AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

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.

That's because they didn't have the hindsight we have to know what a half arsed joke the German invasion plans were.
 
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.
 
Is this morphing into a Sealion thread?

Hopefully not. Task is to have the best LW possible on the technology of the day, in order to easily beat FAF and 'continental' RAF in Spring of 1940, beat RAF FC above England in Summer of 1940, so LW bombers can seriously hit the war-making capability of the UK.

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.

Alternate history is, well, alternate history. Some of proposals might get close to ASB, some might not, requiring simple math, geography, making use of small tech items that were already in service, and German leadership not believing in their cool aid (= UK will throw in the towel once France is out).
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Sorry I mentioned the unmentionable sea mammal.

The Luftwaffe needs for Walter Wever to survive. If he lights a fire under the bomber programs, you may see sufficient force applied to England's manufacturing base to alter the BOB. The Luftwaffe also needs much better intel on shadow factories, radar and British aircraft production.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
 
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.

Perhaps stick just two 205s in lieu of 4 Hirths?

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.

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?
 

Deleted member 1487

Perhaps stick just two 205s in lieu of 4 Hirths?
That would make sense, I suppose the question is whether it could/should have a payload.

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?
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.
 
That would make sense, I suppose the question is whether it could/should have a payload.

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).

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.

Faster climb rates are a result, among ohter things, of more fuel burned. But indeed, cruising at higher altitudes should improve range.
 

Deleted member 1487

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).
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)

With that much more power and depending on the fuel consumption between the 4x Hirth gasoline vs. 2x Jumo 205D diesel engines I wonder if the capacity would be increased as a result.

Also apparently the engine was further developed in 1939-40 as the Jumo 208, which produced 1100hp for take off and 770hp at altitude:
http://www.hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junkers-jumo-208.html

Faster climb rates are a result, among ohter things, of more fuel burned. But indeed, cruising at higher altitudes should improve range.
More fuel burned, but for a shorter period of time. It could either even out or decrease overall consumption during the climb period.
 

Deleted member 1487

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?
 
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?

He 116 was smaller A/C than Ju 86, so in a case both are powered by similar engines (turboed Jumo 205D) we'd get some speed advantage for the He 116. Perhaps 440 km/h at 9 km? Id' advise against decreasing the wing area, since we'd increase the weight of powerplant and fuel.
Diesel fuel was some 14-15% heavier than gasoline per unit of volume.
 

JAG88

Banned
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.

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.

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.
 

JAG88

Banned
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.

Are you sure? I think SC50s were 200mm overall:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuts...iten_Weltkrieges#Sprengbombe_Cylindrisch_(SC)

Which is why they could fit 4 in an ESAC 250:

detalles-del-esac2.jpg


I think the Ju88 could have been easily designed to take 6xSC250 internal (horizontal, I doubt ESACs would have fit) from the start but, again, this was supposed to be more of a fast "tactical" bomber and for that anything over 50Kg is actually overkill.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

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..
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.

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.
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.
 

JAG88

Banned
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.

Love the Do 26, always have, always will, and it used to be my first choice but that is a civilian 1938 plane, the Urals were 1936 planes and if developed they could be used from the start instead of just improvised into the role. The Dorniers were a bandage, not a designed solution.

So, in the context of a successful diesel Do-18 and less partisan LW/KM the long-range, low-power, land-based bombers under consideration become the logical option for a MPA, after all, flying boats suffer from extra drag. Makes sense for SAR of course, but for little else.

That or a specially designed 4x205C, land-based MPA for Uboat recce, the Do-18 would have made the decision obvious if not for the in-fighting. Overfly Britain at night, dawn already west of Ireland, daylight patrol, night return trip and landing. No bombs, the KM was constrained by "cruiser rules", so they would have simply been the much needed eyes for the submarines.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Banned
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... :biggrin:

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.
 
Planes always prettier than people... :biggrin:

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.

That still assumes that better decision makers reform the hardware instead of/much more than the software, and it still seems very little to me.
 
Top