Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range na

#16

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Dec 2012, 23:02

The only relation it had with the Ju89 was the wing and tail.
The Ju89 AFAIK did NOT have these problems, problems that resulted from the changing of everything but the tail and wings, which were not designed for the fuselage that they were mated to.
The Ju89 was a failed design; the reasons the RLM stated for the cancellation of the project were its high fuel consumption and underpowered engines.

But don't forget that one element of the changes after Wever's death was a change back to a tactical support bombing capacity with pretensions to a strategic capacity...which led to several more years' institutional blindness regarding the NEED for a maritime recce aircraft.

You really can't...and shouldn't...get around the fact that NOONE in the RLM or Luftwaffe saw the need for anything in the class until 1939; because that meant that the Ju 89 was not going ANYWHERE in 1937. The militarised Ju 90 ONLY appeared much later because Junker's concept hung around long enough courtesy of the Ju 90 airliner project to meet wartime requirements coming the other way.

You shouldn't try to wave away these issues; whatever potential existed in the Ju 90 ONLY survived to be capitalised upon because Junkers kept the torch lit. And don't forget - even that wing and wing didn't survive into the militarised Ju 90. It got new wings as well as stonger landing gear, and changed fins. It was a progression well away from the Ju 89....that only happened because of the evolution of the Ju 90 project.
The order for 3 of each prototype was maintained until 1937 when the project itself was cancelled.
Its interpreted that his issuing of the Bomber A specs and lack of orders for more by the time of his death meant that he intended only to use those 6 aircraft as demonstrators, but as of the time of his death according to that book the halt order for development was only issued in July AFTER his death
E.R. Hooton states that the winding-down of both projects to demonstrator status began in November 1935. That's eight months before his death.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range na

#17

Post by stg 44 » 01 Dec 2012, 23:29

phylo_roadking wrote: The Ju89 was a failed design; the reasons the RLM stated for the cancellation of the project were its high fuel consumption and underpowered engines. .
Of course it was cancelled for other reasons than were officially given, namely that the Kesselring didn't want to spend money on developing the technology at that stage in the Luftwaffe's development, something he and Wever disagreed on, but with Wever's death all of the proponents of researching the technology were quickly swept out of positions of influence.

Engine power was going to change dramatically anyway, as several better versions were in development by 1937 and the high fuel consumption came from poor power to weight, again an engine problem that would be solved in two years, and aerodynamics, which can be improved with development, just like the B17 and other strategic bombers were.

It seems the problem wasn't design necessarily, but rather the willingness of the Luftwaffe to spend development money on the project for a variety of reasons that may not have solely been solved by Wever surviving.

I think I have my answer.
phylo_roadking wrote: E.R. Hooton states that the winding-down of both projects to demonstrator status began in November 1935. That's eight months before his death.
What is his source on that? I don't have my copy with me and I won't get a chance to look it up anytime soon.

We can at least agree then that the problems of the Ju90 being adapted for military purposes is not applicable to the Ju89, because the Ju90 was pretty much a different aircraft.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range na

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Dec 2012, 23:50

Of course it was cancelled for other reasons than were officially given, namely that the Kesselring didn't want to spend money on developing the technology at that stage in the Luftwaffe's development, something he and Wever disagreed on, but with Wever's death all of the proponents of researching the technology were quickly swept out of positions of influence.
"Of course"? Hooton notes that the 89's poor power output was known by Wever.
I think I have my answer.
Only by ignoring all the provisos in the other thread...
Engine power was going to change dramatically anyway, as several better versions were in development by 1937 and the high fuel consumption came from poor power to weight, again an engine problem that would be solved in two years,


Except - AGAIN as discussed on the other thread - supply of the DB 600A's more powerful replacement's were in short supply for some time, right into early 1940, and diverted to fighters. If bombers couldn't get them...there was no way that maritime recce aircraft would! :P

...and...
and aerodynamics, which can be improved with development, just like the B17 and other strategic bombers were. So the problem wasn't design, it was the willingness of the Luftwaffe to spend development money on the project.
Except - as I noted above - aerodynamic problems WEREN'T overcome for many years in the 89/90/290 project...AND, as I noted, getting from the Ju 89 to the militarised Ju 90 meant a complete redesign, eventually including the hold-over items.
So the problem wasn't design, it was the willingness of the Luftwaffe to spend development money on the project.
But you're still neglecting the why...and that was because noone at the Luftwaffe saw the need to spend money on a long-range maritime patrol aircraft in your timeframe. If the need had been there, the willingness would have been.
We can at least agree then that the problems of the Ju90 being adapted for military purposes is not applicable to the Ju89, because the Ju90 was pretty much a different aircraft.
Before you say that, might I suggest you track down exactly WHY Junkers saw the need for all the changes...including changing ALL the Ju 89 carry-overs...between the Ju 90 "Bs" (V1-V4) and the militarised version (V5 and V6)? :wink:
What is his source on that? I don't have my copy with me and I won't get a chance to look it up anytime soon.
The reference for the whole paragraph including that statement is Edward Homze, Arming the Luftwaffe: The reich Air Ministry and the German Aircraft Industry, 1919-1939, University of Nebraska Press.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011, 19:27
Location: Porto Alegre

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range na

#19

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 02 Dec 2012, 00:02



:)

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#20

Post by Simon Gunson » 11 Apr 2015, 15:59

The Messerschmitt BF-135 Banana Bomber developed in November 1937 was capable of making a return bombing mission to New York. It's production was blocked by Ernst Udet because it could not perform dive bombing.

Image

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#21

Post by LWD » 11 Apr 2015, 16:58

Sources please.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#22

Post by thaddeus_c » 11 Apr 2015, 16:59

always think the easiest path would be development of JU-90 as armed transport instead of JU-252 program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_252 (and follow on JU-352)

evolve into JU-290 produced in reasonable numbers by 1942.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#23

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Apr 2015, 00:29

Given the intended tactics of the KM, if the Luftwaffe were on board with having a role in the war in the Atlantic the best route would be the following, I'd think.

Develop a long range flying boat that runs on diesel like the BV 138 but larger. Make sure the design can land on and take off from open ocean in good weather. A big bomb load is really unnecessary. Good cargo capacity is made available instead.
Sure, the plane can and should carry some bombs and later on guided ones.
Stick a good radar on it for surface search in particular.

Give U-boats (and surface raiders) a tactical line-of-sight FM radio that can be used to talk to this aircraft. The aircraft needs a good long range set to relay information and messages to and from Germany.

In this way the flying boats can act as aerial relay stations for communications eliminating the biggest Allied advantage they have: HF/DF and message interception.

Since the flying boats can venture far out into the Atlantic and they can refuel from a U-boat if necessary (both use diesel fuel), they can range far and wide supporting U-boat operations.

Such a system could even be used to make propaganda air raids on places like the US possible. The flying boats can make weather reports, move spies, bring critical replacement parts to a U-boat, fly in or out crew, and act as eyes for the German fleet.

With some bomb load and forward firing guns they could attack "independent sailing" ships forcing the British to install good AA armament much earlier.

What the Germans don't need is a long range maritime aircraft that acts independent of the navy. That is nothing but an annoyance to the Allies and soon defeated.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#24

Post by thaddeus_c » 12 Apr 2015, 15:11

T. A. Gardner wrote:Develop a long range flying boat that runs on diesel like the BV 138 but larger. Make sure the design can land on and take off from open ocean in good weather. Sure, the plane can and should carry some bombs and later on guided ones.
Stick a good radar on it for surface search in particular.

Since the flying boats can venture far out into the Atlantic and they can refuel from a U-boat if necessary (both use diesel fuel), they can range far and wide supporting U-boat operations.

The flying boats can make weather reports, move spies, bring critical replacement parts to a U-boat, fly in or out crew, and act as eyes for the German fleet.
similar to the fleet of Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boats built by Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H8K (a bit smaller and probably more feasible than the large German flying boat BV-222? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_222 or was something that large needed for Atlantic?)

the auxiliary cruisers also used diesel fuel as did the Dithmarschen-class of tankers (and of course the pocket battleships)

fail to see why this would preclude the need for land-based aircraft, the JU-290 was always going to be better armed and faster than flying boat? (and fills need for transport to China and Japan)

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#25

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 Apr 2015, 20:09

thaddeus_c wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:Develop a long range flying boat that runs on diesel like the BV 138 but larger. Make sure the design can land on and take off from open ocean in good weather. Sure, the plane can and should carry some bombs and later on guided ones.
Stick a good radar on it for surface search in particular.

Since the flying boats can venture far out into the Atlantic and they can refuel from a U-boat if necessary (both use diesel fuel), they can range far and wide supporting U-boat operations.

The flying boats can make weather reports, move spies, bring critical replacement parts to a U-boat, fly in or out crew, and act as eyes for the German fleet.
similar to the fleet of Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boats built by Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_H8K (a bit smaller and probably more feasible than the large German flying boat BV-222? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_222 or was something that large needed for Atlantic?)

the auxiliary cruisers also used diesel fuel as did the Dithmarschen-class of tankers (and of course the pocket battleships)

fail to see why this would preclude the need for land-based aircraft, the JU-290 was always going to be better armed and faster than flying boat? (and fills need for transport to China and Japan)
You might still use some additional land based aircraft, but the German aircraft industry is only going to be able to provide a relatively small number of such aircraft either way. I would argue that it is better spent on flying boats that can assist the KM in more ways than a land based aircraft could over a much wider operating area. The ability to land and refuel at sea some of the time makes a huge difference to on-station time for the aircraft.

A somewhat smaller BV 222 would be a good choice. One with 4 or 6 diesel engines like the C series had. The plane doesn't have to be enormous, just capable of carrying out the intended mission. A somewhat smaller design on those lines (like the H8K, Sutherland, or Boeing B-314 (Pan Am Clipper) should be sufficient.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#26

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 12 Apr 2015, 22:54

Simon Gunson wrote:The Messerschmitt BF-135 Banana Bomber developed in November 1937 was capable of making a return bombing mission to New York. It's production was blocked by Ernst Udet because it could not perform dive bombing. ...
LWD wrote:Sources please.
He might have had it from here: Peters, Klaus; Ebert, Hans J.; Kaiser, Johann B. Willy Messerschmitt, Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues . (1992). ISBN 9783763761036. Looks like it was nothing more than a proposal & specs from the Messerschmitt design shop, and a full scale model.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#27

Post by SpicyJuan » 13 Apr 2015, 02:34

T. A. Gardner wrote:A somewhat smaller BV 222 would be a good choice. One with 4 or 6 diesel engines like the C series had. The plane doesn't have to be enormous, just capable of carrying out the intended mission. A somewhat smaller design on those lines (like the H8K, Sutherland, or Boeing B-314 (Pan Am Clipper) should be sufficient.
They had one. It was the He 120, and was smaller than the Bv 222 and had a proposed range of 4,285 miles (6,900km).

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#28

Post by thaddeus_c » 13 Apr 2015, 04:53

T. A. Gardner wrote:You might still use some additional land based aircraft, but the German aircraft industry is only going to be able to provide a relatively small number of such aircraft either way. I would argue that it is better spent on flying boats that can assist the KM in more ways than a land based aircraft could over a much wider operating area. The ability to land and refuel at sea some of the time makes a huge difference to on-station time for the aircraft.

A somewhat smaller BV 222 would be a good choice. One with 4 or 6 diesel engines like the C series had. The plane doesn't have to be enormous, just capable of carrying out the intended mission. A somewhat smaller design on those lines (like the H8K, Sutherland, or Boeing B-314 (Pan Am Clipper) should be sufficient.
if you took the total production of HE-177, JU-90/JU-290 (and IMO transports JU-252 & JU-352), and BV-222?

could plausibly build 100 - 200 of the big Junkers aircraft, 200 - 300 of a flying boat, and (my speculation only) 100s of the twin -fuselage HE-111Z

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 19:46

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#29

Post by gurn » 13 Apr 2015, 17:59

Perhaps Germany can work a trade with Japan and receive the H6K, available in 1936-1937 in return for ....... ?
Iirc the H8K was not available till mid Dec/41.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Which aircraft could be adapted easier for long range naval

#30

Post by T. A. Gardner » 13 Apr 2015, 18:02

thaddeus_c wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:You might still use some additional land based aircraft, but the German aircraft industry is only going to be able to provide a relatively small number of such aircraft either way. I would argue that it is better spent on flying boats that can assist the KM in more ways than a land based aircraft could over a much wider operating area. The ability to land and refuel at sea some of the time makes a huge difference to on-station time for the aircraft.

A somewhat smaller BV 222 would be a good choice. One with 4 or 6 diesel engines like the C series had. The plane doesn't have to be enormous, just capable of carrying out the intended mission. A somewhat smaller design on those lines (like the H8K, Sutherland, or Boeing B-314 (Pan Am Clipper) should be sufficient.
if you took the total production of HE-177, JU-90/JU-290 (and IMO transports JU-252 & JU-352), and BV-222?

could plausibly build 100 - 200 of the big Junkers aircraft, 200 - 300 of a flying boat, and (my speculation only) 100s of the twin -fuselage HE-111Z
I would say if the Germans had a flying boat arm with 25 to 50 aircraft available they could really make a huge difference in U-boat and surface raider operations from the start of the war. That is a manageable number they could manufacture replacements for and keep up to strength. It is within their capacity to supply with fuel, crews, and munitions.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”