AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

JAG88

Banned
OTL Twin-boomed Fokker DDIII used a pair of almost stock engines. It was easy to balance because the rear engine was just aft of the centre of gravity and the rear propeller was easy to mount slightly aft of the wings’ trailing edge.

OTOH Dornier 335’s more conventional configuration required a long drive shaft to balance the airplane. Long, light-weight drive shafts are complex engineering challenges with a variety of vibration problems that can reduce them to scrap metal in seconds! Long, tail-rotor drive shafts really only became practical after helicopters converted to - much smoother - turbine engines.
Long drive shafts also suffer when subjected to heavy G loads during aerobatics.
As for ejection seats ..... the first production ejection seats were installed in Heinkel Uhu night-fighters and saved the lives of several crew members during the later years of the war.

Yeah, but Dornier already had experience with those, and on a tilting engine at that...

dornier-do-26-construction-engines-jpg.468036
 
As for ejection seats ..... the first production ejection seats were installed in Heinkel Uhu night-fighters and saved the lives of several crew members during the later years of the war.

You've just reminded me of the horror story regarding the first German ejector seats. I won't recount it here in case anyone is eating, but it ain't pleasant.
 
All this speculation about Junkers 90-290 series reminds me that when Junkers 90 V5 prototype flew in December 1939, it was the first cargo airplane with a cargo ramp under the tail. We have discussed the subject extensively in the “Earlier airplanes with cargo ramps” thread.

WI in 1940, the Luftwaffe has a fleet of transport airplanes with cargo ramps?
Would they have invaded Denmark and Norway any quicker?
Would they suffer fewer casualties invading Holland?
Would they suffer fewer casualties invading Crete?
Would they have been able to properly re-supply Stalingrad?
 
All this speculation about Junkers 90-290 series reminds me that when Junkers 90 V5 prototype flew in December 1939, it was the first cargo airplane with a cargo ramp under the tail. We have discussed the subject extensively in the “Earlier airplanes with cargo ramps” thread.

WI in 1940, the Luftwaffe has a fleet of transport airplanes with cargo ramps?
Would they have invaded Denmark and Norway any quicker?
Would they suffer fewer casualties invading Holland?
Would they suffer fewer casualties invading Crete?
Would they have been able to properly re-supply Stalingrad?


I'm pretty sure the answer to your last question is a big fat no. Without getting off the sofa to consult Anthony Beevor on the subject, my recollection is that the gulf between what was needed and what was possible was so great that without a major, fundamental change to the whole Luftwaffe transport arm, they still wouldn't have been even close.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's true, but I wasn't comparing it to the time for the Do-335 to be ready for production and combat use; I was comparing it to the time to build the first Do-335 prototype (which I assume had a bunch of problems to work out as well). It still took a lot less time.
Sure, in part because the Do335 was the result of a spec change for a bomber project in Autumn 1942 after they were in the midst of starting to work on the prototype when the changes came in. Redesigns delayed the prototype until late 1943. Then of course the prototype had some with issues starting with the landing gear, which apparently was an issue with a lot of the early German tricycle landing gear designs. Then bombing in 1944 wrecked the tooling, which delayed introduction into production, despite being classed as a high priority project (on the same level as the Me262); apparently it was to have replaced the He219 lines, but Heinkel basically ignored that order, which of course pushing the Do335 back even more. At that point though given the bombing and generally production issues (including access to quality raw materials) it was going to probably be subpar production quality even if it did get into service. There was increased challenges with the Do-335 compared to the Fokker, because it used two DB603 engines, which were extremely powerful for a V-12 at that time and it torque the fuselage pretty hard as well as had increased cooling demands for the rear engines. The Fokker had it's own challenges and was just getting started on it's development cycle, but probably would have had to deal with less issues overall; the Do335 at least had the advantage of several years of prior development work on similar designs, so the prototype would just be ironing out the specific issues of the fighter/night fighter variants planned.

As for ejection seats ..... the first production ejection seats were installed in Heinkel Uhu night-fighters and saved the lives of several crew members during the later years of the war.
And killed several as well. Eric Brown relates the problems of the violent ejection of the design, which literally tore the arms off of some pilots when they pulled the eject lever, killing them more or less instantly from the shock it.

You've just reminded me of the horror story regarding the first German ejector seats. I won't recount it here in case anyone is eating, but it ain't pleasant.
Just saw your post after I finished mine. Yes apparently that is a real and horrible problem of the wartime design.


@JAG88 I haven't forgotten your post, just haven't had time to respond to the whole thing yet.
 
........ without a major, fundamental change to the whole Luftwaffe transport arm, they still wouldn't have been even close.
——————————————————————————

Yes, I am suggesting a major fundamental change to Luftwaffe transport command. Starting in the mid-1930s, make transport planes a part of Blitzkrieg, dropping beans and bullets to Panzers when they out-stripped horse-drawn wagons.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yep, but didnt you claim the Ju89 required a lot of effort to finally make a usable aircraft in the form of the Ju290?
No, I said there was a lot of effort put into the transition from the Ju89 to 90 to 290. It went from bomber to civilian airliner to military transport/long range recon aircraft/guided bomb carrier.
So that yes it did take a lot of effort to make the 290 out of the 89 part of that was the different demands out of the air frame it was more than would have been required to make a viable bomber out of the 89...but a viable bomber isn't the same thing as a worthwhile one for the effort vs. designing a better aircraft like the He177 was initially/could have been without the insane mods on it.

An airliner would have been concerned with economic cruise range overall, and yet that got worse in spite of the extra fuel.
Not really, it is a luxury passenger liner first, not a long range transport with customer comfort an afterthought.

If you have a large volume available it is easier to move and shift things around, I doubt it had crossbeams and pillars inside...
I can't find a cutaway to say one way or the other. The He177 for instance had issues with exactly that, the support structures prevented the bomb bay from being expanded or reconfigured, so later redesigns with the He277 included a larger fuselage to accommodate a better payload.

I'm not sure which aircraft that is from, but the Luftwaffe wanted the greenhouse cockpit like the late He111s and Ju188s had.

And, still, the LW always made changes in service and in this case no reason for them to not make changes to the prototype.
It certainly could be changed, the question is whether it would be worth it vs. starting fresh with a new design and use the lessons from the Ural Bomber project to make it better.

It kept growing and growing, requiring more powerful and scarce engines and fuel to the point of being way too expensive beyond a niche and specialized role.
Exactly, though they also had the He177 project so they could focus on making a niche aircraft.

Yes, its fuel.

It has more fuel and STILL less range, same engine, different variant, same cruise PS, weight is about the same so I would actually blame the new wing.
Yes, because it was a luxury airliner with a bunch of added internal comforts for passengers, such as enclosed cabins like on trains. Making it a passenger liner, besides the weight of all the added internal features (including kitchen or at least food and beverage storage) was the weight of passengers and luggage, same with the crew. The wing was only one change made to the design.

Still managed to do it, meaning you have a nice 10t payload for the bombload/range equation, and did so with 900PS engines, it would have entered service with 1200PS Jumo 211s before moving on to 1400PS ones.
Ok? It flew directly up over it's airfield. That is vastly different than flying to a defended target and bombing it. Even with a 1.6 ton payload it never even approached the Ural Bomber spec. Not only that, but that 10 ton weight wasn't simply the bomb payload it was all the weight they distributed over the aircraft, including defensive armament and ammo, armor, and fuel, etc.

I do... do you?
Yes, which is why I know bomb racks on engine wings aren't internal, nor is a welded on external bomb bay actually in the fuselage and adds a bunch of drag, not to mention caused the aircraft's 'back' to break due to the weight.

The gondola was an addition but still part of the aircraft, as were the turrets and other protrusions, but yeah, the 2 bombs behind the outer nacelles were semi-recessed but external.
Same with an external bomb rack, but that doesn't make it an internal feature of the aircraft. The point of an internal bomb bay is to have it enclosed in the fuselage so as not to add extra drag; putting an external bomb bay is worse than having external bomb racks in terms of drag, but it does then give positions for defensive guns and the bombardier to see from, given that the cockpit wasn't modified much for bomb aiming visibility.

Oh, that one is for another time and falls outside this scenario anyway.
ok

So no source.
Other than all the history of aircraft that gained weight being tougher to handle in flight. The Fw190F fighter-bomber was nowhere near as maneuverable as the fighter version due to all the extra armor even without bombs.

There is an equation dealing with that developed by John Boyd to come up with the light fighter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–maneuverability_theory

For the underpowered prototype, yes, but the aircraft had a huge 180m2+ wing for lift, which is why it managed the feat, and stronger engines in the pipeline to address the issue.
More wing means more drag; having more powerful engines means you can cut how much wing you have (not as much needed for lift at higher speeds) and increase speed and reduce drag and therefore increase range as well or at least leaving more residual energy for payload. Certainly without any changes more powerful engines would improve things to some degree, it is substantially less than it could be with a more aerodynamic overall design, not even mentioning the potential internal issues with expanding the bomb bay.
 

JAG88

Banned
No, I said there was a lot of effort put into the transition from the Ju89 to 90 to 290. It went from bomber to civilian airliner to military transport/long range recon aircraft/guided bomb carrier.
So that yes it did take a lot of effort to make the 290 out of the 89 part of that was the different demands out of the air frame it was more than would have been required to make a viable bomber out of the 89...but a viable bomber isn't the same thing as a worthwhile one for the effort vs. designing a better aircraft like the He177 was initially/could have been without the insane mods on it.

Yeah, but my point is you dont get the 290 out of the 89, you get it out of the 90 and that in itself cannot be used to judge the 89 given the changing roles, as we have seen, the 90 cannot be called an improvement on the 89 in any meaningful way.

Not really, it is a luxury passenger liner first, not a long range transport with customer comfort an afterthought.

In any case, not an improvement over the 89, is it?

I can't find a cutaway to say one way or the other. The He177 for instance had issues with exactly that, the support structures prevented the bomb bay from being expanded or reconfigured, so later redesigns with the He277 included a larger fuselage to accommodate a better payload.

I would assume they would use the same solution used on the contemporary Ju 88, ladders, as used in the Do 17, B 17 and 24, and with a 3m tall and 2,5m wide fuselage that buys a lot of bomb bay space. Being a conservative design I doubt they were trying to reinvent the wheel here.

I'm not sure which aircraft that is from, but the Luftwaffe wanted the greenhouse cockpit like the late He111s and Ju188s had.

Ju 89 of course.

A greenhouse would be rather simple to implement:

Junkers%2BJu.89%2B-%2BGER.png


Simply follow the existing fuselage lines and glass it.

It certainly could be changed, the question is whether it would be worth it vs. starting fresh with a new design and use the lessons from the Ural Bomber project to make it better.

It was worth it as a development type at the very least, a stepping stone to better things and insurance toward the future, the He 111 was no different in that regard.

Yes, because it was a luxury airliner with a bunch of added internal comforts for passengers, such as enclosed cabins like on trains. Making it a passenger liner, besides the weight of all the added internal features (including kitchen or at least food and beverage storage) was the weight of passengers and luggage, same with the crew. The wing was only one change made to the design.

All those things are internal and as such wont change the aerodynamics and range, it will simply detract from the payload. The wing was the relevant change between the V3 and V5, and I see no advantage there...

Ok? It flew directly up over it's airfield. That is vastly different than flying to a defended target and bombing it. Even with a 1.6 ton payload it never even approached the Ural Bomber spec. Not only that, but that 10 ton weight wasn't simply the bomb payload it was all the weight they distributed over the aircraft, including defensive armament and ammo, armor, and fuel, etc.

Nothing approached the Ural spec, what WW2 bomber could do a 5.000Km round trip over enemy territory and expect to be successful?

But... you only need a 1.000Km combat radius to cover all of the UK from Germany.

Yes, detract turrets, weapons, etc since it still didnt have them but... 910PS engines, by 1939 those would be more fuel efficient and aerodynamic 1200PS Jumo 211Bs, and in that aspect the 1200hp Twin Wasp-equipped ones were telling, compared to the V3 they provided a 3t payload increase, 35Km/h top and 10Km/h cruise speeds increase, and a 25% increase on fuel bought a 35% range increase due to more efficient engines.

Yes, which is why I know bomb racks on engine wings aren't internal, nor is a welded on external bomb bay actually in the fuselage and adds a bunch of drag, not to mention caused the aircraft's 'back' to break due to the weight.

Same with an external bomb rack, but that doesn't make it an internal feature of the aircraft. The point of an internal bomb bay is to have it enclosed in the fuselage so as not to add extra drag; putting an external bomb bay is worse than having external bomb racks in terms of drag, but it does then give positions for defensive guns and the bombardier to see from, given that the cockpit wasn't modified much for bomb aiming visibility.[/QUOTE]

If you add structures to the aircraft anything inside it and out of the slipstream is internal, the bomb bay was there to take advantage of the defensive gondola they were to get anyway.

Other than all the history of aircraft that gained weight being tougher to handle in flight. The Fw190F fighter-bomber was nowhere near as maneuverable as the fighter version due to all the extra armor even without bombs.

There is an equation dealing with that developed by John Boyd to come up with the light fighter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–maneuverability_theory

Fighter, a bomber doesnt rely on its limited maneuverability to accomplish its mission and, again, the new engines would help with this... problem?

More wing means more drag; having more powerful engines means you can cut how much wing you have (not as much needed for lift at higher speeds) and increase speed and reduce drag and therefore increase range as well or at least leaving more residual energy for payload. Certainly without any changes more powerful engines would improve things to some degree, it is substantially less than it could be with a more aerodynamic overall design, not even mentioning the potential internal issues with expanding the bomb bay.

Yes, and that was one of the 290 problems, yet more wing... the Ju89 didnt need more wing, a better one would have been nice, necessary? No, certainly not the one the 90 and 290 got, at least.

And you are right, the extra power might allow the Ju89 to just clip the wings and lower drag.

Starting anew as they did in 1937 pushes the service date into 1941, and that was simply very risky, no harm in doing both at the very least as a developmental program, bird in the hand and all that...
 
Starting in the mid-1930s, make transport planes a part of Blitzkrieg, dropping beans and bullets to Panzers when they out-stripped horse-drawn wagons.
They could have got a license to build the DC-3, like the Japanese and Soviets did.
They recognized a great plane, and given the technology of 1936, there is nothing better on the planet.

Want to drop cargo and not shove it out a side door? look what Douglas did with the B-18
b-18-bolo-walk-around.jpg

150720-F-IO108-007.JPG
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah, but my point is you dont get the 290 out of the 89, you get it out of the 90 and that in itself cannot be used to judge the 89 given the changing roles, as we have seen, the 90 cannot be called an improvement on the 89 in any meaningful way.
I don't think I said the 90 was an improvement on the 89, except as a transport thanks to the loading ramp.

In any case, not an improvement over the 89, is it?
Again, didn't say it was except as a transport, as they did make a militarized version as they adapted it from the 89.

I would assume they would use the same solution used on the contemporary Ju 88, ladders, as used in the Do 17, B 17 and 24, and with a 3m tall and 2,5m wide fuselage that buys a lot of bomb bay space. Being a conservative design I doubt they were trying to reinvent the wheel here.
Without knowing the layout of the equipment in the fuselage we cannot say for sure. The Ju88 was a pretty radical design at the time it was started for the German aviation industry.

Ju 89 of course.

A greenhouse would be rather simple to implement:

Simply follow the existing fuselage lines and glass it.
Relatively simple, but as part of the overall changes needed at that point it would require just as much work if not even a bit less to just design a new, more modern aircraft.

It was worth it as a development type at the very least, a stepping stone to better things and insurance toward the future, the He 111 was no different in that regard.
In that they'd be useful as trainers and experimental platform, I agree.

All those things are internal and as such wont change the aerodynamics and range, it will simply detract from the payload. The wing was the relevant change between the V3 and V5, and I see no advantage there...
It will change the weight and weight distribution. Plus IIRC even the airliner versions adapted the fuselage to add the read load ramp.

The wing is a pretty substantial drag factor.

Nothing approached the Ural spec, what WW2 bomber could do a 5.000Km round trip over enemy territory and expect to be successful?
B-29. Lancaster and He177 with a light load. Even the Ju288 was supposed to be able to with a lighter payload.

But... you only need a 1.000Km combat radius to cover all of the UK from Germany.
But you need better speed to survive night fighters. It would also help with making it harder for day fighters to intercept at altitude too. With 1.6 tons of bombs and who knows how much armor and defensive guns though, they were better off with the much cheaper He111s and Ju88s.
Better payload, acceptable defensive fire, faster, and much cheaper (at least 1 for every one Ju89).
How if they had B17-like performance of the 1942/43 variety in 1940 that would be a different story, as their ability to survive to target in the day would be much higher than the twin engine bombers due to the lack of British fighter cannons.

Yes, detract turrets, weapons, etc since it still didnt have them but... 910PS engines, by 1939 those would be more fuel efficient and aerodynamic 1200PS Jumo 211Bs, and in that aspect the 1200hp Twin Wasp-equipped ones were telling, compared to the V3 they provided a 3t payload increase, 35Km/h top and 10Km/h cruise speeds increase, and a 25% increase on fuel bought a 35% range increase due to more efficient engines.
Again sure, but not as much as could be had with a fresh design like the He177, especially if it required 4 years of development to get it in production...which means in 1940 when it would be too late to really matter in the west, but still potentially useful in the East, just not as much as the Bomber A design. Really the big problem was the lack of a non-dive capable, four engine He177. A 35% increase over the 1936 Ju89 prototype isn't really worth it.


If you add structures to the aircraft anything inside it and out of the slipstream is internal, the bomb bay was there to take advantage of the defensive gondola they were to get anyway.
Except the gondola was not outside the slipstream. It added weight the frame could not handle and increased drag. Of course they didn't really have an option considering the aircraft wasn't a bomber to begin with and was shoehorned into that role.

Fighter, a bomber doesnt rely on its limited maneuverability to accomplish its mission and, again, the new engines would help with this... problem?
Responsive, stable handling and good stall characteristics are important for every aircraft. The point of sharing the calculation wasn't to make a multi-engine aircraft that was maneuverable like a single engine, but the impact of weight and drag on the ability to maneuver, which impacts even the safe handling abilities of multi-engine aircraft for things like take off and landing, as well as stalling.

Yes, and that was one of the 290 problems, yet more wing... the Ju89 didnt need more wing, a better one would have been nice, necessary? No, certainly not the one the 90 and 290 got, at least.

And you are right, the extra power might allow the Ju89 to just clip the wings and lower drag.

Starting anew as they did in 1937 pushes the service date into 1941, and that was simply very risky, no harm in doing both at the very least as a developmental program, bird in the hand and all that...
The Ju290 was a very different aircraft than the 89, with a different role, so talking about the wings as if it was a simple upgrade is really missing a number of other factors.

The Ju89 probably needed more than just wing clipping, probably more a total redesign, which IIRC can change the tail as well to keep things in balance.

The reason that Walter Wever thought 1941 wasn't an issue was Hitler told him not to worry about a war before 1942. In hindsight you'd need a functional heavy bomber in production as of 1938 to have enough to be an improvement over 1940. Even 1939 is probably not enough time to build a strategic bomber force usable in time to improve on the force composition in 1940. Honestly Germany would probably be better served getting the Ju88 in service sooner by not adding the dive bombing requirement and ventral gondola, so they could phase out the Do17s in time for France, while also having enough time to work out the bugs from the first models. Because if you are going to build up a strategic bomber force it is going to come at the expense of smaller bomber production, while lacking some of the flexibility of the smaller bombers in terms of role. That could be somewhat mitigated if they had the fighter-bomber version of the Bf110 in service as of May 1940, but they wouldn't necessarily have the numbers to fully offset the loss of bombers in general, especially given that the Do17 used engines that were probably not suitable for strategic bombers or even the Bf110 (which was already somewhat underpowered with the 1940 DB601 engines as a fighter).

Had they opted for a less well performing tactical/light bomber to replace the Do17 they could have used the same engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_124

They could have got a license to build the DC-3, like the Japanese and Soviets did.
They recognized a great plane, and given the technology of 1936, there is nothing better on the planet.
IIRC they couldn't because of the foreign exchange crisis due to rearmament. They were going to license a US aircraft engine in 1935, but the cost convinced them not to. In the case of transport aircraft they had already a large stock of the older, cheaper Ju52, which were just cheaper to make. In the end the vastly better Ju252 was just too expensive to make, as it required bomber engines and too many other strategic materials needed for combat aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OTL Luftwaffe transport command was hampered by the obsolete Junkers tri-motor.
For comparison, Ford quit building corrugated Tri-Motors about the same time Junkers introduced the Ju52-3M. Yes, Junkers tri-motor was available in large numbers until 1940, but it was small and slow. Tante U’s door was too low for paratroopers to stand upright.
Large numbers of Ju52s were wrecked by Dutch AAA who were enthusiastic and accurate. Luftwaffe transport command never recovered from losses during the invasion of Holland.

ATL Junkers would have been wiser to develop 252 earlier and produce it in large numbers.
Eventually low-winged Junkers would be passed by high-winged Arado and Gotha transports because they could unload - bulky cargo - much quicker.

As an aside, I was lucky enough to make a skydive from the last Stout Pioneer Tri-Motor (updated Ford Tri-Motor). I enjoyed the stand-up cabin and tall door, but was “amused” by its “stately” progress across the California skies. Jump run was so slow that I seemed to free fall away vertically!

Note: I am comparing the Tri-Motor’s airspeed with popular jump planes like DHC-6 Twin Otter and Shorts Skyvan.
 

JAG88

Banned
I don't think I said the 90 was an improvement on the 89, except as a transport thanks to the loading ramp.

No, but you did claim the new wing as a positive, and as we have seen, it wasnt.

Without knowing the layout of the equipment in the fuselage we cannot say for sure. The Ju88 was a pretty radical design at the time it was started for the German aviation industry.

How weird would it be if two bombers, designed side by side by the same company, ended up with the FAR LARGER bomber having a smaller bomb bay... and one incapable of being expanded at that...

Relatively simple, but as part of the overall changes needed at that point it would require just as much work if not even a bit less to just design a new, more modern aircraft.

No, quite simple, you dont even need to modify the fuselage structure as in other bombers, mostly just change aluminum by glass.

It will change the weight and weight distribution. Plus IIRC even the airliner versions adapted the fuselage to add the read load ramp.

The wing is a pretty substantial drag factor.

Not drag, not speed, the ramp was added on the V6.

B-29. Lancaster and He177 with a light load. Even the Ju288 was supposed to be able to with a lighter payload.

Nope, the He 177 did not have the 5.000Km range needed to make the trip, at best managed 4.400Km with 1t bombs as per its data sheet.

No Ju 288 ever reached even 4.000Km, not with Jumo 222s nor with DB 610s.

And, finally, how do you find a target 2.500Km inside enemy territory at night? A 5.000Km daytime trip would be a bloodbath for ANY bomber.

But you need better speed to survive night fighters. It would also help with making it harder for day fighters to intercept at altitude too. With 1.6 tons of bombs and who knows how much armor and defensive guns though, they were better off with the much cheaper He111s and Ju88s.
Better payload, acceptable defensive fire, faster, and much cheaper (at least 1 for every one Ju89).
How if they had B17-like performance of the 1942/43 variety in 1940 that would be a different story, as their ability to survive to target in the day would be much higher than the twin engine bombers due to the lack of British fighter cannons.

It cruised as fast as the Lancaster and B17, of course, we cant know that for certain until fully armed and with production engines.

The He 111 was limited to SC250s internal, the Ju 88 SC50s... it wouldnt be hard to put much more lethal 8xSC500s on an aircraft as large as the Ju89 and end up with a better range and offensive payload than the 3xHe 111 that Kesselring claimed could be built for 2xJu 89s. Less crew as well.

With proper turrets after 3 years of development they could have them with 2xMG FF, belt fed, or with 2xMG17Zs, some real firepower.

Again sure, but not as much as could be had with a fresh design like the He177, especially if it required 4 years of development to get it in production...which means in 1940 when it would be too late to really matter in the west, but still potentially useful in the East, just not as much as the Bomber A design. Really the big problem was the lack of a non-dive capable, four engine He177. A 35% increase over the 1936 Ju89 prototype isn't really worth it.

“The best is the enemy of the good.”

"Bird on hand" and so on...

Oh, development began in 1935, first flight 1936, service 1939 at the latest since it had no problems during early testing. Just like the Ju 88 until someone decided to screw it up.

Except the gondola was not outside the slipstream. It added weight the frame could not handle and increased drag. Of course they didn't really have an option considering the aircraft wasn't a bomber to begin with and was shoehorned into that role.

Of course not, and I never said that!!!

They needed the gondola for defensive weapons and the inside for fuel, so they put the bombs in the gondola as the simplest solution, big deal.

Responsive, stable handling and good stall characteristics are important for every aircraft. The point of sharing the calculation wasn't to make a multi-engine aircraft that was maneuverable like a single engine, but the impact of weight and drag on the ability to maneuver, which impacts even the safe handling abilities of multi-engine aircraft for things like take off and landing, as well as stalling.

Great, so do you have a source for such problems? The new engines would provide enough power so it would no longer be underpowered.

The Ju290 was a very different aircraft than the 89, with a different role, so talking about the wings as if it was a simple upgrade is really missing a number of other factors.

Which is why I pointed out those wings appeared on the Ju90 and didnt help at all.

The Ju89 probably needed more than just wing clipping, probably more a total redesign, which IIRC can change the tail as well to keep things in balance.

That is a whole lot of probablys there...

The reason that Walter Wever thought 1941 wasn't an issue was Hitler told him not to worry about a war before 1942. In hindsight you'd need a functional heavy bomber in production as of 1938 to have enough to be an improvement over 1940. Even 1939 is probably not enough time to build a strategic bomber force usable in time to improve on the force composition in 1940. Honestly Germany would probably be better served getting the Ju88 in service sooner by not adding the dive bombing requirement and ventral gondola, so they could phase out the Do17s in time for France, while also having enough time to work out the bugs from the first models. Because if you are going to build up a strategic bomber force it is going to come at the expense of smaller bomber production, while lacking some of the flexibility of the smaller bombers in terms of role. That could be somewhat mitigated if they had the fighter-bomber version of the Bf110 in service as of May 1940, but they wouldn't necessarily have the numbers to fully offset the loss of bombers in general, especially given that the Do17 used engines that were probably not suitable for strategic bombers or even the Bf110 (which was already somewhat underpowered with the 1940 DB601 engines as a fighter).

Ah! The Hitler defense, Hitler had no control over when wars began, and any professional soldier, from any country, in any period of history, trusting such statements, from anyone, is either an idiot or lying...

...other people might declare war on you, specially if you are doing stuff you are not supposed to do... like bombers...

First successful trial on blind bombing aids was in 1935, 200 Ju89s might make a difference in 1940 with proper signals security and no enemy night fighters.

Question, what is a medium bomber good for?

Had they opted for a less well performing tactical/light bomber to replace the Do17 they could have used the same engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_124

IIRC they couldn't because of the foreign exchange crisis due to rearmament. They were going to license a US aircraft engine in 1935, but the cost convinced them not to. In the case of transport aircraft they had already a large stock of the older, cheaper Ju52, which were just cheaper to make. In the end the vastly better Ju252 was just too expensive to make, as it required bomber engines and too many other strategic materials needed for combat aircraft.

Just make a transport version of the Ju 89... wait!
 
Last edited:
IIRC they couldn't because of the foreign exchange crisis due to rearmament. They were going to license a US aircraft engine in 1935, but the cost convinced them not to. In the case of transport aircraft they had already a large stock of the older, cheaper Ju52, which were just cheaper to make. In the end the vastly better Ju252 was just too expensive to make, as it required bomber engines and too many other strategic materials needed for combat aircraft.
ATL Junkers would have been wiser to develop 252 earlier and produce it in large numbers.
Eventually low-winged Junkers would be passed by high-winged Arado and Gotha transports because they could unload - bulky cargo - much quicker.
The Ju 252 should have never been used as a cargo aircraft anyway. It was a completely private venture made as an airliner for Lufthansa, not built to any German military specification. The Ar 232 was the "official" replacement for the Ju 52 in military service, designed at the same time to meet an actual government specification, and it flew before the Ju 252. If they needed better transports faster, then they would have developed the Ar 232 earlier, the Ju 252 offered no advantages over it as a transport nor would it be available any earlier.
 

JAG88

Banned
The Ju 252 should have never been used as a cargo aircraft anyway. It was a completely private venture made as an airliner for Lufthansa, not built to any German military specification. The Ar 232 was the "official" replacement for the Ju 52 in military service, designed at the same time to meet an actual government specification, and it flew before the Ju 252. If they needed better transports faster, then they would have developed the Ar 232 earlier, the Ju 252 offered no advantages over it as a transport nor would it be available any earlier.

I like and earlier Go 242/244, cheap and simple...
 
Okay, so we have narrowed a “better 1940” Luftwaffe Transport Command to a mixture of Arado 232 and Gotha 244 transports. Meanwhile Junkers Tri-Motors are slowly phased-out by attrition.
 

Deleted member 1487

OTL Luftwaffe transport command was hampered by the obsolete Junkers tri-motor.
For comparison, Ford quit building corrugated Tri-Motors about the same time Junkers introduced the Ju52-3M. Yes, Junkers tri-motor was available in large numbers until 1940, but it was small and slow. Tante U’s door was too low for paratroopers to stand upright.
Large numbers of Ju52s were wrecked by Dutch AAA who were enthusiastic and accurate. Luftwaffe transport command never recovered from losses during the invasion of Holland.
Germany was much more constrained by engine availability and existing production lines than the US was (among other things), so was kind of trapped into making as much of what they had already in production as possible rather than waiting for something better and more expensive to come along. Plus they were quite rugged, which is a pretty huge consideration; the Fords stayed in use for decades after they exited production and the US military used them in WW2 themselves. They'd have used more, but Ford only made a few hundred of them.

Luftwaffe's transport command made a full recovery by 1941 (though lost the expansion potential of the force had they not lost so many in the Netherlands), but Crete smashed them up a bit again though they were still able to sustain any number of divisions in Russia in 1941. The real death kneel was Tunisia in 1943.

ATL Junkers would have been wiser to develop 252 earlier and produce it in large numbers.
The problem there is the lack of engine availability and need for strategic materials, which killed the project IOTL. Earlier there are even less of the necessary engines available.

Okay, so we have narrowed a “better 1940” Luftwaffe Transport Command to a mixture of Arado 232 and Gotha 244 transports. Meanwhile Junkers Tri-Motors are slowly phased-out by attrition.
Wee problem there, neither prototype flew before mid-1941...
Not really sure how you get an earlier version seeing as they required years of development.

The Ju 252 should have never been used as a cargo aircraft anyway. It was a completely private venture made as an airliner for Lufthansa, not built to any German military specification.
Started as such, but developed by the Luftwaffe starting in 1941 for their needs.

The Ar 232 was the "official" replacement for the Ju 52 in military service, designed at the same time to meet an actual government specification, and it flew before the Ju 252. If they needed better transports faster, then they would have developed the Ar 232 earlier, the Ju 252 offered no advantages over it as a transport nor would it be available any earlier.
No? They only made 20 and the Luftwaffe chose to keep the Ju52.

The Ju252 offered VAST advantages, which is they they even bothered to make the Ju352, which was to be the replacement for the 52. They made about 50 of those and only stopped because by 1944 there really wasn't a need for transports, a category they removed from production entirely, and they needed all the fighters they could possible make.

They should have started on something like the 352 at the start of the war instead of letting the development of the 252 go until 1941 when the prototype was ready and then waiting until nearly summer 1942 before asking for a redesign that resulted in the 352.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Go 242 was just a glider and relatively successful whereas the powered version, the Go 244 with French Gnome-Rhone engines, was a real dog. The engines were unreliable and handling with one engine out was dangerous bordering on suicidal. They quickly reverted to gliders.
 
WI we move the POD for Luftwaffe Transport Command back to the Spanish Civil War?

WI a few early Fallschirmjagers volunteer for the Condor Legion?

Fallschirmjagers prove the basic concept for delivering raiding parties by parachute and glider, but also reveal limitations in the RZ-1 harness and DFS 230 glider.
Demands for gliders capable of delivering larger raiding parties lead to earlier development of Gotha 242 assault gliders. When Gotha 242 proves its value, the powered version (244) gets decent engines ..... perhaps 1,000 horsepower Bramo radials .....
..... similar to Arado 232 development.
Since both new transports are developed earlier, they are manufactured before Luftwaffe goes on the defensive in 1943.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

WI we move the POD for Luftwaffe Transport Command back to the Spanish Civil War?

WI a few early Fallschirmjagers volunteer for the Condor Legion?

Fallschirmjagers prove the basic concept for delivering raiding parties by parachute and glider, but also reveal limitations in the RZ-1 harness and DFS 230 glider.
Demands for gliders capable of delivering larger raiding parties lead to earlier development of Gotha 242 assault gliders. When Gotha 242 proves its value, the powered version (244) gets decent engines
..... similar to Arado 232 development.
Since both new transports are developed earlier, they are manufactured before Luftwaffe goes on the defensive in 1943.
The only problem is that the inauguration of a parachute arm of the military was in 1936, right before the start SCW. The only opened the first jump school several months later and then spent the next couple of years building up an entire division. So they were pretty well occupied expanding from nearly nothing at the time the SCW was ongoing and the Germans never really used their own ground combat forces to fight in Spain. Maybe later in the war they could, but Germany also wanted to keep their capabilities in that area a surprise, which did help them somewhat in Norway, but when surprise was lost the Dutch learned an important lesson about how to counter them.
 
The only problem is that the inauguration of a parachute arm of the military was in 1936, right before the start SCW. The only opened the first jump school several months later and then spent the next couple of years building up an entire division. So they were pretty well occupied expanding from nearly nothing at the time the SCW was ongoing and the Germans never really used their own ground combat forces to fight in Spain. Maybe later in the war they could, but Germany also wanted to keep their capabilities in that area a surprise, which did help them somewhat in Norway, but when surprise was lost the Dutch learned an important lesson about how to counter them.
An earlier start-up for Germany's parachute arm is what needed but then that can be said for all of Germany's armed forces, elite units and special weapons projects.
 
Top