Tandem engine Bomber A?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by davebender, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Dornier Do 214 Luft '46 entry
    [​IMG]
    Dornier was working on the large tandem engine Do-214 seaplane before WWII forced a halt to development.

    Why didn't Dornier apply this concept for the Bomber A competition? I envision something similiar to the He-177 airframe but with 4 Jumo 211 engines in a tandem arrangement similiar to the Do-214.
     
  2. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    you need a certain amount of distance between the front and rear propellers to get reasonable efficiency for the rear propeller. tandem engines had been used in WW I on on the Handley Page V.1500 among other aircraft. A number of French and other (non Dornier) aircraft used tandem engines in the 20s and 30s. A reasonable amount of practical experience and theory was available.

    Tandem engines are are only going to work on really big seaplanes, planes with tricycle landing gear or planes with articulating engine mounts or propshafts. Note the change in the angle of the propshafts on the Do 26


    http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/do26-4.jpg

    Once the plane was clear of the water the propshafts and propellers were lowered to line up with the forward props. Dornier was trading lower efficiency of the rear propeller for lower total drag.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Is that generally a worthwhile trade off?

    One thing I like about tandem engines (ILO coupled engines) is that loss of a single engine still leaves you with 3/4 of your total power. After jettisoning the bombs you can probably still fly home.
     
  4. Rivet

    Rivet Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Left Coast of Florida
    The reason these paper projects did not get beaten into metal structures is due to war planning requirements by Germany that took metal usage into serious consideration. Recall the Wever posts, DaveBender? Goering stopped heavy bomber development on April 27, 1937. I'm amazed that planes like the Ju 90 and Heinkels 274/277 were built before Hitler, belatedly, realized that his Air Marshall wasn't the sharpest tool in the box. Regards
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I don't think so.

    RLM quit funding the Ural Bomber, chosing to fund the more advanced Bomber A instead. RLM also funded the Do-217 and Bomber B projects. As far as I am aware, funding for German bomber projects continued at a normal pace until the start of WWII forced a change in priorities.

    Back to the subject at hand....
    Why didn't Dornier enter a tandem engine design in the Bomber A competion? They had all sorts of experience with tandem engine seaplanes.
     
  6. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The 'B' bombers were not heavy bombers but in the medium category.
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Do-217 was considered a heavy bomber. The Ju-288 carried a larger payload then the Do-217. That's close enough to a heavy bomber for my purposes.
     
  8. Rivet

    Rivet Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Left Coast of Florida
    Ok- To this old brain a heavy bomber would constitute a four-engined airframe with long-range capability. All development done by the Germans was done at the risk of having challanged a Reichmarschallbefehl. Heinkel did his early development on the He-274 in secrecy. The bombers mentioned certainly did not have the range to project force into the heart of Russia and could not have been used to sink allied shipping in the Atlantic, the places Hitler's Germany needed to be with force. Focke-Wulf's weak-backed 200 and the Junkers 90 were the only planes available in any numbers to match the mission requirements.

    Why Dornier did not submit something along the lines of what you propose may be due to the great amount of work his design office was involved in at the time.
     
  9. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Do we know if there were any "paper" projects/proposals that were turned down before any development contracts were issued?
    In both the US and England it was not uncommon for manufacturers to submit initial proposals from which only a handful of companies were selected to go one to detailed bids.
     
  10. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    The Me-264 was probably the most promising but fortunately it was only given half hearted support and the RLM just dithered too much but it was 'off' the drawing board and flying albeit with autopilot and landing gear issues.

    That being said Germany did not have the resources to mount a full scale production effort and it didn't fit with the blitzkrieg mindset.

    Here's the plans to change the wing planform and engine mountings
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Rivet

    Rivet Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Left Coast of Florida
    Well, folks, taking into consideration one of the last things I'd wish to experience is a world controlled by Hitler's aftermath I can state that the work of Heinkel would be number one pick, Messerschmitt's 264 a close second. Heinkel's construction techniques cut a lot of man hours. I believe both the He-274 and the Me-264 used Daimler-Benz 603 engines.

    Riyadh?-You must have air-conditioning.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    American and British heavy bombers did not make a large impact on the war prior to 1944. IMO German heavy bombers won't either, even if the He-177 somehow enters mass production on schedule during late 1940 ILO the Do-217. So I wouldn't worry about a tandem engine Bomber A changing the course of the war.
     
  13. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    Oh yeah Air conditioning is a must. It is just now starting to warm up with the highs around 45C. Soon to be 55C. The hottest I experienced was in Kuwait right after the '91 war at 59C.
     
Loading...

Share This Page