AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

JAG88

Banned
Germans tested 1898 (!) RZ-65 rockets by 5th June 1939, 384 of them from aircraft (W 34, Fw 58, Bf 110).

Yeah, the problem is how do you implement them without being counterproductive?

rz651.jpg


bfdd59a3786a514dbd1f04fe032993fe.jpg


They would have needed to design an aircraft nose like this one... on a Bf110, maybe? Instead of what they eventually did with the Natter.

5454940632_c34b97e3c7_b.jpg
 

JAG88

Banned
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.

There is certainly much ground to cover on that field...

Beginning with the KM not hiding radar from the LW, the LW not taking the KM's aircraft, getting rid of Gorings people, getting rid of Raeder, better technical training for the KM personnel, better basic training for the LW pilots, more LW pilots, a true OKW...

In the end means "less nazis" in nazi Germany... x'D
 

JAG88

Banned
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


More fuel burned, but for a shorter period of time. It could either even out or decrease overall consumption during the climb period.

Was the Jumo 205 ever considered for "twinning" as in the DB606? I know of other derivatives, but not of this particular possibility. 2 of these side bu side would have been a very efficient use of space:

12969070175_e7af629024_b.jpg


Being 132cm tall and 55cm wide.

A diesel He 119 would have been something...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

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.
Both matter; since the software was not really realistically upgradeable thing, the best upgrades are with the nuts and bolts

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.
The purpose built military bombers were wildly inferior to the Do26 civilian plane for long range naval recon. As the Luftwaffe decided IOTL, it was simply better to start from scratch then develop a flawed design.

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.
Might as well try to dieselize the FW200 rather than bother with making the Do19 work.

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.
An expended He116 with the Jumo 205s might well be an option with some development.
 

Deleted member 1487

JAG88

Banned
Both matter; since the software was not really realistically upgradeable thing, the best upgrades are with the nuts and bolts


The purpose built military bombers were wildly inferior to the Do26 civilian plane for long range naval recon. As the Luftwaffe decided IOTL, it was simply better to start from scratch then develop a flawed design.

Yeah, but just how flawed were they? We have a few numbers and little else to form an opinion, but we know the Ju89v2 did manage to reach 9.000m with a 10t payload hinting at what could have been achieved. I believe that they were scrapped due not of actual problems, but due to the fact that they were planned around weaker engines and better offers were already in the horizon, engines that would need a new fuselage to get the best out of them. But getting one of them in service in order to train crews and develop a bombing doctrine would have certainly been useful rather than end with 3 different types of medium bombers, if they can waste, lets make them waste in something different at least.

The Ju89 flew with 10t to 9.000m on 900PS engines, surely it could have done long range trips with 880PS diesels with fuel to spare... and the aircraft ended up doing EXACTLY THAT, well, not with diesels, as the Ju 290, after a leisurely long development period that made it into a civilian airliner and then into a MPA.


Might as well try to dieselize the FW200 rather than bother with making the Do19 work.

Also an option, also a civilian aircraft that literally broke under operational stress.


An expended He116 with the Jumo 205s might well be an option with some development.

Something along those lines, with a less brain-dead leadership such an aircraft would have been a must, you cant see crap out of a Uboat conning tower in the high seas, you need eyes above.
 
I was talking of a simpler and dirtier twinning ala DB606, mating 2 simgle engines to a single shaft via gears:

While I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, the issues the 606 and 610 had in the Heinkel 177 suggest it would be anything other than simple. You could argue that a lot of those issues were down to the installation, but trying to put such a large engine in a period airframe without spoiling the airflow around it is going to be problematic.
 

JAG88

Banned
While I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, the issues the 606 and 610 had in the Heinkel 177 suggest it would be anything other than simple. You could argue that a lot of those issues were down to the installation, but trying to put such a large engine in a period airframe without spoiling the airflow around it is going to be problematic.

Apparently it worked well in the He119 and Ju288 so you are right that I would point to the installation as being the major culprit, but not sole, and regarding airflow I want it inside an He 119, so no problem there. :biggrin:
 
Might as well try to dieselize the FW200 rather than bother with making the Do19 work.

The problems with the Fw200 were fairly fundamental. A huge amount of work had to be done to fit gun positions and the bomb aimer's position. The bomb racks were fitted outside to avoid compromising the monocoque structure. The undercarriage (especially on early models) was weak and maintenance like removing the wings could not be done at unit level. All in all it was a bit of a dog, while the Do19 was at least designed from the outset as a military aircraft and, with some work, could have done the job IMHO far more efficiently.
 
Apparently it worked well in the He119 and Ju288 so you are right that I would point to the installation as being the major culprit, but not sole, and regarding airflow I want it inside an He 119, so no problem there. :biggrin:

Indeed, but the DB 606 that was fitted there OTL was pretty tightly tailored. Getting it in there could require either some extensive redesign or a very large sledgehammer.
 

JAG88

Banned
Indeed, but the DB 606 that was fitted there OTL was pretty tightly tailored. Getting it in there could require either some extensive redesign or a very large sledgehammer.

True, it would have to be designed around it, just as it was around the 606 IRL, the 205 is 30cm taller.
 

Deleted member 1487

No, that is a different beast, a romboid engine:

junkers-jumo-224.jpg


I was talking of a simpler and dirtier twinning ala DB606, mating 2 simgle engines to a single shaft via gears:

image-jpg.519836
Right. I think due to the layout it would have to at least be tripled like the Deltic, as it would otherwise be too unbalanced. But then I'm not an engineer.
 

Deleted member 1487

The problems with the Fw200 were fairly fundamental. A huge amount of work had to be done to fit gun positions and the bomb aimer's position. The bomb racks were fitted outside to avoid compromising the monocoque structure. The undercarriage (especially on early models) was weak and maintenance like removing the wings could not be done at unit level. All in all it was a bit of a dog, while the Do19 was at least designed from the outset as a military aircraft and, with some work, could have done the job IMHO far more efficiently.
The Do19 was a bigger dog due to the wing structure. It would need such a major redesign as to be a new aircraft, as happened with the Ju89-90-290
 

JAG88

Banned
Right. I think due to the layout it would have to at least be tripled like the Deltic, as it would otherwise be too unbalanced. But then I'm not an engineer.

The odd thing is that Junkers had already done something similar, the 205 had TWO shafts, so the lower one was used to run the auxiliary equipment with the excess power geared up to join into powering the propeller shaft.

Junkers-Jumo-205-engine-24.png


Should be fairly straight forward... but I am no engineer either. :biggrin:
 

Deleted member 1487

What was the issue with the Do19s wing?
Very thick, long, and draggy to generate the extra lift necessary to cope with the low power of their engines. Plus the fuselage was exceptionally small and the bomb bay also smaller than the He111 to make up for the lack of power.
 
Start work on a on a stuka replacement just as it's entering service. It would be introduced in 1940 during the Battle of Britain are in the final stages of the battle of France.
A cheap easy to produce single-engine single-seat fighter bomber designed for maximum performance at low altitudes what cause the Allies no end of trouble.
 
Start work on a on a stuka replacement just as it's entering service. It would be introduced in 1940 during the Battle of Britain are in the final stages of the battle of France.
A cheap easy to produce single-engine single-seat fighter bomber designed for maximum performance at low altitudes what cause the Allies no end of trouble.
An earlier Fw-190 would fill that role nicely.
 
Start work on a on a stuka replacement just as it's entering service. It would be introduced in 1940 during the Battle of Britain are in the final stages of the battle of France.
A cheap easy to produce single-engine single-seat fighter bomber designed for maximum performance at low altitudes what cause the Allies no end of trouble.
FW190?
 
Top