German strategic bombers

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by T. A. Gardner » 01 Jan 2023 19:39

Peter89 wrote:
01 Jan 2023 17:44
This is not really true in this case. The complex part of an aircraft were the engines, the controls and the landing gear. Airframes were significantly more simple to produce. To produce 4 engines instead of 3 engines or 2 engines is not 4-6 times more complex or costly. Or do you have any proof that the production of 1 Ju 90 would equal 4-6 Ju 88?
It is true. You are doubling the number of engine controls, adding complexity to many other systems like fuel. You have a larger airframe that consists of many more parts that have to be fabricated then fastened in place. It may seem minute, but if you have 30% more rivets for instance, you are taking a lot more time to put them all in, not to mention the larger number needed. You need more jigs to make parts. This is inevitable. So, the number of parts in an Me 109 is far, far smaller than the number of parts in a Ju 88, and the Ju 88 has far fewer parts than a Ju 290.
From the pictures I've seen, Ju 90 was not produced on assembly lines. But 10 aircrafts per month was not an impossible thing to achieve, not even with your numbers: if half of the production capacity for Ju 88 went to Ju 90 production, the Germans could have had a really large force.
The problem here is, if you do build 10 Ju 90 a month, and sacrifice say 30 Ju 88's to do that is that a good trade off? Then, if you lose more than 10 Ju 90 in a month (a very realistic probability there), you are losing ground on the number in service.

It doesn't really make sense to me. Plus I have no idea why you think that a BMW 801 engine in a Ju 90 (the Ju 290 didn't exist in the window of opportunity) would consume much-much more than double the fuel than the same engine in a Ju 88. The fuel consumption of a BMW 801 D engine varied between 255-440 l/h (except take off consumption) thus it is not even double.
If you have 4 engines on the plane, versus two the four will use double the fuel... That's a pretty simple concept. The Ju 88H concept makes the most sense. You have an aircraft that is a simple modification of an existing plane. It doesn't need particularly high performance as it is going to be operating almost entirely in an environment where it is unopposed by serious enemy fighter activity. At most, it might run into a few fighters and then it really won't matter if it's 2 engine or 4, it's likely to end up shot down either way.
Since a Ju 88H could carry a heavy nose armament, or it could carry say a torpedo or two, or a couple of Hs 293, it's pretty much all you need for maritime patrol. Send a pair for mutual support if necessary. That's better than a single 4 engine plane on its own.
Your note about the maintenance is also a bit misleading. As well as the remark on interchangeability. Because the maintenance personnel did a lot of things that were actually much easier with a few larger aircrafts than with many smaller ones (refuelling, washing, greasing, changing of filters, etc.) but also the overhauls are disproportionately easier with a single four-engine aircraft than with 4-6 two- or three-engine aircrafts. When it comes to equipment, it is also easier to have 1 operating radio than having 4-6 operating radios.
Four engines take more maintenance time than two. Pumping in say 8 tons of fuel rather than 4 takes more time. But the biggest issue is with larger, 4 engine planes you will simply have fewer of them.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 02 Jan 2023 17:06

T. A. Gardner wrote:
01 Jan 2023 19:39
Peter89 wrote:
01 Jan 2023 17:44
This is not really true in this case. The complex part of an aircraft were the engines, the controls and the landing gear. Airframes were significantly more simple to produce. To produce 4 engines instead of 3 engines or 2 engines is not 4-6 times more complex or costly. Or do you have any proof that the production of 1 Ju 90 would equal 4-6 Ju 88?
It is true. You are doubling the number of engine controls, adding complexity to many other systems like fuel. You have a larger airframe that consists of many more parts that have to be fabricated then fastened in place. It may seem minute, but if you have 30% more rivets for instance, you are taking a lot more time to put them all in, not to mention the larger number needed. You need more jigs to make parts. This is inevitable. So, the number of parts in an Me 109 is far, far smaller than the number of parts in a Ju 88, and the Ju 88 has far fewer parts than a Ju 290.
I don't really understand your argument. Of course a Me 109 has far fewer number of parts than a Ju 88, and of course a Ju 88 has far fewer parts than a Ju 90 (Ju 290 is still not on the plate). You said
T. A. Gardner wrote:
31 Dec 2022 20:12
each Ju 90 / 290 will replace somewhere between 4 and 6 of the smaller aircraft on the assembly line.
, but for me it seems to be an exaggeration. I bought the documentation of the Ju 90 (civilian version, but still) and I have the Ju 88 documentation as well. Yes you need some extra controls, but you don't have to control exponentially more parts. In some cases, you have to control linearly more (eg. 4 engines instead of 2x2 engines), in some cases, a larger aircraft actually has lower relative complexity (3 landing gears instead of 2x3, 1 radio instead of 2x1 radioes, etc.). The bulk of the difference comes from the larger airframe, which was way easier to craft than let's say engines. I have "exact" numbers for the Ju 90's airframe's production effort, but it is not relevant as the plane never really went into large scale production and these numbers (roughly: Rumpf: 40%, Tragwerk: 30%, Steuerung: 15%) have to be taken with a mouthful of salt in our case.

I also know the contract prices are not 100% accurate, but help us to have a picture. The early Ju 88s production cost (1939/1940) was between 210,648 RM and 523,385 RM, while producing a Condor was 273,500 RM. The Ju 90 Kleinserie had a contract price of 600,000 RM, which was also meant to cover its original development as the Uralbomber, but in any case nowhere near 4-6 times of an early Ju 88.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
01 Jan 2023 19:39
From the pictures I've seen, Ju 90 was not produced on assembly lines. But 10 aircrafts per month was not an impossible thing to achieve, not even with your numbers: if half of the production capacity for Ju 88 went to Ju 90 production, the Germans could have had a really large force.
The problem here is, if you do build 10 Ju 90 a month, and sacrifice say 30 Ju 88's to do that is that a good trade off?
We are talking about what if Germany deliberately built an anti-shipping air force, whether it could be done or not. Given the early Ju 88s performance, I'd say yes, Germany would be in a much better position in the Battle of the Atlantic with 10 Ju 90 a month instead of 30 Ju 88 a month (note that you spoke about a 1:4-6 ratio, not an 1:3 ratio)
T. A. Gardner wrote:
01 Jan 2023 19:39
Then, if you lose more than 10 Ju 90 in a month (a very realistic probability there), you are losing ground on the number in service.
Historically the window of opporunity was present between July 1940 and late 1941. Assuming a postponed or never-happening Barbarossa, this window might have remained open for a little longer. The AA deficiencies in British convoy defenses were not dealt with before early 1942, thus I have no reason to assume that 10 extra Fw 200 or Ju 90 would fare worse - and the Germans never lost even close that number in this window of opportunity.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
01 Jan 2023 19:39
It doesn't really make sense to me. Plus I have no idea why you think that a BMW 801 engine in a Ju 90 (the Ju 290 didn't exist in the window of opportunity) would consume much-much more than double the fuel than the same engine in a Ju 88. The fuel consumption of a BMW 801 D engine varied between 255-440 l/h (except take off consumption) thus it is not even double.
If you have 4 engines on the plane, versus two the four will use double the fuel... That's a pretty simple concept.
Yes, but you said:
- 1 Ju 90 will replace 4-6 Ju 88 on the production line
- 10 Ju 90 for 30 Ju 88 is not a good trade-off
- so why do you think it is worse to have 1 Ju 90 instead of 2 Ju 88?

We came from the ratio of 1:6 to 1:2, and we began the discussion with me saying
Peter89 wrote:
24 Dec 2022 14:13
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Dec 2022 04:46
The most practical, and easiest to produce VLR bomber for maritime patrol for Germany is the Ju 88H. This is simply a standard Ju 88A with a stretched fuselage that holds like double to triple the fuel. If you have this plane earlier in the war and it is outfitted ASAP with Fritz X or Hs 293 missiles it would be a real ship killer.

Focke Wulf isn't going to produce more than a handful of FW 200, and Junkers can't manufacture more Ju 90 / 290 that like 2 or 3 a month at most. But Junkers could easily churn out a Ju 88H in sufficient numbers to equip several squadrons and keep them flying.
This bit is certainly not true. The increase of production out of thin air is certainly not possible, but there is no reason why the Junkers can't build 1 Ju 90 instead of 3-4 Ju 52s or Ju 88s.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Dec 2022 04:46
The Ju 88H concept makes the most sense. You have an aircraft that is a simple modification of an existing plane. It doesn't need particularly high performance as it is going to be operating almost entirely in an environment where it is unopposed by serious enemy fighter activity. At most, it might run into a few fighters and then it really won't matter if it's 2 engine or 4, it's likely to end up shot down either way.
Since a Ju 88H could carry a heavy nose armament, or it could carry say a torpedo or two, or a couple of Hs 293, it's pretty much all you need for maritime patrol. Send a pair for mutual support if necessary. That's better than a single 4 engine plane on its own.
I have to argue with this, too. The Ju 88H (or any other long range plane) is not going to drop torpedoes in 1940-1941. Especially not double torpedoes because the Germans only had a few dozens of working torpedoes and they were incompatible with the Ju 88 back then. Also the Hs 293 came online years later. The only way to do it was bombs - low altitude bomb runs.
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Dec 2022 04:46
Your note about the maintenance is also a bit misleading. As well as the remark on interchangeability. Because the maintenance personnel did a lot of things that were actually much easier with a few larger aircrafts than with many smaller ones (refuelling, washing, greasing, changing of filters, etc.) but also the overhauls are disproportionately easier with a single four-engine aircraft than with 4-6 two- or three-engine aircrafts. When it comes to equipment, it is also easier to have 1 operating radio than having 4-6 operating radios.
Four engines take more maintenance time than two. Pumping in say 8 tons of fuel rather than 4 takes more time. But the biggest issue is with larger, 4 engine planes you will simply have fewer of them.
I mean come on. Don't you want to point out that a single engine fighter requires even less maintenance? :D

We are talking about the ratio here. Is it easier to produce, maintain, crew, etc. 4-6 Ju 88s than 1 Ju 90? Or what is the ratio? 1:2 seems to be fair to me. Maybe 1:3, although I doubt it.

By the way refuelling 2 Ju 88s instead of 1 Ju 90 only takes more time if you have enough pumps. If you do have to do it in a consecutive order, it is about the same.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by thaddeus_c » 03 Jan 2023 23:47

there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 04 Jan 2023 08:57

thaddeus_c wrote:
03 Jan 2023 23:47
there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)
It had a shorter range than other 2 engine bombers, and thus it was not really a decent aircraft for this role. Although it could stay in the air for a relatively long time, its performance was nowhere near the He 116 for recon missions.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Jan 2023 14:49

Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 08:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
03 Jan 2023 23:47
there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)
It had a shorter range than other 2 engine bombers, and thus it was not really a decent aircraft for this role. Although it could stay in the air for a relatively long time, its performance was nowhere near the He 116 for recon missions.
the HE-116 was an unarmed mail plane with 240hp engines and built only in small numbers, common sense would say a military version with more powerful engines and armament (and even a modest bomb load) its range will be greatly reduced.

with the JU-86, there is a tested platform, my speculation was to (somewhat) mirror the engine arrangement of the BV-138 flying boat the KM already had in use, i.e. three Jumo diesel engines.

a quick glance shows the BV-138 carried twice as much fuel as a standard JU-86, see no reason if range is an issue (which it likely is not) that the Junkers aircraft could not add capacity?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 04 Jan 2023 17:57

thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 14:49
Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 08:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
03 Jan 2023 23:47
there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)
It had a shorter range than other 2 engine bombers, and thus it was not really a decent aircraft for this role. Although it could stay in the air for a relatively long time, its performance was nowhere near the He 116 for recon missions.
the HE-116 was an unarmed mail plane with 240hp engines and built only in small numbers, common sense would say a military version with more powerful engines and armament (and even a modest bomb load) its range will be greatly reduced.
Yes but we have two types of missions here, sometimes collectively called maritime patrol. One is to fly unarmed recon sorties in order to detect and shadow convoys as long as possible, thus the U-boats can be directed to it. For this type of mission you need excellent fuel economy, low cruising speed and such, for which the He 116 was the best aircraft in the German inventory in my opinion. (It was not suitable for carrying a bomb load, although theoretically its disproportionate amount of fuel could be exchanged for 2 SC-250 bombs without ruining its endurance. The reasons for this were different.) The Fw 200 was able to shadow a convoy for 3-4 hours while an U-boat strike usually took 12-24 hours to materialize.

The other type of mission is the anti-shipping sortie in which the Ju 86 doesn't stand a chance because of its short range. An extra engine will not solve that problem.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Jan 2023 21:48

Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 17:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 14:49
Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 08:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
03 Jan 2023 23:47
there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)
It had a shorter range than other 2 engine bombers, and thus it was not really a decent aircraft for this role. Although it could stay in the air for a relatively long time, its performance was nowhere near the He 116 for recon missions.
the HE-116 was an unarmed mail plane with 240hp engines and built only in small numbers, common sense would say a military version with more powerful engines and armament (and even a modest bomb load) its range will be greatly reduced.
Yes but we have two types of missions here, sometimes collectively called maritime patrol. One is to fly unarmed recon sorties in order to detect and shadow convoys as long as possible, thus the U-boats can be directed to it. For this type of mission you need excellent fuel economy, low cruising speed and such, for which the He 116 was the best aircraft in the German inventory in my opinion. (It was not suitable for carrying a bomb load, although theoretically its disproportionate amount of fuel could be exchanged for 2 SC-250 bombs without ruining its endurance. The reasons for this were different.) The Fw 200 was able to shadow a convoy for 3-4 hours while an U-boat strike usually took 12-24 hours to materialize.

The other type of mission is the anti-shipping sortie in which the Ju 86 doesn't stand a chance because of its short range. An extra engine will not solve that problem.
ridiculous. you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 05 Jan 2023 23:52

thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 21:48
Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 17:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 14:49
Peter89 wrote:
04 Jan 2023 08:57
thaddeus_c wrote:
03 Jan 2023 23:47
there was some fair numbers of JU-86s (and my understanding some numbers of unfinished airframes), they seem viable for the maritime role, the historical bomber version carried the same four SC-250 bombs as the FW-200.

since they were relegated to secondary roles anyway by the LW, maybe their use as a maritime patrol would be less of an issue?

(my speculation would be the LW could develop a trimotor version)
It had a shorter range than other 2 engine bombers, and thus it was not really a decent aircraft for this role. Although it could stay in the air for a relatively long time, its performance was nowhere near the He 116 for recon missions.
the HE-116 was an unarmed mail plane with 240hp engines and built only in small numbers, common sense would say a military version with more powerful engines and armament (and even a modest bomb load) its range will be greatly reduced.
Yes but we have two types of missions here, sometimes collectively called maritime patrol. One is to fly unarmed recon sorties in order to detect and shadow convoys as long as possible, thus the U-boats can be directed to it. For this type of mission you need excellent fuel economy, low cruising speed and such, for which the He 116 was the best aircraft in the German inventory in my opinion. (It was not suitable for carrying a bomb load, although theoretically its disproportionate amount of fuel could be exchanged for 2 SC-250 bombs without ruining its endurance. The reasons for this were different.) The Fw 200 was able to shadow a convoy for 3-4 hours while an U-boat strike usually took 12-24 hours to materialize.

The other type of mission is the anti-shipping sortie in which the Ju 86 doesn't stand a chance because of its short range. An extra engine will not solve that problem.
ridiculous. you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.
The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by thaddeus_c » 06 Jan 2023 05:08

Peter89 wrote:
05 Jan 2023 23:52
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 21:48
you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.
The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
I was referencing the HE-116 as an experiment, not the HE-111.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 06 Jan 2023 08:39

thaddeus_c wrote:
06 Jan 2023 05:08
Peter89 wrote:
05 Jan 2023 23:52
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 21:48
you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.
The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
I was referencing the HE-116 as an experiment, not the HE-111.
The He 111 borrowed many features from He 70 as well.

He 116 wasn't an experiment; or at least not more than the other 4-engine aircrafts in the German inventory. The first few "prototypes" (V-series) was normal before a small series production of a dozen or so aircrafts began. The same thing happened to the Ju 90 and the Fw 200 as well. Also some 4-engine aircrafts never even landed a contract for a small series production, but I wouldn't call them experiments.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Cantankerous » 13 Jan 2023 03:49

Peter89 wrote:
06 Jan 2023 08:39
thaddeus_c wrote:
06 Jan 2023 05:08
Peter89 wrote:
05 Jan 2023 23:52
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 21:48
you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.
The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
I was referencing the HE-116 as an experiment, not the HE-111.
The He 111 borrowed many features from He 70 as well.

He 116 wasn't an experiment; or at least not more than the other 4-engine aircrafts in the German inventory. The first few "prototypes" (V-series) was normal before a small series production of a dozen or so aircrafts began. The same thing happened to the Ju 90 and the Fw 200 as well. Also some 4-engine aircrafts never even landed a contract for a small series production, but I wouldn't call them experiments.
The Junkers Ju 90 was designed as an airliner derivative of the Ju 89 prototype four-engine heavy bomber, and the third Ju 89 prototype under construction became the first Ju 90 prototype as a result. A few Ju 90s were impressed into Luftwaffe service as military transports, and the Ju 90 V11 and V13 were completed as the first two prototypes of the Ju 290 maritime patrol aircraft.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Peter89 » 13 Jan 2023 11:43

Cantankerous wrote:
13 Jan 2023 03:49
Peter89 wrote:
06 Jan 2023 08:39
thaddeus_c wrote:
06 Jan 2023 05:08
Peter89 wrote:
05 Jan 2023 23:52
thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Jan 2023 21:48
you are ignoring the fact the JU-86 only carried 500-odd gallons which could be increased (BV-138 900-odd gallons, HE-111 1,200 gallons for example), as it was the range exceeded that of the BV-138 and (stated) range approx. 80% of the HE-111.

and this is for an actual functional, tested aircraft, not an experiment, which btw is based on the HE-70, an aircraft taken out of any military service for well known issues.
The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
I was referencing the HE-116 as an experiment, not the HE-111.
The He 111 borrowed many features from He 70 as well.

He 116 wasn't an experiment; or at least not more than the other 4-engine aircrafts in the German inventory. The first few "prototypes" (V-series) was normal before a small series production of a dozen or so aircrafts began. The same thing happened to the Ju 90 and the Fw 200 as well. Also some 4-engine aircrafts never even landed a contract for a small series production, but I wouldn't call them experiments.
The Junkers Ju 90 was designed as an airliner derivative of the Ju 89 prototype four-engine heavy bomber, and the third Ju 89 prototype under construction became the first Ju 90 prototype as a result. A few Ju 90s were impressed into Luftwaffe service as military transports, and the Ju 90 V11 and V13 were completed as the first two prototypes of the Ju 290 maritime patrol aircraft.
Your point being?

The whole German inventory of 4E aircrafts were designed as airliners or long-distance mail service planes. But everyone was aware of their military potential, eg. the Japanese ordered Ju 90 and FW 200 as well.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: German strategic bombers

Post by Cantankerous » 14 Jan 2023 04:29

Peter89 wrote:
13 Jan 2023 11:43
Cantankerous wrote:
13 Jan 2023 03:49
Peter89 wrote:
06 Jan 2023 08:39
thaddeus_c wrote:
06 Jan 2023 05:08
Peter89 wrote:
05 Jan 2023 23:52


The He 111 as an experiment? Interesting.

Anyway, where did you get the range datas?

Also what do you think, what was the Leergewicht and the Startgewicht of a Ju 86 and a He 111 in 1940?

What would be the He 111's range if it flew with 1000 kg bombs and extra fuel? Or with more fuel-economic engines?

I have a feeling that we are dealing with some misunderstanding here.
I was referencing the HE-116 as an experiment, not the HE-111.
The He 111 borrowed many features from He 70 as well.

He 116 wasn't an experiment; or at least not more than the other 4-engine aircrafts in the German inventory. The first few "prototypes" (V-series) was normal before a small series production of a dozen or so aircrafts began. The same thing happened to the Ju 90 and the Fw 200 as well. Also some 4-engine aircrafts never even landed a contract for a small series production, but I wouldn't call them experiments.
The Junkers Ju 90 was designed as an airliner derivative of the Ju 89 prototype four-engine heavy bomber, and the third Ju 89 prototype under construction became the first Ju 90 prototype as a result. A few Ju 90s were impressed into Luftwaffe service as military transports, and the Ju 90 V11 and V13 were completed as the first two prototypes of the Ju 290 maritime patrol aircraft.
Your point being?

The whole German inventory of 4E aircrafts were designed as airliners or long-distance mail service planes. But everyone was aware of their military potential, eg. the Japanese ordered Ju 90 and FW 200 as well.
The Imperial Japanese Army Air Force had plans to license-build the Junkers Ju 90 as a long-range bomber, the Mitsubishi Ki-90, optimistic that Junkers would deliver documentation for the Ju 90. However, the Ki-90 project was abandoned because Junkers did not deliver the technical information for the Ju 90 to the Mitsubishi company.

Link:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ost-224195

Return to “What if”