"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter

[z42]

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.

We had a thread recently that got quite close to that suggestion at Focke Wulf light fighter

 

[tomo pauk]

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

Thank you for the effort to list out the numbers from that source.

On the another thread in this forum (link), Christer Bergstrom ("The Battle of Britain, an epic conflict revisited" book) paints a different picture, with Bf 110 having an even greater kill/loss ratio than I've stipulated.

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.

A side elevation of the 2-seater Ta 152 might've helped to illustrate the point? Although I'd suggest that the cockpit is moved much more forward, so the visibility over the nose is substantially improved.
The motor-cannon was not working with the DB 601A-powered aircraft (be that German, Italian or Japanese types), and the MG FF will not work as a synchronized weapon, so perhaps two cowl LMGs + 2 wing LMGs + two MG FFs in the wings?
Annular radiator might shave some drag vs. the beard radiator, but not by too much IMO. Jumo 211-powered version perhaps in service by 1941, should've been far more survivable than the Ju 87.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Thank you for the effort to list out the numbers from that source.

On the another thread in this forum (link), Christer Bergstrom ("The Battle of Britain, an epic conflict revisited" book) paints a different picture, with Bf 110 having an even greater kill/loss ratio than I've stipulated.

All causes,
The Luftwaffe Quartermaster notes 663 Bf109 and 224 day and 22 night Bf110 fighters lost July to October 1940, the Battle of Britain Then and Now notes 665 Bf109 and 253 Bf110 lost 10 July to 31 October.

Wood and Dempster as of 11 July the RAF at home had lost 515 fighters, as of 31 October it was 1,657 lost, difference 1,140, Battle of Britain Then and Now notes 1,086 fighter losses 10 July to 31 October, including 379 Spitfires and 597 Hurricanes. The weekly figures in Wood and Dempster Battle Casualties week ending 18 July to week ending 2 November are 388 Spitfire and 605 Hurricanes. Week ending 11 July saw 13 Spitfires and 22 Hurricanes lost. The August and September losses include 23 Hurricanes and Spitfires destroyed on the ground.

Giving two sources which are consistent. A third source to which I was given a summary, a 2005 USAF study, has figures that fit with the above.

The figures being quoted on the Me110 underrated topic are Bf109 534 losses, Bf110 196 losses, Spitfire 394 losses and Hurricane 603 losses. The Luftwaffe Quartermaster thinks 502 Bf109 and 224 Bf110 were lost in combat July to October, the Quartermaster says around 2.75 Bf109 lost to 1 Bf110, the Bergstrom 2.25 to 1, quite a significant difference. This compares with a 3.25 to 1 ratio Bf109 to Bf110 in the units deployed against England as of 10 August.

At the moment the Me110 underrated topic losses appear to be combat for the Luftwaffe and all causes for the RAF. When it comes to claims the Luftwaffe fighters have around 1,050 versus 1,029 RAF fighter combat losses then add losses from other commands, the two main RAF fighters 1,265 claims compared with the Luftwaffe reporting 1,385 aircraft destroyed by enemy action. I can only assume the claim totals are in fact post war research verified. Yet the online Luftwaffe claims have 225 by ZG and LG(Z) units, which are the wartime awards and 2,216 claims by all fighter units, the Bergstrom figures quoted are half the online lists. Given over claiming we know happened to get to 290 post war verified you would expect totals like 600 or more wartime claims.

The data I have is the Bf110 lost more in air combat than it shot down, the Bf109, Spitfire and Hurricane shot down more than they lost. The Bf110 units were losing something like 2 to 3 aircraft for each aircraft they shot down.

Meantime using the Battle of Britain Then and Now is a rather loose way, 180 Bf110 reported shot down by enemy fighters, along with 379 bombers, while 44 RAF fighters reported shot down by Bf110 and 97 by bombers. I say loose because RAF loss causes include "fighters", plus 181 to enemy aircraft and 40 unknown, while 117 Luftwaffe losses are listed to unknown causes and 69 to AA fire.

 

[tomo pauk]

G Geoffrey Sinclair , thank you again for the figures.

One of the things that might've put the Bf 110s in disadvantage was that, once past the Bf 109 radius (assuming no drop tank, since the drop tanks appeared almost at the end of the battle), they were the only fighters providing the escort. That put them in a numerical disadvantage, and there was no performance advantage to negate that. My scenario, while doing nothing wrt. the performance of the not-110, can allow for the greater number of them to be providing the LR escort.
The Norway-based 110s have had additional disadvantage due to the fat fuel tank under the belly; on the 1-engined type, the 300L droppable tanks might be a more elegant option here?

The 'ideal' math (ie. two of the 'new' fighters instead of one 110) gives 1500 of the not-110 produced instead of the 750 DB-powered Bf 110s before July of 1940. Expecting that ideal math is achieved in the real world is fools errand, so there might be perhaps another 500-600 additional fighters produced instead of 750? This more than doubles the number of LR fighters for the start of the BoB, so instead of 300-something LR fighters, the LW has 600?
Yes, LW will need to train more pilots, the lower fuel consumption of the not-110s can pay a lot of the flying time for the novices.

Extra 150-250 of the DB 601s not used by German aircraft production between early 1940 and mid-1940 can be shipped to Italy, so more of the MC.202s and/or Re 2001s can be produced. Even more can be saved during the following war years, benefiting not only the Italian airforce.

 

[MIflyer]

-W built a total of 39 R-2600s in 1938. What they were sticking them I don't know.

Sikorsky Flying Boats.

An odd thing was that the Japanese thought that their interceptors ought to be tough and heavy airplanes while everyone else visualized interceptors as light and fast climbing. They had a "heavy fighter" version of the Ki-61. In contrast, everyone else thought that escorts should be large, heavily armed airplanes while the Japanese used the incredibly lightweight Zero to great effect in that role.

The Mustang Mk I was quite possibly the first fighter to be designed around the "right" size. It was large enough to be able to carry enough fuel for much longer range, and the RAF pilots' first thought was that the thing was too big to be a fighter. And thanks to double supercharging it had enough power and high altitude performance to get the job done without having an even larger airframe and larger displacement engine. Note that the Merlin had fewer cubes than the WWI Liberty engine, and was the smallest displacement first rate front line engine of the entire war.

 

[tomo pauk]

An odd thing was that the Japanese thought that their interceptors ought to be tough and heavy airplanes while everyone else visualized interceptors as light and fast climbing. They had a "heavy fighter" version of the Ki-61. In contrast, everyone else thought that escorts should be large, heavily armed airplanes while the Japanese used the incredibly lightweight Zero to great effect in that role.

Japanese Navy wanted the heavy fighter for the long-range escort, and was willing to pay for the J1N - a 2-engined fighter size of Bf 110 (and of the much worse performance). Eventually, J1N was never used it that role.

The Mustang Mk I was quite possibly the first fighter to be designed around the "right" size. It was large enough to be able to carry enough fuel for much longer range, and the RAF pilots' first thought was that the thing was too big to be a fighter. And thanks to double supercharging it had enough power and high altitude performance to get the job done without having an even larger airframe and larger displacement engine. Note that the Merlin had fewer cubes than the WWI Liberty engine, and was the smallest displacement first rate front line engine of the entire war.

Hurricane was a bigger aircraft than the Mustang, so perhaps we should not believe the stories? Typhoon was even bigger, and much heavier.
Mustang was size of the Spitfire, whose generous internal volume was not packed with fuel tanks because the customer was not asking for it. Spitfire was also a great fighter with the double S/C on the Merlin, both of the fighters starting out with more humble superchargers.

 

[MIflyer]

Hurricane was a bigger aircraft than the Mustang, so perhaps we should not believe the stories?

I recall in his book Patton's Gap a Mustang MKI RAF pilot said that they considered the Mustang huge, bigger than the Spit and Hurri. Of course that long nose and wide tracked landing gear may have conveyed size that was not entirely there.

 

[Zmauky]

When we talk about the Spitfire (as a two-seater fighter), then we should also mention the actual project Supermarine type 305. It also has a turret with 4 machine guns.
There's a bit of history in BSP 1935-1950 by Tony Buttler and in Spitfire The History.

Statistics;
37ft span 30" 6' length 242sq ft wing area 5650lb all up weight 1x 1000hp Merlin Estimated maximum speed 315mph @ 15000ft. Armament 4x0.303" Lewis guns in rear turret.

and more:

A turret equipped Spitfire?

British WW2 Turret Fighter Projects

The thread is about turreted fighters, but still interesting, there are also a few single-engined ones. I admit it doesn't solve the German question, but at least someone believed in the concept.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Japanese Navy wanted the heavy fighter for the long-range escort, and was willing to pay for the J1N - a 2-engined fighter size of Bf 110 (and of the much worse performance). Eventually, J1N was never used it that role.


Hurricane was a bigger aircraft than the Mustang, so perhaps we should not believe the stories? Typhoon was even bigger, and much heavier.
Mustang was size of the Spitfire, whose generous internal volume was not packed with fuel tanks because the customer was not asking for it. Spitfire was also a great fighter with the double S/C on the Merlin, both of the fighters starting out with more humble superchargers.

Here are some aircraft sizes from my collection of Profiles...

Aircraft	Version	Wingspan	Length	Weight empty	Weight loaded
Hurricane	IIc	40ft	32ft 2in	5,658lb	7,544lb
Spitfire	IXc	36ft 10in	31ft 1in	5,634lb	7,900lb
Mustang	D	37ft	32ft 3in	7,125lb	10,100lb
Typhoon	IB	41ft 7in	31ft 10in	8,280lb	11,700lb

The Spitfire has the original rudder. I assume the Mustang is carrying lots of fuel. I double checked the length of the Typhoon from another source and I believe it to be correct. I guess that whatever else you might say about the Napier Sabre, it was compact. Profile_100 for the Mustang B and C does not provide specifications. Drat!

Definitely, the P-51D Mustang was around the same size as a Spitfire and Hurricane, but it was heavier. Definitely and not surprisingly, the Typhoon was bigger than the others.

 

[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....

If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.

Make the DB606 work, helping out the He177 program while they are at it. In theory, you get double the power, without the frontal area and friction drag of two engine nacelles.

 

[z42]

If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.

Make the DB606 work, helping out the He177 program while they are at it. In theory, you get double the power, without the frontal area and friction drag of two engine nacelles.

"Make it work" might be easier said than done.

My recipe, as I mentioned back on page 1 of this thread, would be to cancel every DB engine project but the 601/605/603, and focus on those. In particular, don't put the 603 on hold for several years.

If two 603's aren't enough for the He 177, use four of them in the standard tractor configuration like the rest of the world did.

Some info about the DB double engines:

Daimler-Benz DB 606, DB 610, and DB 613 Doppelmotoren

The Daimler-Benz DB 606, DB 610, and DB 613 aircraft engines were created by coupling two respective DB 601, DB 605, or DB 603 together. The large and heavy doppelmotoren proved troublesome.

oldmachinepress.com

 

[tomo pauk]

If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.
Make the DB606 work, helping out the He177 program while they are at it. In theory, you get double the power, without the frontal area and friction drag of two engine nacelles.

In practice, the DB 606 was two 601s clamped together

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

thank you again for the figures.

Rather than thanks then move on, I would prefer something along the lines of why the different figures from Bergstrom, why they contradict all the established literature about Bf110 day fighter effectiveness and which set of figures is more credible.

Turn up in a larger/heavier fighter and that extra stuff needs to provide a real performance advantage or you lose. The Bf110 had that edge in Poland, Norway, early desert fighting and in the east for a time. It sort of had it in France thanks to its reputation, did not have it over Britain.

One of the things that might've put the Bf 110s in disadvantage was that, once past the Bf 109 radius (assuming no drop tank, since the drop tanks appeared almost at the end of the battle), they were the only fighters providing the escort. That put them in a numerical disadvantage, and there was no performance advantage to negate that.

Beyond the well known Luftflotte 5 raids how many Luftwaffe Battle of Britain day raids were done beyond Bf109 range? I would not be surprised once the close escort orders were made that Bf110 drew that duty more than Bf109 due to the Bf110 greater range and the need to cruise at bomber speeds, not optimum Bf110 speeds.

Alfred Price indicates there were 25 bombers and 150 Bf109s in the first raid on 15 September 1940, the second raid was 340 Bf109s, 20 Bf110s and 117 bombers. That is 6 fighters per bomber in the first raid and around 3 fighters per bomber in the second raid. The bombers took unacceptable losses. That suggests a major problem for the Luftwaffe, if three fighters per bomber was not good enough then how could it bomb the UK by day?

The Bf109G-6 carried a 115 litre MW50 tank. Your 1939 update, Bf109E with the aerodynamic clean up seen in the F, plus fully enclosed main undercarriage, the armament and cowling of the G-10, with the 30mm cannon option, changing the MW50 tank to fuel would up range by around 50%, or to Bf110C range. Find a way to add a couple of wing tanks if further range is required, then add the 300 litre or more external tank. The aerodynamic clean up compensating for the extra weights.

Given knocking Britain out of the war was a prime objective firstly expand Bf109 production using the historical Bf110 resources at say 1.5 Bf109 to 1 Bf110, the DB601 released are better used by the Luftwaffe unless you are sure the 1940 operations will leave Britain fighting.

The one time I managed to have an extended close up look at a Spitfire and Mustang side by side I was struck by how much bigger the P-51 fuselage looked volume wise. That big radiator housing mostly.

 

[Howard Gibson]

In practice, the DB 606 was two 601s clamped together

The Rolls Royce Vulture supposedly was two Peregrine engines stuck together. They probably could have got it working if they had kept at it, but other things were working and needed more development to get maximum performance. Everybody's resources were finite.

If you are going to load more stuff in your aircraft, you need more power, somehow. The British and Americans who developed 2000HP engines made a good call, even if these weren't ready for 1939.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's say that RLM/LW by some time of 1935 is open to the attempt to fulfill the requirements for the 'destroyer' aircraft by an 1-engined aircraft.

So, a German P-47 Thunderbolt. High speed, stable firing platform, long range, six heavy guns with large magazines, air cooled, well armoured and able to accept enormous damage and return home.

What possible engines and turbo/super chargers are in development in 1935-38 to get such an 8 ton beast into service? Some oversized, turbo BMW 801? Though it's hard to imagine the little Fw-190's engine in something the size of the P-47.

 

[tomo pauk]

Rather than thanks then move on, I would prefer something along the lines of why the different figures from Bergstrom, why they contradict all the established literature about Bf110 day fighter effectiveness and which set of figures is more credible.

I don't have his book, so trying to came out with the answer to the question of why is not in the cards now.

Beyond the well known Luftflotte 5 raids how many Luftwaffe Battle of Britain day raids were done beyond Bf109 range? I would not be surprised once the close escort orders were made that Bf110 drew that duty more than Bf109 due to the Bf110 greater range and the need to cruise at bomber speeds, not optimum Bf110 speeds.

Bad tactics and doctrine will put the 110s - both historical and the 'one halves' - in a disadvantage indeed.

Alfred Price indicates there were 25 bombers and 150 Bf109s in the first raid on 15 September 1940, the second raid was 340 Bf109s, 20 Bf110s and 117 bombers. That is 6 fighters per bomber in the first raid and around 3 fighters per bomber in the second raid. The bombers took unacceptable losses. That suggests a major problem for the Luftwaffe, if three fighters per bomber was not good enough then how could it bomb the UK by day?

LW can play as a team - ie. going all-in - and hope to get favorable results, or they can to go piecemeal and get harmed badly.
Bombers being slow and with weak defensive armament did not help with the situation.

The Bf109G-6 carried a 115 litre MW50 tank. Your 1939 update, Bf109E with the aerodynamic clean up seen in the F, plus fully enclosed main undercarriage, the armament and cowling of the G-10, with the 30mm cannon option, changing the MW50 tank to fuel would up range by around 50%, or to Bf110C range. Find a way to add a couple of wing tanks if further range is required, then add the 300 litre or more external tank. The aerodynamic clean up compensating for the extra weights.

Given knocking Britain out of the war was a prime objective firstly expand Bf109 production using the historical Bf110 resources at say 1.5 Bf109 to 1 Bf110, the DB601 released are better used by the Luftwaffe unless you are sure the 1940 operations will leave Britain fighting.

I'm not that cocky to suggest that my scenario here is the cure to the LW woes of second half of 1940. It is a thought experiment and a discussion about that. Germans can certainly have far more fighters if they just forget the whole idea of 2-engined day fighters, and start outfitting the Bf 109s with drop tanks by 1939. A 400 L drop tank was probably workable (= still has enough of ground clearance) for the 109s.
Aerodynamic cleanup by winter of 1940 (say, cantilever tail, retractable tailwheel, indeed wheel well doors, better ram air intake...) can not add 20-30 km/h, but also give better mileage.
30mm option in 1940 is probably off, though. The DB 601As were not conductible for the motor cannon installation.
Wing tanks were installed on the 2-seat versions of the Buchon (needed because the 2nd cockpit meant that the main tank is now much smaller), however the place for the wing guns is much reduced by that.

There is also a thing of the bombers doing their part; while pretty capable for 1940, there was a lot to improve upon that lot. Even a not flashy, decent 4-engined bomber with 9 cyl radials is a major improvement over the many Do 17s and Ju 87s used during the BoB.

The one time I managed to have an extended close up look at a Spitfire and Mustang side by side I was struck by how much bigger the P-51 fuselage looked volume wise. That big radiator housing mostly.

I reckon you've saw the Merlin Mustang in that occasioon? These were with fatter bellies than the Allison Mustangs, while Spitfire's radiators were on the completely different place, making the fuselage of a far more slender appearance than that of the Mustang.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Could we consider the Fulmar as a single-engine destroyer fighter? It's slow, large, heavily armed and stable. When it comes to twin-seat, single-engined fighters was there anything better than the Fulmar through 1941?

 

[z42]

The Rolls Royce Vulture supposedly was two Peregrine engines stuck together. They probably could have got it working if they had kept at it, but other things were working and needed more development to get maximum performance. Everybody's resources were finite.

If you are going to load more stuff in your aircraft, you need more power, somehow. The British and Americans who developed 2000HP engines made a good call, even if these weren't ready for 1939.

Slapping two Peregrines together might have been the original idea behind the Vulture, but then it quickly turned out it wasn't so easy. IIRC they needed bigger bore spacing for the Vulture, so they needed new cylinder and head castings anyway. And so on.

And yes, like you say, with more elbow grease and time they probably could have made the Vulture work.

Calum Douglas put it very well in the conclusions of his book:

.. it is generally best to pick one solution to a problem, accept that it's not perfect, concentrate on it exclusively, and begin producing and developing it as soon as possible. Unless the concept provides a generational step-change, such as the jet engine, any avant-garde idea will probably require so much development that during the no doubt limited time available, your competitors will have developed themselves ahead of you. This was precisely what occurred with every novel engine of WWII, from the British sleeve-valve Sabre and Centaurus, to every single one of the American entrants into the US Army Air Corps 'Hyper-engine' programme, and the multitude of exciting German experimental engines such as the BMW 802, the DB 628, and the Jumo 222.

...

The simple conventional engines, such as the Merlin, V-1710, DB 601, and P&W R-2800, were the great successes of the war. .... The much-lauded Merlin is a plain and unremarkable engine in most fundamental respects.

 

[tomo pauk]

Some versions that might've been wrt. the not-110:
- Bf 113C-4 (or He 113C-4) - fast bomber, up to three 250 kg bombs, or one drop tank and two bombs
- Bf-113D - same as the 113C, but with the DB 601N; three MG FFM and two MG 17s as front-firing guns (340+ mph)
- 113E, similar to the 113C but with DB 601E and with 3 MG-151 cannons, no MG 17s, rear gunner later getting the MG 81Z;
- 113F, the 1st night fighter version, based on the 113E; also much used as an night intruder
- 113G, the mainstream night fighter version, powered by the DB 605A, with radar, speed figures reverted to what the early 113C did since the aerials and flame dampers added a lot of drag
- 113H, the LR day fighter version of the 113G, 360 mph (later 370 mph with the fully rated engine)
All of these later versions are with 3 racks for tanks/bombs. All speed figures are for the 'clean' A/C.
- 113K, the version that gets the belly surgery so, instead of the fuel tanks, it now has a good (for an 1-engined A/C) bomb bay for a 1000 kg bomb; wing does not house any guns so the additional fuel tanks go there; only guns installed are the one motor cannon and the rear gun

The 113s get produced to the tune of ~9000 copies; there is no Me 210.

- Bf (He?) 313, a version powered by the BMW 801 engine

- Bf (He?) 413, the major redesign, powered by the DB 603 engine

 

[tomo pauk]

The -213 (BMW power spin-off); top speed of some 620 km/h 'clean' on the fully rated BMW 801D and with two 20mm:
- tank-buster version, with two 30 mm cannons in gondolas; drag penalty is considerable: cost of 15-20 km/h
- bomber-buster, with 4x 20mm cannons, later with 2x MK 103 in gondolas, also later with 2x 20 and 2x MK108,
- bomber buster with 2x MK 103s, each partially 'hidden' in the bulge reminiscent to the small 'doppelreiter', with smaller drag penalty than the gondolas; heavier weight of the -213 dampens the effects of the recoil when compared with the Fw 190 armed with MK 103s
- ground attacker, combines 20mm cannons, bombs and rockets
- rockets also used for attacking the bomber streams by the fighters