are way off as they come from rather different years. Comparing an out of production early 1930s engine to a late 30s/early 40s engine for an early 40s aircraft isn't quite accurate.
The Argus 410 was a 12 liter engine. The Gnome-Rhone 14M a 19 liter engine. They were in no way, shape or form in competition with each other. A comparison of the rated power at altitude will show a much larger difference than even the take-off power does.
Hirth already offered an inverted V-12 air cooled engine of 12 liters and 450 hp take off to compete with Argus although shop size and construction features may have priced it significantly higher.
Some of your horse power ratings are way off as they come from rather different years. Comparing an out of production early 1930s engine to a late 30s/early 40s engine for an early 40s aircraft isn't quite accurate.
The Argus 410 was a 12 liter engine. The Gnome-Rhone 14M a 19 liter engine. They were in no way, shape or form in competition with each other. A comparison of the rated power at altitude will show a much larger difference than even the take-off power does.
Hirth already offered an inverted V-12 air cooled engine of 12 liters and 450 hp take off to compete with Argus although shop size and construction features may have priced it significantly higher.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
What difference does that make? It's engine weight and hp that count.
Shortround6
Major General
What difference does that make? It's engine weight and hp that count.
Quite right
BUT HOW DO YOU GET POWER??
Displacment X rpm X manifold pressure.
Those are the basics. Other do enter into it but those three pretty much cover it ( manifold pressure covers a multitude of variables including fuel quality)
The G-R 14M had a 58% displacement advantage so the Argus has a lot of ground to try to make up. Since the G-R 14M could run up to 3,030 rpm it doesn't leave much room for the Argus to make it up using RPM.
The Post war French S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S , which was what they called the Argus 411, ran at 3,300rpm. only a 10% increase. It did use 11.1lbs of boost at take-off using 100/130 fuel.
What IS telling is that even this post war data (from a 1953 book when the S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S was still being built) gives a rated power of 440hp at 3250rpm at 8,000ft (max cruise 350hp/3,100rpm/8,500ft) compared to the G-R 14M was rated at 660hp at 13,100ft and a Cruise of 455hp at 2,350rpm at 13,100ft.
While a 13,000foot critical altitude may not be needed for a ground support aircraft it does mean that the 14M could have been fitted with a lower supercharger gear to improve power at low altitude.
For a warplane different choices are made if you have 1300-1400hp available from a twin than if you have 900-1200hp available. Same for a civil transport. The larger engines allow for a bigger plane with a bigger payload. Trying to use the same airframe for the two different classes of engine, while not impossible, usually leads to less than optimum performance with one class engine or both.
The two 9 cylinder radials are in another class altogether. Not only in weight and power but in size, their vastly larger diameter (in proportion to the other engines on your list) require substantially different engine cowlings and nacelles which can seriously affect pilot vision in some cases.
Quite right
BUT HOW DO YOU GET POWER??
Displacment X rpm X manifold pressure.
Those are the basics. Other do enter into it but those three pretty much cover it ( manifold pressure covers a multitude of variables including fuel quality)
The G-R 14M had a 58% displacement advantage so the Argus has a lot of ground to try to make up. Since the G-R 14M could run up to 3,030 rpm it doesn't leave much room for the Argus to make it up using RPM.
The Post war French S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S , which was what they called the Argus 411, ran at 3,300rpm. only a 10% increase. It did use 11.1lbs of boost at take-off using 100/130 fuel.
What IS telling is that even this post war data (from a 1953 book when the S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S was still being built) gives a rated power of 440hp at 3250rpm at 8,000ft (max cruise 350hp/3,100rpm/8,500ft) compared to the G-R 14M was rated at 660hp at 13,100ft and a Cruise of 455hp at 2,350rpm at 13,100ft.
While a 13,000foot critical altitude may not be needed for a ground support aircraft it does mean that the 14M could have been fitted with a lower supercharger gear to improve power at low altitude.
For a warplane different choices are made if you have 1300-1400hp available from a twin than if you have 900-1200hp available. Same for a civil transport. The larger engines allow for a bigger plane with a bigger payload. Trying to use the same airframe for the two different classes of engine, while not impossible, usually leads to less than optimum performance with one class engine or both.
The two 9 cylinder radials are in another class altogether. Not only in weight and power but in size, their vastly larger diameter (in proportion to the other engines on your list) require substantially different engine cowlings and nacelles which can seriously affect pilot vision in some cases.
I stay by statement that for a german 2-engined ground attack to work, the engines need to be no less than 1000 HP power. That means 9-cyl radials indeed. We are still as aerodynamic as a brick, but at least we can lift BOTH bombs and some decent cannon, while having god armor. Do-17 was faster than Hs-129, despite being almost twice the size and 50% heavier, with 9 cylinders aboard.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Engine power is good but engine weight isn't. A CAS aircraft must be as small a target as possible. That's why the Ju-88 didn't work well for CAS. Any aircraft with two 1,000 hp engines is likely to be quite large as the engines will be heavy.
Perhaps Germany should stick with the tried and true Ju-87 for CAS. Relatively inexpensive, decent armor protection and an excellent gun platform. RLM would need to increase Ju-87 airframe production. Jumo 211 engines aren't a problem as Germany was awash in those engines by 1942.
Historical Ju-87 production.
134. 1939
603. 1940
500. 1941
960. 1942
1,672. 1943
1,012. 1944
Perhaps Germany should stick with the tried and true Ju-87 for CAS. Relatively inexpensive, decent armor protection and an excellent gun platform. RLM would need to increase Ju-87 airframe production. Jumo 211 engines aren't a problem as Germany was awash in those engines by 1942.
Historical Ju-87 production.
134. 1939
603. 1940
500. 1941
960. 1942
1,672. 1943
1,012. 1944
An aircraft with 2 radials of 1000 hp does not to have wing area greater than 350 sq ft - in league with US R-2800 fighters, Ju-87, twin-engined Ki-45. Ideally 2 crew members, cannon from 30mm up, plus bombs.
Ju-87 was either bombs, either cannons - not both. Maybe it was a mistake to pass on 30mm cannons, while retaining dive brakes, so the real top attack on tanks is feasible? The lower weight of MK-101/103 leaves some wight allowance for bombs.
The 2 engines, plus being air cooled, offer a significiant redundancy re. the battle damage vs, a single liquid cooled engine of the Ju-87.
Ju-87 was either bombs, either cannons - not both. Maybe it was a mistake to pass on 30mm cannons, while retaining dive brakes, so the real top attack on tanks is feasible? The lower weight of MK-101/103 leaves some wight allowance for bombs.
The 2 engines, plus being air cooled, offer a significiant redundancy re. the battle damage vs, a single liquid cooled engine of the Ju-87.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree. That's why I'm intrigued by using a pair of those 700 hp but lightweight French radial engines on the Fw-189 airframe. That should be enough power for a single 3cm or 3.7cm cannon mounted on the centerline.
Shortround6
Major General
The advantages of the HS 123 were subtle, like the ability to operate from strips that 109s and JU 87 could not. Either due to length or field conditions. Poor CAS beats NO CAS. Reliability and low maintenance were also pluses, less need for skilled manpower in terms of hours of maintenance per hour of flight. It was never a tank buster and even the suggestion to bring it back was not a request for a tank buster.
A quick look at the stats (speed, bomb load, guns) doesn't show the true value of the aircraft.
If someone wants a true German tank buster then perhaps a plane the size of a Bf 110 or a bit smaller with two radial engines would work. 2/3 the size of a DO 17 or JU 88. But it is a specialty type and not cheap per plane unless it gets started early and built in very large numbers in place of something else. It will NOT be a HS 129.
A quick look at the stats (speed, bomb load, guns) doesn't show the true value of the aircraft.
If someone wants a true German tank buster then perhaps a plane the size of a Bf 110 or a bit smaller with two radial engines would work. 2/3 the size of a DO 17 or JU 88. But it is a specialty type and not cheap per plane unless it gets started early and built in very large numbers in place of something else. It will NOT be a HS 129.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Me-109s and Ju-87s routinely operated from airfields that were a sea of mud. You're not going to improve much on their ability to operate from crude airfields.
