WI: The Luftwaffe gets 1942-1943 performing aircraft at the start of the war

[McPherson]

Re.2005 featured changes that can earn speed, like the undercarriage that now lay flush with wing, wing wheel covers (similar covers were later introduced on latest Bf 109s and Spitfires), retractable tailwheel, as well as redesigned cooling system. Fuselage was also longer.
All in all, while we might attribute the jump in speed to the new engine installed, the aerodynamic improvements certainly played their part.

The Italian engineers were nutty about parasitic and stochastic drag.

 

[BELFAST]

In the book mentioned above it states that British technical reports on crashed/captured German planes midwar mention the conundrum of why the engines were not able to run to the limit of the fuel in the tanks. The Brits couldn’t figure out why the Germans were going to the trouble of manufacturing good fuel and then not making the best use of it, seemingly not realising the German constraint was in the engine materials not the fuels, supercharger etc.

Odd to realise that the LW would likely have done very much better of the much-maligned Air Ministry had been in charge of their fighter program. Stupid nonsense like the engine manufacturers developing and testing their engines on prewar petroleum fuel blend while the squadrons were being issued synthetic fuel blends. New engines being developed without suitable airframes to fit them into and aircraft being developed without suitable engines. Militarily significant research published in scientific journals. Just on and on with the idiocies.

It was a hell of a way to run an air force.
There were the losses they had fighting pointless battles like the bombing of British cities and the transport and other aircraft lost in North Africa and Stalingrad when they were needed elsewhere.
A badly managed air force asked to fight in too many in places without the right materials to make aircraft and without the quality or quantity of fuel needed.

 

[tomo pauk]

One of thing that make one shaking his head: the 1-clinder test engines, that were supposed to mimic the behavoir of the inverted V engines the Germans used widely, were installed in upright fashion in government laboratories...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Vajda and Dancey claimed that German warplanes could have been fitted with engines producing 1,750hp in 1940 with the possibility of a completely different result in the Battle of Britain. That is, if Udet hadn't halted development of the DB603 on 11th March 1937. Daimler-Benz continued development of the engine as a private venture, but work continued at a much slower pace. According to them, the first engine wasn't tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. Gunston wrote that the engine was produced from May 1942 and initially in small numbers.

If Vajda & Dancey were correct, the obvious POD would be for RLM to cancel the DB606 and DB610 in 1937 and instructing Daimler-Benz to concentrate on the DB603 and DB605. They may not be correct, because IIRC @Just Leo poured scorn on the suggestion, although I can't remember why.

Vajda and Dancey also claim that development of Junkers 1,750hp engine, the Jumo 213, was drawn out and there was insufficient production capacity. Unfortunately, they didn't say why its development was drawn out so there's no way of working out if it could have been prevented.

 

[BELFAST]

Vajda and Dancey claimed that German warplanes could have been fitted with engines producing 1,750hp in 1940 with the possibility of a completely different result in the Battle of Britain. That is, if Udet hadn't halted development of the DB603 on 11th March 1937. Daimler-Benz continued development of the engine as a private venture, but work continued at a much slower pace. According to them, the first engine wasn't tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. Gunston wrote that the engine was produced from May 1942 and initially in small numbers.

If Vajda & Dancey were correct, the obvious POD would be for RLM to cancel the DB606 and DB610 in 1937 and instructing Daimler-Benz to concentrate on the DB603 and DB605. They may not be correct, because IIRC @Just Leo poured scorn on the suggestion, although I can't remember why.

Vajda and Dancey also claim that development of Junkers 1,750hp engine, the Jumo 213, was drawn out and there was insufficient production capacity. Unfortunately, they didn't say why its development was drawn out so there's no way of working out if it could have been prevented.

I cannot see a more powerful engine giving the Germans a win in the Battle of Britain.
Even if they shot down every British aircraft they could not invade or force the British to drop out of the war.

 

[tomo pauk]

Vajda and Dancey claimed that German warplanes could have been fitted with engines producing 1,750hp in 1940 with the possibility of a completely different result in the Battle of Britain. That is, if Udet hadn't halted development of the DB603 on 11th March 1937. Daimler-Benz continued development of the engine as a private venture, but work continued at a much slower pace. According to them, the first engine wasn't tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. Gunston wrote that the engine was produced from May 1942 and initially in small numbers.

If Vajda & Dancey were correct, the obvious POD would be for RLM to cancel the DB606 and DB610 in 1937 and instructing Daimler-Benz to concentrate on the DB603 and DB605. They may not be correct, because IIRC @Just Leo poured scorn on the suggestion, although I can't remember why.

Vajda and Dancey also claim that development of Junkers 1,750hp engine, the Jumo 213, was drawn out and there was insufficient production capacity. Unfortunately, they didn't say why its development was drawn out so there's no way of working out if it could have been prevented.

V & D are wrong IMO.

DB 603A was making it's best power at 2700 rpm. DB's best revving engine during BoB was making 2400 rpm, thus the long-stroke DB 603 will not make more than 2400 rpm, most likely 2300 rpm? That gives around 1400 HP, not 1750. So let's say they got the 1400 HP engine in production on account on making less of the 1100 HP DB 601s. There is no suitable 1-engined fighter to install the DB 603A in 1939/40 - Bf 109 is incapable (DB 603A weighted 50% more than DB 601A), the Fw 190 series production is not to begin before 1941 anyway we cut it. Eeven of we manage to install the DB 603A on Bf 109 - a long shot indeed - the fuel mileage goes from bad to worse. Install two on Bf 110 for 570-580 km/h? On bombers?

So we managed to somehow shoe-horned the DB 603 on aircraft and want to fight BoB. The DB 603 does not solve:
- incoherent strategy, with objectives changed on whim
- no drop tank on fighters until too late
- low production of fighters (UK produced almost 3 times the fighters vs. Germany during the BoB)
- low 'production' of pilots
- certain loss of a pilot/crew over UK if aircraft is downed or badly damaged

Development of Jumo 213 was also a victim of Germans not having the required rare materials + biting off more than they can chew. Junkers was developing the 222, 213, diesels (206, 207, 208, 223, 224), jet engine, plus refining the Jumo 211 series. This is as many models as what Bristol, RR and Napier were developing in 1940-44?

The double DB engines need to be killed ASAP in any case.
Unfortunately, Just Leo is no longer with us, he is fondly remembered here.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I cannot see a more powerful engine giving the Germans a win in the Battle of Britain.

That's what they wrote, not me.

Even if they shot down every British aircraft they could not invade or force the British to drop out of the war.

I agree that Germany would not be able to launch a successful invasion, but it would increase the price that the British would have to pay to repel it. Being able to bomb by day without suffering unacceptable losses (due to all British aircraft being shot down) would have allowed the Germans to bomb more accurately during the Blitz. Probably not enough to force the British to surrender, but it would make reconstruction after the war take longer and at greater cost.

However, I don't seriously think that the Luftwaffe would shoot down every British aircraft.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Vajda and Dancey claimed that German warplanes could have been fitted with engines producing 1,750hp in 1940 with the possibility of a completely different result in the Battle of Britain. That is, if Udet hadn't halted development of the DB603 on 11th March 1937. Daimler-Benz continued development of the engine as a private venture, but work continued at a much slower pace. According to them, the first engine wasn't tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. Gunston wrote that the engine was produced from May 1942 and initially in small numbers.

There is certainly plenty of scope for cancelling crappy projects and being smarter about development but this would be a big old change. If I take a big risk and use the dimensions from errorpedia, the 601 is about 1.7metres and 600 kg, 603 is ~2.6m and 900kg.
Fuel consumption per HP seems to be worse for the 603 too so the extra power costs disproportionately more fuel, on top of whatever is lost due to drag from the extra weight. Bad to worse indeed.
Putting that into even a stretched 109 seems like it would be painful, so now the RLM needs to not only get the 1750hp engine, but a new 1750hp airframe as well. Which takes us to the me209 or similar, another famously well run project, needed operational for mid 1940.

While also keeping something like the OTL 109/601 package going since it seems unlikely they could get a monster fighter ready to be the mainstay of the intimidating pre-war buildup and Poland/France.

It’s not totally impossible, IMO. Just impossible for Nazi Germany.

Edit: Actually the 603 might not be hugely beyond the 605 they squashed into the 109K, so it could be possible if they had some reliable 603 engines and wanted to utterly dominate airspace 2km past the white cliffs of dover.

 

[BELFAST]

There is certainly plenty of scope for cancelling crappy projects and being smarter about development but this would be a big old change. If I take a big risk and use the dimensions from errorpedia, the 601 is about 1.7metres and 600 kg, 603 is ~2.6m and 900kg.
Fuel consumption per HP seems to be worse for the 603 too so the extra power costs disproportionately more fuel, on top of whatever is lost due to drag from the extra weight. Bad to worse indeed.
Putting that into even a stretched 109 seems like it would be painful, so now the RLM needs to not only get the 1750hp engine, but a new 1750hp airframe as well. Which takes us to the me209 or similar, another famously well run project, needed operational for mid 1940.

While also keeping something like the OTL 109/601 package going since it seems unlikely they could get a monster fighter ready to be the mainstay of the intimidating pre-war buildup and Poland/France.

It’s not totally impossible, IMO. Just impossible for Nazi Germany.

Edit: Actually the 603 might not be hugely beyond the 605 they squashed into the 109K, so it could be possible if they had some reliable 603 engines and wanted to utterly dominate airspace 2km past the white cliffs of dover.

Me-110 would be better beyond the cliff of because of its longer range.
It might need hydraulically boosted ailerons to improve manoeuvrability as the p-38 had.

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Asp]

You say you recognize the point but it really doesn't seem you do. It isn't anything to do with competence, its to do with the fact that things tend to proceed in a linear fashion with iteration based on experience. Once a model of aircraft enters service any deficiencies may become apparent and get fixed but the reality was that the Bf109 was more than good enough for the job it was designed for right up until it had to engage the RAF over Southern England and that had as much to do with pressing the plane into service in a role it wasn't intended for as any technical deficiencies.

Yeah, it seems like the 605 was more different from 601 than a thought and that the changes required were more significant. If it's a truly small change like developing drop tanks (a Spanish Civil War era technology) before WWII that's workable but I guess this isn't that. My bad.

For anyone interested in the technical details of the WW2 aero engines, an excellent excellent new book is “The Secret Horsepower Race” by Calum Douglas which goes into a ton of obscure but critical details and how they played out year by year for the Germans, Brits and US. Among other things it also gives a very decent overview of the fuel situation which turns out to be considerably more complicated than just octane ratings or performance numbers.

Having read that book, I think it’s pretty much impossible for the LW to get their 1942-1943 performance at the start of the war for the simple reason that first a whole lot of learning was iterative, you can’t just deduce your way to a motor with 2-3 years worth of incremental engineering development in it. Secondly, after going to war their whole engine program turned to shit due to the loss of strategic materials and the switch to synthetic fuels. So they had to spend a whole lot of time getting their early engines just to run reliably again, and then rework their planned engines to deal with the new industrial environment before trying to develop the necessary horsepower.
For example the DB601N was meant to be a spiffy spiffy high-performance engine that worked just great in the engineering labs, but when deployed turned out to an inflammable exploding boat anchor, since the design operating temperature was high enough to boil prewar fuel out of the oil, but too low to boil out synthetic fuel with a comparable octane rating. So after a handful of hours running time with the bearings lubricated by oily gasoline the engine would fail catastrophically. Absolutely nothing wrong with the design other than an unforeseen change to the operating requirements. Back to the drawing board.

So even if the Germans do manage to leap a couple years ahead by the start of the war, the more capable and high-performing the engines they start with, the worse the problems become when suddenly EVERYTHING has to become ersatz. Imagine a 1942 Merlin XX if suddenly RR are told overnight they can have a tiny fraction of the nickel, tin, cobalt, indium, etc they have been using and it has to run on fuel with different combustion characteristics. No stellite valves or seats, no fancy bearings, crappy lubricants, awful spark plugs etc. etc. Chances are the whole engine either stops working completely or is only good for 50% of output whereas a 1940 Merlin III might only lose 10%. And of course, even if they were to coincidentally give exactly the same power, there is a world of difference between a plane built for 1000hp getting only 900, and a plane built in the expectation of 1800hp but getting only 900.

So what if the RLM in about 1936 comes down with Foresight Flu and specifies that all engines have to be designed for minimum strategic materials and the characteristics of experimental synthetic fuels that may become available and may be required if some nutcase decides to get into a long war with multiple great powers?
That might solve some of the long-term problems from 1941 onwards but almost certainly meansthat in 1938-1940 German engines are handicapped enough to make their OTL achievements unrealistic.

Thanks for the book recommendation! I've been trying to get knowledge on WWII engine development, that seems like something I would benefit from reading.

Yeah it seems like the DB-605 really isn't getting developed early. If Wever and Milch had stayed in charge and managed it better I think things might have happened differently in development, but like you say the lack of strategic materials was always going to be a huge issue.

Re.2005 featured changes that can earn speed, like the undercarriage that now lay flush with wing, wing wheel covers (similar covers were later introduced on latest Bf 109s and Spitfires), retractable tailwheel, as well as redesigned cooling system. Fuselage was also longer.
All in all, while we might attribute the jump in speed to the new engine installed, the aerodynamic improvements certainly played their part.



As noted above by @Reggieperrin , Calum's book is a great resource on just how German engine development was plagued from all sides (it is a very good book for all the gearheads interested in ww2 aviation). From RLM not having the grasp on situation and not being able to co-ordinate the devopment effort between engine companies and different laboratories, to the engine companies biting much more that they can chew, and material shortages that were really severe. I've linked his webinar above.

Thanks, I'll check it out. And yeah, that is true about the Re. 2005.

What the Germanys need is higher octane fuel.
Later ww2 engines need higher octane fuel than was being produced in 1939.
The quality of metal available in 1939 was better than later in the war and there more skilled people building them.
Shortages of fuel after 1941 meant less training for pilots so pilot quality went down after 1941.
The link below shows the many problems the German airforce had.

Strategy for Defeat​

The Luftwaffe​

1933-1945​

by
WILLIAMSON MURRAY

Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945

Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945

www.ibiblio.org

Yeah, I think the Germans basically needed to have a bunch of the Austrian, Hungarian, and Dutch mainland oil fields before WWII to keep the fuel issue from killing their chances in WWII.

Germany had higher octane fuel. The C2 and C3 were used in some engines, erstwhile in DB 601N and later in BMW 801C and D. Octane and performance rating was on par with Allied hi oct fuel. That DB 601N have had increased compression ratio was the self-inflicted wound - one does not increase compression ratio in supercharged engines, or else. Hi-oct fuel requires high quality spark plugs.
Hi-oct fuel was wrecking the fuel tanks of the Bf 109Fs, that previous low-octane fuel (B4, 87 oct) did not. Germans reverted to the 87 oct with DB 601E and 605A that were making better power on low-oct fuel than DB 601N on hi-oct fuel, even with reduced RPM. Hi-oct fuel is not a replacement for increasing the RPM and improvement of supercharger.
The BMW 801C and D were suffering too, right when material shortages kicked in. Valves needed nickel or chrome in order not to be eroded by high pressures and, and BMW struggled for many months until they discovered that chromium can help when applied to the valves outside; nickel was lacking far more than chromium in ww2 Germany. It took then many months for people at Daimler Benz to be introduced in this simple 'trick'. New spark plugs also helped the 801D to finally make its 'book ratings'; DB 605A needed the oil de-aerator to help.
Neither of those main German engines ever received a 2-stage supercharger, bar prototype engines. Ditto for Jumo 211.

tl;dr - One can't just pour the in the hi-oct fuel in tank and go it's own marry way; hi-oct fuel does not solve power deficiencies above 15000-20000 ft since it is not a replacement for better supercharger. It also does not solve the lack of fuel problem (that was The Problem),

It is amazing how little coordination there was between the different German companies. Junkers was using oil de-aerators from the beginning and it took DB forever to fit them to their engines, and then as you say there was the chromium thing. The NASA moon landing program the Reich air industry was not.

As you say fuel octane was only one problem of many the Luftwaffe had.
Lack of fuel too.
The lack of a 2 stage supercharger. Bf109 did not have room in the engine bay for 2 stage supercharger.
And as you say a shortage of materials like nickel were a problem too.
Engines were only one of many problems the German air force had in ww2.

True.

In the book mentioned above it states that British technical reports on crashed/captured German planes midwar mention the conundrum of why the engines were not able to run to the limit of the fuel in the tanks. The Brits couldn’t figure out why the Germans were going to the trouble of manufacturing good fuel and then not making the best use of it, seemingly not realising the German constraint was in the engine materials not the fuels, supercharger etc.

Odd to realise that the LW would likely have done very much better of the much-maligned Air Ministry had been in charge of their fighter program. Stupid nonsense like the engine manufacturers developing and testing their engines on prewar petroleum fuel blend while the squadrons were being issued synthetic fuel blends. New engines being developed without suitable airframes to fit them into and aircraft being developed without suitable engines. Militarily significant research published in scientific journals. Just on and on with the idiocies.

Yeah, or at least vaguely competent people running and organizing things instead of Udet.

The Italian engineers were nutty about parasitic and stochastic drag.

Yeah, they did design amazingly aerodynamic aircraft, they just couldn't do mass production to save their lives. Winkle Brown was very complementary.

It was a hell of a way to run an air force.
There were the losses they had fighting pointless battles like the bombing of British cities and the transport and other aircraft lost in North Africa and Stalingrad when they were needed elsewhere.
A badly managed air force asked to fight in too many in places without the right materials to make aircraft and without the quality or quantity of fuel needed.

The Luftwaffe lost FORTY PERCENT of its 1942 strength in North Africa, which just blows my mind. Given how the air war was going on the Eastern Front for the Soviets in the first year, they probably could have achieved outright air superiority if they'd sent them there. If they don't deploy the Afrika Korps either, that *might* have been enough to allow them to take Moscow in 1941, or at least Stalingrad in 1942 and by extension possibly the Caucasus.

One of the things I wonder about is why the Germans never put any effort into developing a better transport plane than the Ju-52. It was good at landing in tricky places, but other than that it was a really deficient aircraft (and producing it forced them to keep producing a really substandard engine that it needed three of to keep running). It can't have been that hard to produce a decent two engine aircraft with a DB engine that would have had far more horsepower and performance. Not to mention requiring fewer engines to run.

One of thing that make one shaking his head: the 1-clinder test engines, that were supposed to mimic the behavoir of the inverted V engines the Germans used widely, were installed in upright fashion in government laboratories...

Facepalm.

Vajda and Dancey claimed that German warplanes could have been fitted with engines producing 1,750hp in 1940 with the possibility of a completely different result in the Battle of Britain. That is, if Udet hadn't halted development of the DB603 on 11th March 1937. Daimler-Benz continued development of the engine as a private venture, but work continued at a much slower pace. According to them, the first engine wasn't tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. Gunston wrote that the engine was produced from May 1942 and initially in small numbers.

If Vajda & Dancey were correct, the obvious POD would be for RLM to cancel the DB606 and DB610 in 1937 and instructing Daimler-Benz to concentrate on the DB603 and DB605. They may not be correct, because IIRC @Just Leo poured scorn on the suggestion, although I can't remember why.

Vajda and Dancey also claim that development of Junkers 1,750hp engine, the Jumo 213, was drawn out and there was insufficient production capacity. Unfortunately, they didn't say why its development was drawn out so there's no way of working out if it could have been prevented.

Yeah, the 603 would definitely be less of a reach. It was a pretty weighty piece of tech though, would have worked well for bombers and transport aircraft but maybe not for fighters.

I cannot see a more powerful engine giving the Germans a win in the Battle of Britain.
Even if they shot down every British aircraft they could not invade or force the British to drop out of the war.

It depends completely on how you define 'win.' They're not forcing Britain out of the war, just achieving air superiority over southern England. Long term, that probably doesn't benefit them much.

That's what they wrote, not me.

I agree that Germany would not be able to launch a successful invasion, but it would increase the price that the British would have to pay to repel it. Being able to bomb by day without suffering unacceptable losses (due to all British aircraft being shot down) would have allowed the Germans to bomb more accurately during the Blitz. Probably not enough to force the British to surrender, but it would make reconstruction after the war take longer and at greater cost.

However, I don't seriously think that the Luftwaffe would shoot down every British aircraft.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what exactly the strategic ramifications of them winning the Battle of Britain would be. It's not going to make Britain surrender, and their campaign strategically incoherent IOTL. They could start trying to level the industry and ports they could reach, but I don't know how effective that would be. It would probably just exhaust the Luftwaffe even more trying to hold the airspace over southern England, fight in North Africa, etc.

There is certainly plenty of scope for cancelling crappy projects and being smarter about development but this would be a big old change. If I take a big risk and use the dimensions from errorpedia, the 601 is about 1.7metres and 600 kg, 603 is ~2.6m and 900kg.
Fuel consumption per HP seems to be worse for the 603 too so the extra power costs disproportionately more fuel, on top of whatever is lost due to drag from the extra weight. Bad to worse indeed.
Putting that into even a stretched 109 seems like it would be painful, so now the RLM needs to not only get the 1750hp engine, but a new 1750hp airframe as well. Which takes us to the me209 or similar, another famously well run project, needed operational for mid 1940.

While also keeping something like the OTL 109/601 package going since it seems unlikely they could get a monster fighter ready to be the mainstay of the intimidating pre-war buildup and Poland/France.

It’s not totally impossible, IMO. Just impossible for Nazi Germany.

Edit: Actually the 603 might not be hugely beyond the 605 they squashed into the 109K, so it could be possible if they had some reliable 603 engines and wanted to utterly dominate airspace 2km past the white cliffs of dover.

Yeah, it's worth looking at the specifications of the different variants and comparing a hypothetical DB-603 equipped Bf-109 with the Bf-109G. The Bf-109G weighed more than 40% more than the Bf-109C-1, but it actually had better performance, not just in speed but in range (guessing this is because that model could take drop tanks). The Bf-109G used a DB-605. The DB-603 weighed 363 pounds more than the DB-605, which is a definite difference and enough to effect performance but probably isn't unworkable. If the 603 was put on an E model, it would still weigh much less overall than a G model (though the weight would be skewed towards the front).

As said before, the key to making a fighter plane with this work is for the Luftwaffe to develop drop tanks earlier. There isn't any particular reason that couldn't have happened, it isn't a difficult technology and tons of fighters used it starting from the Spanish Civil War. If Wever's plane hadn't crashed and they had kept a rational R&D and production scheme, someone might well have decided that would be a good thing to have.

 

[AJE]

Imagine a 1942 Merlin XX if suddenly RR are told overnight they can have a tiny fraction of the nickel, tin, cobalt, indium, etc they have been using and it has to run on fuel with different combustion characteristics. No stellite valves or seats, no fancy bearings, crappy lubricants, awful spark plugs etc. etc. Chances are the whole engine either stops working completely or is only good for 50% of output whereas a 1940 Merlin III might only lose 10%.

Actually it wouldn't affect them much at all since the entire US war industry (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Allies) did exactly that (except for the different fuel) in WWII without problems:

Miscellaneous Economic Statistics (specifically about war production and man-hours and materials required to make things)
...
US Army Ordnance in WWII (Page 475 is the start of Chapter XVIII on conservation of materials, with things like the below image):

In many cases they used less resources than the Germans did to produce equivalent objects, and performance continued to increase. The Germans were just incompetent at doing this, with the exception of a few areas where they had developed more efficient methods before the war, and after Stalingrad when they made good progress but it was too late.

 

[BELFAST]

It depends completely on how you define 'win.' They're not forcing Britain out of the war, just achieving air superiority over southern England. Long term, that probably doesn't benefit them much.

The best thing the Germans could do with the Battle of Britain is not to fight it and the same for the Battle of the Atlantic.
If the Germans are not attacking the UK it would be very hard to get lend-lease passed in the US.
Germans declare war is over and offer to return British pows. Now it looks like the British are trying to continue a war that is over.
withdraw troops for France and the low countries as a goodwill gesture.
Hard to motive the British people to fight when no one is attacking them.
It saves the Germans a lot of aircraft, crews and resources not fighting that battle.
Petain looks like a hero to the French people.
Petain now having control of the channel island will not please the British.
After the attack by the Royal navy on the French navy that will not bother Petain much.
The art of fighting without fighting.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yeah, it's worth looking at the specifications of the different variants and comparing a hypothetical DB-603 equipped Bf-109 with the Bf-109G. The Bf-109G weighed more than 40% more than the Bf-109C-1, but it actually had better performance, not just in speed but in range (guessing this is because that model could take drop tanks). The Bf-109G used a DB-605. The DB-603 weighed 363 pounds more than the DB-605, which is a definite difference and enough to effect performance but probably isn't unworkable. If the 603 was put on an E model, it would still weigh much less overall than a G model (though the weight would be skewed towards the front).

Let's recall that Bf 109 was already a subject of major up-engining - replacement of the small and light Jumo 210 with bigger, longer, heavier and considerably more powerful DB 601. The DB 603 is from another league for 1939/40 when it is about weight and size, talk again a 50% increase of weight vs. 601. The 605 was externally about the same as the DB 601 line. A more powerful engine will also require heavier cooling system, oil system, propeller (we don't want that extra power to be frittered away, thus a larger prop), engine mounts and cowling. Greater engine power requires increase of vertical tail to cope with increase of torque effect, mostly notable at lower speeds (during take off and landing). Install bigger tank to restore the range figures that just took a hit due to greater power, drag and weight = more weight again. Wing - can it now sustain 9G at 3200-3400 kg just because it sustained it at 2500 kg? Or it will need to be reinforced like it was on P-36 during it's evolution into P-40 so our Me 603 does not disintegrate in mid-air? Maneuverability requirements, high wing loading vs. low wing loading?
Undercarriage - keep it as is to save time and money or design and manufacture new sets so they can carry the Me 603 on landings and take off? Geometry of the U/C with this increased weight?
The Bf 109G was a spin-off of the Bf 109F (that was a redesign of the Bf 109E), thus it was able to enjoy relatively relaxed development pace.

Before people say: "but Spitfire was successfully up-engined with Griffon", - yes, but Spitfire was already designed with engine as powerful, as heavy and as long as DB 601, wing was of more generous area, undercarriage was reinforced and modified during the production run, wing didn't stayed the same either, vertical tail was of greater area with latest versions. All of this took years of experience, as well as trial and error.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Just better planes and no overall strategic/operational/tactical change?
Nazis still lose.

 

[Reggieperrin]

Actually it wouldn't affect them much at all since the entire US war industry (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Allies) did exactly that (except for the different fuel) in WWII without problems:

Do you have a cite to show that the first-rate allied aero engines, were built without using alloys like stellite for valves and seats, hiduminium for pistons and impellers, indium or silver for bearings, platinum for spark plugs, etc etc?
Because pretty much everything I have ever read suggests that such materials were relied on in ever-increasing quantities throughout the war to get better reliability and performance.

 

[AJE]

Do you have a cite to show that the first-rate allied aero engines, were built without using alloys like stellite for valves and seats, hiduminium for pistons and impellers, indium or silver for bearings, platinum for spark plugs, etc etc?
Because pretty much everything I have ever read suggests that such materials were relied on in ever-increasing quantities throughout the war to get better reliability and performance.

I have no cite for first-rate aero engines specifically, but I have plenty of sources for industry in general (and a few specific examples). To my knowledge their use was never completely eliminated in very high-performance devices (German or American), but their use was massively reduced without problems in Allied industry. The Germans seem to have just used the same methods and designs as usual with less alloys (at least until it was far too late), which is the wrong way to reduce strategic materials use and that caused their problems.

 

[Belisarius II]

That's still pretty slow then, huh

Not for a 1939 bomber, that's very fast.

 

[Belisarius II]

(sorry if my comments come out as I'm trying to rain on your parade, that is not my intent)

It was not Udet that killed off the Schnellbomber idea materializing in Ju 88. It was Junkers and RLM that made the Ju 88 incapable of carrying bombs of 100 kg and greater in the bomb bays, due to bomb bays being too small & restricted - and that was a direct consequence of Ju 88 having the low-wing configuration (later, Junkers will make a proper bomb bay no the Ju 288). Small bombs were RLM's idea in mid-1930s, once they changed their minds it was too late for Ju 88.
Having bombs hanging in the breeze, along with bomb racks, will kill the speed. Even the new, bulkier undercarriage cost 5 km/h since it required bulged doors, and 3 km/h was cost for cammo paint. Then, the record-breaking Ju 88s were with slender & well stremlined cockpit, unlike the service-worthy examples with big & draggy cockpit. No self-sealing tanks, no armor, no gun barrels, no radios with their antennae - all of this is deemed necessary by Luftwaffe, and all of this decreases speed, even the guns pointed backwards.
The original prototype, powered by DB 600 Aengines, was good for 485 km/h (no military equipment, no bomb racks). With military equipment the speed went down to 430 km/h, that was also a consequence of DB 600A having supercharger that was geared to give max power at low altitudes. With Jumo 211A, speed went upwards, 520 km/h max for short time for the prototypes. Jumo 211B was installed on record-breaking machines, they were doing 520 km/h on average on 1000 km long track.

So for our extra-fast Ju 88, Germans need to keep it to carry only small bombs that can fit in the bomb bay, don't go overboard with cockpit size, keep the front end of aircraft streamlined and not blocky, install just one defensive MG. This might return the Ju 88 back to 500 km/h on 30 min engine rating. Plausible engine upgrade (say, 20% more on all altitudes) probably buys another 20-25 km/h?
The Ju 88B line (ancestor to the Ju 188 series, also featuring the streamlined cockpit) was to do 530 km/h with BMW 801 engines, while the Ju 88A-5 with 1400 HP Jumo 211J was to do 510 km/h without bombs and racks.

What kind of speed are we talking about at sea level?

 

[Gentian1707]

will this stop USA from making the first nukes? If yes, then there may be a chance for the Nazi. If it doesn’t, they will murder few million more until nuke after nuke falls on them and turn them to dust. It’s actually a good thing they lost early before USA managed to make the first nukes.

 

[tomo pauk]

What kind of speed are we talking about at sea level?

Looking at similar aircraft on the other side of fence, the A-20 and Tu-2, seems like 460-480 km/h might be achieved at sea level with BMW 801 powered Ju 88, without racks & bombs.

BTW and FWIW, Calum Douglas just posted on some differences between supercharger's impeller of the early DB 601A and the DB 605A: link