davebender
1st Lieutenant
How do you propose to train more pilots per month without using more aviation gasoline?
Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943
- Thread starter Bronc
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Sarcasm/joke to previous post. #79
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
An interesting side light on the over boost of aircraft engines. While I was in the AF, there was a strict C-141 dash one requirement stating that TRT (takeoff rated thrust) was not to be exceeded due to possible engine failure. One day a crew was on a training flight (light) and got runaway up hydraulic pitch trim (which was the one failure I felt could kill me before I could react) on takeoff, the pilot immediately slammed the throttles to the firewall greatly exceeding TRT. He accomplished a vertical recovery at 10,000 ft. over the end of the runway and made a safe landing. After that, word came down that TRT should not be exeeded due to shortening the life of the engine however use what was necessary in an emergency.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
To this day I still do not comprehend what Jeschonnek was thinking when the said that ? I mean, which general would turn down an offer to get more weapons??
Then again, he did kill himself in the end.
Well, you don't need 360 pilots every month for 360 fighters. My estimate is that you would need 1/3 or so.Well, if your training schools are turning out fewer than 360 fighter pilots a month.......
That is of course impossible. Yet, I have often thought how this increase could be minimized.
One way is to start working more with light training aircraft. Also for fighter training this could be done by some light single person aircraft, such as the Italian SAI.107 or the Skoda Kauba SK V-4.
Another option is to get basic trainer aircraft flying on lower grade fuel. These fuels can be produced from natural oil instead of relying on the synthetic oil factories.
Kris
Glider
Captain
Just a thought, the Japanese used gliders to train their pilots in the initial stages. It would cover the basic principles, flying circuits, how to take off and land.
I am of course totally unbiased with this idea, but there is some logic.
I am of course totally unbiased with this idea, but there is some logic.
Shortround6
Major General
The post about 360 pilots was ment as a bit of a joke.
If you don't have enough qualified pilots all the fighters in the world aren't going to do you much good.
German Light training planes ran on mostly 80 octane fuel but a few would run on 73 octane. These are the 4, 6 and 8 cylinder Hirth's, The 8 cylinder Argus and the 7 cylinder Bramo.
I don't think you are going to get many more gallons of fuel per barrel of base stock for these fuels.
Germans had made extensive use of Gliders for training in the late 20's and early 30's when under the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty.
If you don't have enough qualified pilots all the fighters in the world aren't going to do you much good.
German Light training planes ran on mostly 80 octane fuel but a few would run on 73 octane. These are the 4, 6 and 8 cylinder Hirth's, The 8 cylinder Argus and the 7 cylinder Bramo.
I don't think you are going to get many more gallons of fuel per barrel of base stock for these fuels.
Germans had made extensive use of Gliders for training in the late 20's and early 30's when under the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty.
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I have read that a pilot who is qualified in gliders,(sailplanes) makes a much better powered airplane driver. I believe the guy who landed the airliner in the Hudson was glider qualified.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
No no, the Germans still produced and gliders during the war. It is hardly known but there was a substantial production there...
I suppose a lot was meant for specific glider pilots. But also initial training happened sometimes on gliders. Just like the Japanese. It could be a back up for a lack of proper training aircraft.
And you're absolutely right on those aircraft which used the lower octane. But there too it all depended on which version. For instance the HM 504A and E didn't run on the same fuel. Also goes for the BMW 132 for instance. The difference here is when they were produced: there was a clear evolution towards engines with a higher octane fuel.
Perhaps this could be reversed and aircraft could use these older type engines again. Let me also explain why I think this is important. I know you won't produce more of these fuels but the difference is that there was still a flow of low-grade natural oil when the synthetic factories were out of order. That way at least basic training could still continue and thereby still delivering new recruits.
And like I said, most of the weapons and fighter training could also happen on lighter aircraft (with Argus As 10) engines.
Of course this is all a what-if story, what the Germans could have done to keep their Luftwaffe operational. The problem of lack of fuel has to be linked to that of the pilots. Both were an equal threat to the survival of the Luftwaffe.
And one more thing, I would also start producing powered gliders and use those for (very) basic training. These had engines of 15-25 hp, much like that of a VW Kubelwagen. So fuel use was very limited.
Kris
I suppose a lot was meant for specific glider pilots. But also initial training happened sometimes on gliders. Just like the Japanese. It could be a back up for a lack of proper training aircraft.
And you're absolutely right on those aircraft which used the lower octane. But there too it all depended on which version. For instance the HM 504A and E didn't run on the same fuel. Also goes for the BMW 132 for instance. The difference here is when they were produced: there was a clear evolution towards engines with a higher octane fuel.
Perhaps this could be reversed and aircraft could use these older type engines again. Let me also explain why I think this is important. I know you won't produce more of these fuels but the difference is that there was still a flow of low-grade natural oil when the synthetic factories were out of order. That way at least basic training could still continue and thereby still delivering new recruits.
And like I said, most of the weapons and fighter training could also happen on lighter aircraft (with Argus As 10) engines.
Of course this is all a what-if story, what the Germans could have done to keep their Luftwaffe operational. The problem of lack of fuel has to be linked to that of the pilots. Both were an equal threat to the survival of the Luftwaffe.
And one more thing, I would also start producing powered gliders and use those for (very) basic training. These had engines of 15-25 hp, much like that of a VW Kubelwagen. So fuel use was very limited.
Kris
Shortround6
Major General
The Germans were short of fuel for trucks. And in the later stages of the war even did test runs of tanks on "producer gas" at the factories.
See: Wood gas generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THe 105hp take-off rated HM 504-A2 (4 liter) used 80 octane, not sure how much lower in power you want to go.
Although the smaller HM 60 (3.6 liter) would give 80hp for take off on 73 octane.
The BMW 132 was a bit large for a trainer engine, think P&W Hornet (27 liters) but the Bramo (Siemens) engine I refered to was a 7.7 liter engine of 160hp used in the Bücker Bü 133.
40-50 hp puts you in the Piper Cub area, helpful for the first few hours but not a lot of use after that.
Same with power gliders (although I may be talking out of my butt here) after just a couple of hours the question is not "is the student progressing at all" which he is but "how much progress is the student making per hour of flight time". At some point the student is going to have to start using a plane that is more challanging to fly even if it does burn 4-6 times the fuel per hour before he is stuck in a fighter or bomber (even old 109Cs or Do 17s)
See: Wood gas generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THe 105hp take-off rated HM 504-A2 (4 liter) used 80 octane, not sure how much lower in power you want to go.
Although the smaller HM 60 (3.6 liter) would give 80hp for take off on 73 octane.
The BMW 132 was a bit large for a trainer engine, think P&W Hornet (27 liters) but the Bramo (Siemens) engine I refered to was a 7.7 liter engine of 160hp used in the Bücker Bü 133.
40-50 hp puts you in the Piper Cub area, helpful for the first few hours but not a lot of use after that.
Same with power gliders (although I may be talking out of my butt here
) after just a couple of hours the question is not "is the student progressing at all" which he is but "how much progress is the student making per hour of flight time". At some point the student is going to have to start using a plane that is more challanging to fly even if it does burn 4-6 times the fuel per hour before he is stuck in a fighter or bomber (even old 109Cs or Do 17s)
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That is true. However the shortage of aviation fuel is more critical. Unless you have fuel to combat allied bomber attacks Germany will quickly go into a death spiral as they destroy industrial infrastructure.
The only serious solution I can think of is production of the Jumo004A engine and Me-262 beginning in 1943. This requires deletion of something else that was produced historically like the Type XXI submarine program. But at least the factories and rail system will not get bombed to rubble.
The only serious solution I can think of is production of the Jumo004A engine and Me-262 beginning in 1943. This requires deletion of something else that was produced historically like the Type XXI submarine program. But at least the factories and rail system will not get bombed to rubble.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Of course they were short on all fossil fuels. But it was nowhere as bad as it was with aviation fuel because 99.99% came from the chemical industry.
And of course these light engines and aircraft are not a substitute for the larger and heavier ones. But they can take over a part of it which means a serious reduction in fuel consumption.
Kris
And of course these light engines and aircraft are not a substitute for the larger and heavier ones. But they can take over a part of it which means a serious reduction in fuel consumption.
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
1943 Recon Aircraft Production
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
78 x Fw-200
394 x Ju-88
105 x Ju-188
23 x Ju-290
150 x Me-110
20 x Me-410
The earlier Ju-86 recon aircraft were powered by 1,000 hp Jumo207B diesel engines. Perhaps the recon version of the Ju-88 or Ju-188 could be powered by similiar diesel engines. This diesel powered recon aircraft would replace the 750 or so gasoline powered aircraft produced historically. That should make a small dent in the shortage of aviation gasoline.
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
78 x Fw-200
394 x Ju-88
105 x Ju-188
23 x Ju-290
150 x Me-110
20 x Me-410
The earlier Ju-86 recon aircraft were powered by 1,000 hp Jumo207B diesel engines. Perhaps the recon version of the Ju-88 or Ju-188 could be powered by similiar diesel engines. This diesel powered recon aircraft would replace the 750 or so gasoline powered aircraft produced historically. That should make a small dent in the shortage of aviation gasoline.
Glider
Captain
Gliders are very good at training people in the basic use of the controls, in the discipline involved in flying circuits and most importantly take offs and landings.
Powered gliders were not viable in the 30's and 40's due to the level of technology.
Today we use the words Glider and Sailplane when talking about the same thing. However in the ww2 period there were distinct differences. Basically a glider, glided ie it didn't have the ability to climb. Sailplanes could climb (thermal) given the right conditions but they didn't come close to having the performance of even the most basic machine of today.
To save fuel I would use Gliders for the initial training transferring to primary trainiers after the initial weeding out process. It wouldn't save a huge amount but it would help.
Powered gliders were not viable in the 30's and 40's due to the level of technology.
Today we use the words Glider and Sailplane when talking about the same thing. However in the ww2 period there were distinct differences. Basically a glider, glided ie it didn't have the ability to climb. Sailplanes could climb (thermal) given the right conditions but they didn't come close to having the performance of even the most basic machine of today.
To save fuel I would use Gliders for the initial training transferring to primary trainiers after the initial weeding out process. It wouldn't save a huge amount but it would help.
Shortround6
Major General
True, and perhaps a few specially designed trainers might have helped a bit.
I have kind of like the Gotha Go 149 since I saw a picture of it. Some sort of small wing High performance fighter trainer that uses a 240hp engine rather old real fighters with 700-1100hp engines might have allowed a few dozen more hours of training for the same amount of fuel.
Or even an acrobatic monoplane with a 160hp straight 6? French 140-150hp Four?
The Germans had around 3400 Bücker Bü 181s (the plane in "the Great Escape") but they probably should have started mass production much sooner.
Shortround6
Major General
Nope. The Junkers diesels, while quite inovative were also rather heavy for the power produced and while the weight savings in fuel did cancel out the heavy weight of the engines on long distance flights (mail flights across the south atlantic.) and the ease of turbo chargeing (cooler exhaust gases) help make some very high altitude recon planes, the weight and bulk of the engines does tend to limit their usefulness in high speed aircraft. That and the less the steller performance in the roles they did try them in.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I'm not expecting anyone to put a diesel in the Me-109. 
I realize that diesel powered recon aircraft aren't the best. But they might be a better solution then running out of fuel for fighter pilot training.
I realize that diesel powered recon aircraft aren't the best. But they might be a better solution then running out of fuel for fighter pilot training.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Shortround, I was thinking about the Skoda-Kauba SK V-4
Skoda-Kauba SK 257
And yes those diesel engines become very bulky. 1000 HP seem to be the max I also have thought a lot about using them more. But here's my suggestion which I think you'll like. I would power the Ju 52 and Do 24 with Jumo 207 diesel engines.
Now here's the fun part. We all agree that the Luftwaffe should have cooperated better with the submarine wolfpacks, right? But except for some Fw 200s; He 177s and Ju 290s the Luftwaffe failed to provide the U-boats with recon information. Now imagine the Do 24 (which was in fact supposed to get diesel engines) with Jumo 207s and with Hohentwiel airborne radar. Both the submarines as the Do 24 work on diesel. So ... why not refuel the Do 24s at sea? That way they could fly at least twice as long. Plus, these are seaplanes which means they can also land near the subs to bring them a badly needed repair part, or mail, or to evacuate a wounded sailor...
Also the bigger BV 222 was supposed to get 6 Jumo 207s.
Kris
Skoda-Kauba SK 257
And yes those diesel engines become very bulky. 1000 HP seem to be the max I also have thought a lot about using them more. But here's my suggestion which I think you'll like. I would power the Ju 52 and Do 24 with Jumo 207 diesel engines.
Now here's the fun part. We all agree that the Luftwaffe should have cooperated better with the submarine wolfpacks, right? But except for some Fw 200s; He 177s and Ju 290s the Luftwaffe failed to provide the U-boats with recon information. Now imagine the Do 24 (which was in fact supposed to get diesel engines) with Jumo 207s and with Hohentwiel airborne radar. Both the submarines as the Do 24 work on diesel. So ... why not refuel the Do 24s at sea? That way they could fly at least twice as long. Plus, these are seaplanes which means they can also land near the subs to bring them a badly needed repair part, or mail, or to evacuate a wounded sailor...
Also the bigger BV 222 was supposed to get 6 Jumo 207s.
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That sounds good to me.
Fixing the aviation gasoline shortage cannot be accomplished with any single action. 1943 Germany needs a comprehensive program.
- Use gliders for training to the maximum extent possible.
- Use diesel engines for transport and recon aircraft to the maximum extent possible.
- Put the Jumo 004A engine and Me-262 into production on at least a limited scale as a bomber destroyer.
- Use Me-410s as night intruders vs RAF Bomber Command. Me-262s have replaced them for the daytime mission.
These actions will save German aviation fuel and provide increased protection for the synthetic fuel plants.
Shortround6
Major General
Planes powered by the JUMO Diesels include;
JU 86 both civil and military bombers and include about 40 of the extended wing,/pressure cabine "P" model used as a high altitude recon machine, also experimantal "R" models up to 52,000ft.
The BV 138 Flying boat, almost 300 built.
THE BV 139 long range float plane, 1 built.
The above mentioned BV222 version.
Dornier 18 twin engined flying boats.
Dornier 26 4 eingined flying boats. (3)
The above mentioned DO 24 prototypes.
THe JUMO diesels could weigh about 200-250lbs more than an equivilent 9 cylinder radial NOT including the liquied cooling system.
On a three engined machine you could be looking at a difference of 1300-1500lbs depending on what you allow for coolant and radiators/pumps, etc. On a Ju 52 that could be 6-8 men on a short flight.
The trade-off is they do get better economy, on the order of 66-75% while cruising so for long range flights (over ocean recon) they do show an advantage. It was found that they didn't like sudden changes in RPM and were not well suited for combat use, at least the ones used in Spain.
THe Russians, French, British and Americans also experimented with Diesels.
THe American Guiberson was about the size and weight of a P&W Wasp JR. but put out 340HP vrs the Wasp JR's 450HP. IF you rigged a Wasp JR to run on 73 octane gas it would give you 300hp.
Russians flew some combat missions with Diesel powered 4 engined bombers but the same airframes seem to have been repowered a number of times with different engines.
JU 86 both civil and military bombers and include about 40 of the extended wing,/pressure cabine "P" model used as a high altitude recon machine, also experimantal "R" models up to 52,000ft.
The BV 138 Flying boat, almost 300 built.
THE BV 139 long range float plane, 1 built.
The above mentioned BV222 version.
Dornier 18 twin engined flying boats.
Dornier 26 4 eingined flying boats. (3)
The above mentioned DO 24 prototypes.
THe JUMO diesels could weigh about 200-250lbs more than an equivilent 9 cylinder radial NOT including the liquied cooling system.
On a three engined machine you could be looking at a difference of 1300-1500lbs depending on what you allow for coolant and radiators/pumps, etc. On a Ju 52 that could be 6-8 men on a short flight.
The trade-off is they do get better economy, on the order of 66-75% while cruising so for long range flights (over ocean recon) they do show an advantage. It was found that they didn't like sudden changes in RPM and were not well suited for combat use, at least the ones used in Spain.
THe Russians, French, British and Americans also experimented with Diesels.
THe American Guiberson was about the size and weight of a P&W Wasp JR. but put out 340HP vrs the Wasp JR's 450HP. IF you rigged a Wasp JR to run on 73 octane gas it would give you 300hp.
Russians flew some combat missions with Diesel powered 4 engined bombers but the same airframes seem to have been repowered a number of times with different engines.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
