"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter (1 Viewer)

[Zmauky]

And just at that time, while we were developing our two-seater He 112 fighter, we saw that someone had overtaken us in the concept, developed it, and sold it to a customer. Namely ... Alexander tried to sell the two-seater SEV-2XP back in 1935 at the tender for a new USAAF fighter regardless of the fact that it is a two-seater. (and later only the pilot remained and he renamed and converted the plane into a P-35). One of these 2PA-B3 versions (which Seversky was literally rebuilding on request) was purchased by Japan for missions specifically ordered by Tom. Fighter protection for bombers deep in enemy territory (in China).
As a conclusion of the success of the plane/concept, I will only say that some examples were sold for civilian use.

 

[Shortround6]

And just at that time, while we were developing our two-seater He 112 fighter, we saw that someone had overtaken us in the concept, developed it, and sold it to a customer. Namely ... Alexander tried to sell the two-seater SEV-2XP back in 1935 at the tender for a new USAAF fighter regardless of the fact that it is a two-seater. (and later only the pilot remained and he renamed and converted the plane into a P-35). One of these 2PA-B3 versions (which Seversky was literally rebuilding on request) was purchased by Japan for missions specifically ordered by Tom. Fighter protection for bombers deep in enemy territory (in China).
As a conclusion of the success of the plane/concept, I will only say that some examples were sold for civilian use.

There is only so much you can do with a certain size engine.
The Seversky "worked" because it had a decent engine and the competition often was less than stellar. China used mostly biplanes during the 30s and often not the the lasted versions.
The Seversky also used two rcmgs in the cowl and a single gun out the back. It also used integral tanks (sealed wing structure ) for the range.
Adding several hundred pounds of armament and some sort of protection to design means either poorer performance or something has to be taken out.
If you want the armament of a twin engine fighter with long range in a single engine machine you have to be very, very clever. There were real reasons why designers went to twin machines for certain roles.

 

[don4331]

Not quite. Very early R-2600s were offering 1500hp to take-off and 1200hp at 5400ft. These were single speed engines and showed up in spring of 1937.
There is also some confusion as to just what fuel they needed. Legend says they were the first to use 100 octane fuel (US 100 octane not British 100 octane).
They may have been able to run on 90 or 95 octane fuel. They were used in the first 6 Boeing 314 Clippers which first flew in 1938. First commercial flight in Feb 1939 (?)
These early engines ran at 2300rpm for take-off and 2100rpm "normal".
The later A-314s got an improved R-2600 that offered 1600hp for take-off at 2400rpm and 1350hp at 5000ft at 2300rpm "normal".
This later batch (6) of aircraft were a bit delayed after the first batch and the British bought 3 of them after Pan Am cutback/canceled trans-Atlantic flights to Europe because of WW II and especially after the fall of France.
C-W built a total of 39 R-2600s in 1938. What they were sticking them I don't know. The First B-23 was completed in mid 1939.
By late 1938 the chances of exporting much of anything much more advanced than Piper Cubs to Germany was pretty much over.

Well, Willi got his mitts on an R-1830 for Bf.109 V.21, so there were obviously ways...

And you only need 1 or 2 for prototypes, then you put the pressure on BMW/DB to supply a German engine.

There are couple other alternatives:

Z Zmauky 's two seater Bf.109 - i.e. Bf.109 V.52 aka G-12; I'd use an annual radiator on DB601 - moving the radiator forward along with the extra weight of the bigger engine vs Jumo 210 to balance the rear seater and better radiator. Space where radiators were in wing for extra fuel (There's of course temptation to increase the wing area to keep wing loading...reasonable).​

​

British have it easy - They already have the Vulture and they've installed it in a Henley. Swap the outer wing panels for those off Hurricane with 8 - 0.303s and you have your Zerstörer. We can replace 4, then all RCMGs with 2, then 4 Hispanos...​

 

[Howard Gibson]

Let's say that RLM/LW by some time of 1935 is open to the attempt to fulfill the requirements for the 'destroyer' aircraft (that, by that time, do not include the gun turrets and bomb load) by an 1-engined aircraft. Requirements still include the long range ( so it can serve in it's primary task, that of bringing the fight to the enemy fighters above the enemy territory), crew of 2, as well as suitable guns' armament.
Companies mostly respond, by 1936, with a fighter powered by the DB 600C engine with the 'beard' radiator, A/C being kinda-sorta 'big fat Bf 109', or something that is sized between the future British fighters (Hurricane and Spitfire). Wing profile of the winning design - let's call it the Bf 113 - is 2R1 16 at root (vs. the Bf 109's 2R1 14.2 and 110's 2R1 18.5). Fighter is of modern looks, with cantilever wing, retractable U/C, while the radioman can also operate the defensive MG, fuel carried is 650L in the internal tanks. At 1st, the firepower is 4 LMGs and two MG FF cannons. By late 1938, DB 601A is the engine installed.

Thus the questions:
- how much this scenario is worse for the LW than the Bf 110 historical scenario from 1939-1942?
- where is this 113 scenario better than the 110 scenario, apart from the obvious (= almost a double number of aircraft is possible for the same resources spent)?
- plausible future upgrades, improvements, new tasks?

This sounds a lot like a Fairey Fulmar.

The problem with any long range fighter is that it must be bigger and heavier than the interceptor, air superiority, and/or dog fighters it must face in combat. The extra crewman only makes things worse. The concepts only work if you have some technological advantage like two-stage superchargers, high octane fuel, bigger engines, or an enemy who still uses biplanes. Two engines provide decent power loadings to big, heavy aircraft.

For a fast, single-engined multi-seat aircraft, how about the Nakajima C6N "Myrt"? This was armed only with one defensive rifle calibre machine gun, and it probably was not stressed for aerobatics. It was light and fast, and it made an excellent reconnaissance aircraft.

If you must compromise the performance of your aircraft by adding seats and gadgets, you need to get it all back be leaving out other stuff, like heavy guns.

Most versatile aircraft have grossly superior performance. You can give up some of that to add some additional capability.

I understand a two-seat P-51 Mustang flew over the D-Day beaches. What equipment was removed to make room for Dwight Eisenhower?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, Willi got his mitts on an R-1830 for Bf.109 V.21, so there were obviously ways...

The R-1830 was around 5-6 years older than the R-2600, depending on exact milestones. Commercial export had started before things heated up quite so much in Europe.
One account says it was an unused engine from a batch intended for the Ju-90 airliner. First US Military use of an R-1830 was on the Martin B-14 bomber.

One built and after testing converted to a B-12 with P&W R-1690 Hornets (which the Germans had licensed)

And you only need 1 or 2 for prototypes, then you put the pressure on BMW/DB to supply a German engine.

And you really don't gain much.
The 1600hp (and under) R-2600 had the 5th production delivered March of 1938.
The 1700hp version had work started in Nov 1938, first engine run on Nov 1939 and 5th engine delivered in June 1941, This is the engine in the B-25, the Avenger and others.
They changed a few (sarcasm) things, like switching from a forged aluminum crankcase to a forged steel crankcase.
For the US it took around 2-3 years to go from initial work to 5th engine delivered. Even when going from an existing design to a "modified" design. P&W set a near record going from the R-2800 A to the R-2800 B series engines. And they had all the original drawings, material specifications and tooling designs, and two working production lines.

 

[yulzari]

I think we have established that the heavy fighter needs to be bigger than a single seat 'normal' fighter and we see that the only way to carry about that more weight is to increase the power over that of the 'normal' one and the only way to do that in the short term is to use two engines. Once there is a more powerful engine it will go into the 'normal' single seater. Thus the Whirlwind.

 

[Timppa]

Fighter is of modern looks, with cantilever wing, retractable U/C, while the radioman can also operate the defensive MG, fuel carried is 650L in the internal tanks. At 1st, the firepower is 4 LMGs and two MG FF cannons. By late 1938, DB 601A is the engine installed.

-P-51D airframe, canopy extended for rear gunner with single MG 81
- rear fuselage tank removed, 180gals=680 litres still left
- 2 to 4 MG/FF wing cannons
- DB 601 instead of heavier V-1650
- not heavier than actual P-51D

Speed about 380 mph

 

[tomo pauk]

This sounds a lot like a Fairey Fulmar.

Nah.
Fulmar is/was too big and thus too draggy, there is no need for this fighter to be navalized (adds the unnecessary complexity and weight), no fuel tank between the crew members (adds to the length of the fuselage = heavier & draggier than needed), and no low-altitude engine (use the 'normal' engine so the altitude performance is not hurt more than needed). Think a bit bigger 2-seat P-40, but with German engine, metric measurements, early availability etc.

For a fast, single-engined multi-seat aircraft, how about the Nakajima C6N "Myrt"? This was armed only with one defensive rifle calibre machine gun, and it probably was not stressed for aerobatics. It was light and fast, and it made an excellent reconnaissance aircraft.

If you must compromise the performance of your aircraft by adding seats and gadgets, you need to get it all back be leaving out other stuff, like heavy guns.

Myrt was certainly interesting, trick is that the German lookalike will need a BMW 801 to mimic it, and that means 1941 and on. The not-110 is needed already in 1939, so the V12 engine is a must. So the not-110 will be looking much more like the D4Y Judy, with a bit thinner belly (that will contain fuel tanks, not a bomb bay), again without any bit required for navalization, can do without the dive brakes, and does not require the Fowler flaps. So a much simple aircraft to make than the Judy (let alone than the Bf 110). As once can note, a lot of the stuff is left out.
Wings - place for guns & ammo, and perhaps for very small fuel tanks. Add the bomb racks and drop tank facility by 1940.
Once BMW 801 is available, by all means it should've been considered as one of engine choices, perhaps for the tasks of ground attack, as well as for mid-1942 to late1943 when the DB engines have serious reliability problems. Being bigger and heavier than the Fw 190, it might've been a good platform for two big 30mm cannons. The air-cooled BMW 801 with it's armored oil cooler has an appeal on the ground pounder. When compared with Myrt, the cockpit is smaller (2 crew vs. 3), no double-slotted Fowler flaps - Myrt was possibly and A/C with one of the most advanced set of wings that saw service in ww2 - and no navalization; again, we left a lot of stuff out.

Obviously, Germans will add protection both for crew and fuel system already by 1939-40, unlike the Japanese.

I understand a two-seat P-51 Mustang flew over the D-Day beaches. What equipment was removed to make room for Dwight Eisenhower?

Fuselage fuel tank?

I think we have established that the heavy fighter needs to be bigger than a single seat 'normal' fighter and we see that the only way to carry about that more weight is to increase the power over that of the 'normal' one and the only way to do that in the short term is to use two engines. Once there is a more powerful engine it will go into the 'normal' single seater. Thus the Whirlwind.

This is not a thread about 2-engine heavy fighters, but about 1-engined long-range fighter(s).

 

[Howard Gibson]

Nah.
Fulmar is/was too big and thus too draggy, there is no need for this fighter to be navalized (adds the unnecessary complexity and weight), no fuel tank between the crew members (adds to the length of the fuselage = heavier & draggier than needed), and no low-altitude engine (use the 'normal' engine so the altitude performance is not hurt more than needed). Think a bit bigger 2-seat P-40, but with German engine, metric measurements, early availability etc.

Myrt was certainly interesting, trick is that the German lookalike will need a BMW 801 to mimic it, and that means 1941 and on. The not-110 is needed already in 1939, so the V12 engine is a must. So the not-110 will be looking much more like the D4Y Judy, with a bit thinner belly (that will contain fuel tanks, not a bomb bay), again without any bit required for navalization, can do without the dive brakes, and does not require the Fowler flaps. So a much simple aircraft to make than the Judy (let alone than the Bf 110). As once can note, a lot of the stuff is left out.
Wings - place for guns & ammo, and perhaps for very small fuel tanks. Add the bomb racks and drop tank facility by 1940.
Once BMW 801 is available, by all means it should've been considered as one of engine choices, perhaps for the tasks of ground attack, as well as for mid-1942 to late1943 when the DB engines have serious reliability problems. Being bigger and heavier than the Fw 190, it might've been a good platform for two big 30mm cannons. The air-cooled BMW 801 with it's armored oil cooler has an appeal on the ground pounder. When compared with Myrt, the cockpit is smaller (2 crew vs. 3), no double-slotted Fowler flaps - Myrt was possibly and A/C with one of the most advanced set of wings that saw service in ww2 - and no navalization; again, we left a lot of stuff out.

Obviously, Germans will add protection both for crew and fuel system already by 1939-40, unlike the Japanese.

The Fulmar had lots of fuel to achieve long range, a man in the back seat to do all sorts of useful stuff, and all sorts of kit to make it carrier ready. It did 265mph under ideal conditions. Sacrifice some range and make the gas tanks smaller. Make the rear cockpit less capacious. Lose the carrier hardware. Make the wings smaller and thinner, and the radiator more efficient. Maybe you do 300mph. Don't fly into airspace that has Spitfires in it.

The good Japanese engines were radials, so they used radials. The Homare with water methanol injection put out close to 2000HP. The good German engine was the DB601. Do clever radiator design. The Myrt was effective because it was specialised. It's job was to locate American fleets and to fly home and report them. It needed to outrun US Navy aircraft. It did not heed to hang around and beat them up. There was no need for heavy armament. There was no need to stress the wings for aerobatics. There probably was no need for armour because you are not going to hang around and fight. The Myrt was carrier capable. You save weight when you remove the carrier hardware. Remove one of the three crew. You add weight when you add reasonable armament and protection. You add more weight when you stress the wings for aerobatics. In 1939, you are back down to 300mph, and you had best not mess with Spitfires.

 

[Howard Gibson]

-P-51D airframe, canopy extended for rear gunner with single MG 81
- rear fuselage tank removed, 180gals=680 litres still left
- 2 to 4 MG/FF wing cannons
- DB 601 instead of heavier V-1650
- not heavier than actual P-51D

Speed about 380 mph

Did they do laminar flow wings in 1938? The P-51D did 437mph at 25,000ft, in thin air way above the critical altitude of the DB601A.

The P-51D did 413mph at 15,000ft with a Packard Merlin putting out 1700HP almost certainly on 130 octane fuel. The DB601A puts out 1100HP. Speed is a function of the cube root of power. My conversion makes it 357mph. They don't know about laminar flow wings, so we lose more speed. The Bf-P51D maybe can out-run a Hurricane, but not a Spitfire. You cannot manoeuvre with the Spit and you cannot out-climb or out-run it.

Don't fly into airspace that has Spitfires in it.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Fulmar had lots of fuel to achieve long range, a man in the back seat to do all sorts of useful stuff, and all sorts of kit to make it carrier ready. It did 265mph under ideal conditions. Sacrifice some range and make the gas tanks smaller. Make the rear cockpit less capacious. Lose the carrier hardware. Make the wings smaller and thinner, and the radiator more efficient. Maybe you do 300mph. Don't fly into airspace that has Spitfires in it.

A British fighter that was at the top of the game, and thus worthy of taking a look is a Spitfire. So I'd rather have a 'fat Spitfire', that does 330+ mph (vs. Spitfire I doing 360, and vs. 109E doing 350), with the range to fly escort to the bombers and can be had in useful quantities, unlike the Bf 110.

The good Japanese engines were radials, so they used radials.

Pilots that flew the Ki-61s and many D4Y-1 and -2s would've been very much surprised on the suggestion that what they had under the hood was a radial engine.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Pilots that flew the Ki-61s and many D4Y-1 and -2s would've been very much surprised on the suggestion that what they had under the hood was a radial engine.

Was the Kawasaki Ha64 a good engine?

This radial versus "inline" dispute is a load of crap. We use the best engine available.

 

[Howard Gibson]

A British fighter that was at the top of the game, and thus worthy of taking a look is a Spitfire. So I'd rather have a 'fat Spitfire', that does 330+ mph (vs. Spitfire I doing 360, and vs. 109E doing 350), with the range to fly escort to the bombers and can be had in useful quantities, unlike the Bf 110.

The "fat" Spitfire would fly missions deeper into occupied Europe than the "skinny" Bf109Es did over Great Britain. Werner Molders and Adoph Galland need to work out tactics to exploit the Bf109E's superior speed and climb to avoid the escorting Spitfires.

The 88mm flak would be effective in daylight against British bombers at 15,000 to 18,000ft.

The Spitfire_Is and Bf109Es were very close in performance. If one of them had been grossly superior, they could add stuff to create a long range zerstorer.

 

[tomo pauk]

The "fat" Spitfire would fly missions deeper into occupied Europe than the "skinny" Bf109Es did over Great Britain. Werner Molders and Adoph Galland need to work out tactics to exploit the Bf109E's superior speed and climb to avoid the escorting Spitfires.
The 88mm flak would be effective in daylight against British bombers at 15,000 to 18,000ft.
The Spitfire_Is and Bf109Es were very close in performance. If one of them had been grossly superior, they could add stuff to create a long range zerstorer.

I've used the reference of the 'fat Spitfire' (as well as 'a little bigger 2-seat P-40', or a big fat Bf 109', or the 'German D4Y, but early') as something the Germans might've made, as per the premise of the thread.

 

[tomo pauk]

Was the Kawasaki Ha64 a good engine?

This radial versus "inline" dispute is a load of crap. We use the best engine available.

What aircraft flew with the Kawasaki Ha 64 in the nose?
Yes, Germans will be using the best engine - that is DB 601, in different versions, from late 1938 to 1941/42.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I've used the reference of the 'fat Spitfire' (as well as 'a little bigger 2-seat P-40', or a big fat Bf 109', or the 'German D4Y, but early') as something the Germans might've made, as per the premise of the thread.

"Thin" Bf109s were closely matched in performance by "thin" Spitfires. Your "fat" Bf109 needs to stay away from "thin" Spitfires somehow.

In combat between fighter aircraft, there is no such thing as adequate performance. You absolutely need to be as good as or better than your opponent. In 1944, the allies can do stuff with Mustangs because of laminar flow wings, high octane fuel and two-stage superchargers.

 

[tomo pauk]

"Thin" Bf109s were closely matched in performance by "thin" Spitfires. Your "fat" Bf109 needs to stay away from "thin" Spitfires somehow.

Bf 110s were not shy to enter an air combat during the BoB, and came from it with a positive kill/loss ratio, that was between the ratios of Spitfire and Hurricane. That is despite the disadvantage in raw performance vs. Spitfire, and the modest number of 110s used when compared with with how many 109s were used.
Further, not every British fighter was a Spitfire, and we know for sure that pilots of Hurricanes were not shy to enter the air combat vs. the 109s, despite an even greater performance disadvantage.

 

[tomo pauk]

Vajda notes more than 2400 of Bf 109E produced before the end of June 1940, and just some 750 of Bf 110 C and D - a ratio of 3.2:1. All of these 109s and 110s used the DB 601 engines. Production for the time of September to December of 1939 was 455 of the 109s vs. 188 of the 110s - ratio of 2.4:1.
(inventory on 31st Aug 1939, of just the DB 601 powered versions, was 95 of 110s and 904 of 109s)

My point is that the number of long range fighters can be much increased with the scenario of going 1-engined, without breaking the bank. A performance not worse than the 110s and greater availability of the fighters - by hundreds until BoF starts might be a handy asset to the LW, and a greater threat to the Entente.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Bf 110s were not shy to enter an air combat during the BoB, and came from it with a positive kill/loss ratio, that was between the ratios of Spitfire and Hurricane. That is despite the disadvantage in raw performance vs. Spitfire, and the modest number of 110s used when compared with with how many 109s were used.

Which reference indicates the Bf110 more than held its own in fighter combat over Britain in 1940?

Using the Narrow Margin (Wood and Dempster) Figures the Luftwaffe reported its Bf110 force lost 224 on operations, 11 on operations not due to enemy action and 17 not on operations, July to October 1940. The Luftwaffe Claims list is nearly complete, the ZG and LG(Z) units claimed 233 kills July to October 1940, 1 Blenheim, 71 Hurricane, 161 Spitfire but 20 of the clams were not accepted. This is out of 2,216 claims known to be lodged by the JG, NJG and LG units.

August 1940 fighter combat loss figure is 338 RAF versus 177 Bf109 and 114 Bf110 (total 291), and in September, 358 RAF versus 187 Bf109 and 81 Bf110s (total 268). Gives 696 RAF to 519 Luftwaffe or 1.34 to 1. The ZG units claimed 225 kills against their 195 losses, including some unaccepted. If the ZG units really did shoot down more than they lost say, 1.1 to 1, or 220 actual kills that leaves the Bf109 units with 364 losses against the remaining 468 RAF fighters lost, some of which were lost to bombers. If you assume 10% of RAF losses were to bombers, that leaves around 400 fighters shot down by Bf109 or around 1.1 to 1, or the Bf1110 by virtue of its superior range was the better fighter, or the worse as it had more crew and engines etc.

The number of RAF fighters lost is fixed, the better the Bf110 is reported the worse the Bf109 becomes.

Stephen Bungay in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy has a break down of RAF losses 10 July to 11 August 1940, of the 115 combat losses 87 were to Bf109, 6 to Bf110, 13 to Luftwaffe bombers, 4 to collision, 1 to flak, 1 to friendly fire and 3 to unknown causes. Of the 106 damaged RAF fighters 52 were due to Bf109s, 38 by bomber gunners. In this time period the ZG units lodged 26 claims, while losing around 22 to RAF fighters.

In effect 13% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners were shot down, compared with 62% of the fighters hit by Bf109, half the pilots in the fighters hit by Bf109s were killed, compared with 10% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners. The Bf109s hit 63 Hurricanes, 63 Spitfires, 6 Defiants and 7 Blenheims, shooting down 45 of the Hurricanes, 31 of the Spitfires and 11 of the Defiants and Blenheims. The bomber gunners hit 25 Hurricanes and 25 Spitfires, shooting down 11 Hurricanes and 2 Spitfires. In all 51 Hurricane and 25 Spitfire pilots were killed. A number thanks to inadequate air sea rescue.

When it came to RAF firepower around 70% of the bombers hit were destroyed, for Bf109s it was 77% of those hit destroyed.

289 Bf110s and 934 Bf109 deployed against Britain as of 10 August 1940, making the force 23.6% twin engine.

 

[Denniss]

What about something like Fw 190 airframe with DB 601, possible with slight fuselage extension to pack larger fuel tanks.
It could have an engine cannon + the two in the wing root.