SwampTiger
Banned
With Seelowe, you don't need the Battle Fleet. Cruisers, destroyers and torpedo/gun boats should do fine.
I'm not so sure. They took a hell of a lot of precautions and made a lot of preparations for invasion, up to and including bombing the ports where the barges were assembling. Supposedly the Royal Navy was highly reluctant to risk surface ships in the Channel too, so there was real worry about an invasion attempt.
Is this morphing into a Sealion thread?
Anyway, as is usual with these kind of tgreads, we can see the multiple clairvoyant PODs while the enemy sit back fat, dumb and happy.
While I appreciate this as an intellectual exercise, it needs to be accepted that it is very close to ASB. If one of us went back in time with a desire to help Hitler it could be possible. Without time travel it is not.
Any idea if the He116 could have been reengineered with the Jumo 205 engine?
The dry weight of the engine was nearly triple that of the Hirth engines, but the power was better more than triple and it used diesel fuel. It already had a range of over 2500 miles with the very low powered Hirth engines, so I'd imagine it would increase a lot with the greater power.
If not the Argus 410 engine was only 50% heavier, but about 75% more powerful. And if not that then the Gnome Rhone 14M was twice as heavy as the Hirth, but at least 2.5x as powerful depending on the model of the Hirth.
As a recon/transport aircraft it would have been quite a bit cheaper than the FW200.
That would make sense, I suppose the question is whether it could/should have a payload.Perhaps stick just two 205s in lieu of 4 Hirths?
True...but faster climb rates and air speed will help reduce consumption during the most costly parts of flight. Add in the supercharging and performance at altitudes with less air resistance will improve and help with overall fuel consumption.Any more powerful gasoline engine will mean greater consumption.
On the other hand, seems like the Hirth engines didn't used a lot of supercharging, so perhaps a bit better Argus engines might be a better choice still?
That would make sense, I suppose the question is whether it could/should have a payload.
True...but faster climb rates and air speed will help reduce consumption during the most costly parts of flight. Add in the supercharging and performance at altitudes with less air resistance will improve and help with overall fuel consumption.
Not sure where you got the 1200PS from, each Jumo 205D (595kg dry) produced 880PS each so 2x 880= 1760PS for take off.He 116 have had 960 HP total (!!) for take off for dry weight of 850 kg, two Jumo 205 diesels offer 1200 PS for take off for dry weight of 1200 kg. Total payload for the historic He 116 seem to be 2800+ kg (= difference between empty aircraft and take-off weight at least).
More fuel burned, but for a shorter period of time. It could either even out or decrease overall consumption during the climb period.Faster climb rates are a result, among ohter things, of more fuel burned. But indeed, cruising at higher altitudes should improve range.
Not sure where you got the 1200PS from, each Jumo 205D (595kg dry) produced 880PS each so 2x 880= 1760PS for take off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205#Specifications_(Jumo_205D)
Any idea what sort of performance boost would come from such an increase in power and reduction in necessary wing area/propellors?Whoops, my bad, I went for the 1st round number. Indeed 880 PS seem to be the correct value for the era we're interested.
Any idea what sort of performance boost would come from such an increase in power and reduction in necessary wing area/propellors?
Or the weight difference between the Jumo fuel and gasoline?
Japanese bested Germans in low-power radials (750-1200 HP), but BMW 801 was one notch above Japanese radials, only Homare and Ha 42 equaling it in raw power.
R-1535 and A.74 don't buy anything to the Germans, too low power offered there. R-1830 on 87 oct fuel is no great shakes either, and supercharger pre-1941 is indifferent. G&R K14 is a host of reliability problems and low power, cured somewhat with N14 series, and fixed too late with R14, that introduced central bearing, bulked up internals and 2-speed supercharger. German use of N14 and R14 in combat A/C represents an interesting what-if.
At the end of the day, like the UK, Germany managed to create succesful aircraft and effective airforce without great radial engines since their V12s were very good/excellent early in the war and imeditely pre-war.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
FWIW:
link1
link2
Junkers themselves crammed 4 rows of 50kg bombs + 4 tilted racks, side-a-side, in bomb bay of Ju 88 (items 1-24 are 50kg bombs; 'Vorderer lastraum' = 'front payload space', roughly):
View attachment 441833
Span of stabilizers of 50 kg bomb was 280mm, vs. 470mm on the 500 kg bomb. So we have two 500 kg bombs side-a-side in less than 1000mm, and 4x 50 kg bombs that require 1120 mm + space for 4 racks + distance between bomb columns.
...
The vertical bomb load, like on the He-111, is an interesting idea. Limited to 250 kg bombs, but 8 of these are quite a firpower anyway.
As for the Ju 88 carrying bigger bombs internally as-is, in horizontal position, indeed they will not fit due to the length. Hence no change to core design of the bomber, but relocating the wing into a more convenient position.
The Kasei entered production at the same time as the BMW 801 and had slightly lower power. Later models got up to over 1800hp...but then the late model BMWs got up to 2000hp or more (the 2400hp model wasn't ready by the end of the war).I thought the Kasei was better than the 801, being lighter and more fuel efficient in spite of slightly larger diameter... plus the 801 reliability problems, specially in 1941-42..
At that point why not just the Do26? Same engines, extreme range, from an underutilized company, and didn't require major redesigns.And in defense of the Ural bombers, they were clearly handicapped by need to use the early and weak engines BUT, that also opens the very interesting possibility of them using 880PS Jumo 205D when they become available in 1939. Specially for a naval scenario.
The Kasei entered production at the same time as the BMW 801 and had slightly lower power. Later models got up to over 1800hp...but then the late model BMWs got up to 2000hp or more (the 2400hp model wasn't ready by the end of the war).
But you're right, it was something like 240kg lighter than the BMW, which meant it had significantly better weight to power ratio. The Kasei did have it's own issues as well early on, so other than the weight savings it wasn't necessarily a better engine overall.
At that point why not just the Do26? Same engines, extreme range, from an underutilized company, and didn't require major redesigns.
I'm rather impressed by how starting on page one mention was made that the software matters more than the hardware, and yet 90% of the posts are nuts and bolts.
Planes always prettier than people...
But yes, the biggest issue was the people at the top, problem zero, that was a given, so the discussion moved on to what "those other people" could do hardware wise.