Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015 02:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Best Amerika Bomber

Post by SpicyJuan » 22 Sep 2015 03:15

Simon Gunson wrote: The Me264 was itself rejected as too hazardous by RLM due to runway length requirements. Officially only one Me 264 was built however it appears a second Me 264 was assembled from parts & flew LR communications flights under Kommando Nebel. With a serious bomb load & fuel for a transatlantic mission using RATO, the Me 264 required a 2,400m take-off run.
My source says 2,000, although I could be looking at a wrong section. With stronger engines (Jumo 222/BMW 802/3) or JATO, this could be fixed.
LM concluded the handling & risks of using RATO were too great for the average pilot.
A mistake to be sure. A system using RATO that could be safe could have been developed. Alternatively, the RLM could have used this as a lame excuse to not accept the Me 264.
The Ta400 was problematic because of the limitations imposed by the BMW801 engine two stage superchargers. The first stage cut in at 21,000ft and practically doubled fuel consumption. I can't recall to hand what altitude the second stage kicked in, but suffice to say, reaching 35,000ft would treble the fuel flow.
Would you mind providing a source, and what particular version does this apply to, as I heard the 801TJ had good cruise efficiency over 11,000 meters? Also, wouldn't this also apply to the Me 264 and Ju 390?
The Ju 390 was never suited to a bombing role as the entire aircraft was far too slow. Quite modest turns induced wing flutter in the Ju 290 and the shorter V1 aircraft with a bomb pannier forward of the wing root suffered longitudinal instability. Intended use of the Ju 290 V3 as a bomber against New York with three Hs 293 glide missiles was abandoned for the simple reason the wings could not cope structurally with the weight so far outboard. There was no practical way with a low mounted wing in the Ju390 to incorporate a bomb bay. The projected Ju 290E bomber however did incorporate a pannier extending the entire length of the belly. in practical terms they could not fly fast enough to survive fighter defences nor fly high enough due to fuel consumption to avoid fighters.
You're quite right (especially with the pannier), but this is what a friend had said about it with 222's:
Most web pages give the speed of the Ju 290 V1 as 314mph with 1700hp BMW801G2/D2 engines. The aircraft flew in 1943 and that was certainly the maximum power available at that time. It's possible these ratings are for the more powerful BMW801E but I doubt it.

Assuming the Jumo 222A2/B2 had the same full throttle height and drag and that the extra weight has not effect (a fair assumption) the speed increase would be
314 x (2500/1700)^0.33 = 357mph.
Assuming 1900hp had been available 344mph.

The Jumo 222E/F at least 10% faster again due to the operation in thinner air, about 392mph.

The aircraft had much lower wing loading than the B-29. With the Jumo 222E/F or BMW801TJ it would have good altitude and speed.

The Ju 290 has its origins in the Ju 89 bomber which was like the B-17 a low wing monoplane. The bomb bay would have to go between the wing spars as on the B17, He 111. I do not see that as a problem for a long range aircraft. A B17 bomb load out might be 6 x 1000lbs and surely the bigger Ju 290 could do better in terms of size and number of bombs. Nevertheless the Ju 290/390 was I believe to receive a pannier for carrying bombs. I suspect since the pannier could be used to carry a ventral gun it would allow the elimination of the ventral gun gondola leading to a minimal increase in overall drag.

A typical B17 load out was load 6 x 1000lb, the Ju 290 surely could have carrier more and bigger bombs if it had been given an internal bomb bay. However if you can make a pannier act as a ventral gun station then it makes sense to go with the pannier.
Of all the proposals, RLM was most impressed by the He 274
I'm sure they were, but as a Amerika Bomber it was not.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: There IS a "real He 177B" Typenblatt drawing in the Griehl/Dressel book...

Post by Simon Gunson » 22 Sep 2015 04:29

SpicyJuan wrote:
Simon Gunson wrote:The He-274 was Germany's preferred choice and was intended to be the real Amerika Bomber.
I'm quite sure that it was not. The Me 264 was the original preference, but evolved into the He 277. Besides, the 274 didn't even have enough range to reach Amerika with IFR.
The Me 264 proved inadequate. The Ju 390 could fly the distance and return but had low survivability even to reach the target.

IIRC George Patton was party to the interrogation of a General Voss who indicated the He 274 was the intended Amerika bomber. The published range you refer to is in French use flying quite heavy payloads of parasite aircraft like the Sud-Ouest SOM.2. With an internal bomb load of 4,000kg the He 274 was capable of flying 9.35hrs @ 580km/hr or 360mph = 5423km/3,366 sm and was always intended to be flown from Brest to New York. Yes it would have been a one way mission. The same is true had it been flown by comparable aircraft with significant bomb loads.
I have on good authority from a person who can't be named that Griehl was pressured by German authorities to delete & amend information gathered in research so I suggest one keeps in mind that he was arbitrarily limited in what he was permitted to reveal. Even to this day the German Government is highly sensitive to disclosures of some ww2 issues. I regret my inability to name the source, but suffice to say there is more untold by Griehl in his research material than was disclosed. Some will choose to disagree with this comment or seek to argue with it, but that can't be helped. take it or leave it as you choose.
Would you mind being a bit more specific on what type of information was left out? Did he perhaps include it in his book "Luftwaffe Over America"? I find it a little suspect that Griehl was pressured whereas Dieter Herwig, the author of Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Strategic Bombers, and the overall tone of his book is Nazi-sympathetic, yet was originally released in German.[/quote]

Nope sorry, I was specifically asked not to identify the person however he is known to Griehl. Thing is the German Government controls access to their archives. One could if one wished publish information from public sources & say what one likes however Griehl's research was quite meticulous & that carried strings.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 00:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Best Amerika Bomber

Post by Simon Gunson » 22 Sep 2015 05:39

SpicyJuan wrote:
Simon Gunson wrote: The Me264 was itself rejected as too hazardous by RLM due to runway length requirements. Officially only one Me264 was built however it appears a second Me264 was assembled from parts & flew LR communications flights under Kommando Nebel. With a serious bomb load & fuel for a transatlantic mission using RATO, the Me264 required a 2,400m take-off run.
My source says 2,000, although I could be looking at a wrong section. With stronger engines (Jumo 222/BMW 802/3) or JATO, this could be fixed.
LM concluded the handling & risks of using RATO were too great for the average pilot.
A mistake to be sure. A system using RATO that could be safe could have been developed. Alternatively, the RLM could have used this as a lame excuse to not accept the Me 264.
Forsyth, Robert and Eddie J. Creek. Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika Bomber: The Luftwaffe's Lost Transatlantic Bomber. Hinckley, UK: Classic Publications, 2007. ISBN 1-903223-65-2 cites 2,400 metres take off distance from original archived documents. I do not have my copy to hand at present.

I wonder if you have ever been a pilot because the problem really is the aircraft was under powered and taking off overweight?
A pilot would understand the dangerous issues taking off mushing around barely able to climb at stall speed. The aircraft is so uncontrollable taking off overweight that it is a mixture of pure chance and expert skills of a test pilot that prevents disaster. This is why the Me264 was rejected. Few 2,400m runways were available for maximum gross weight take off.

The Ta400 was problematic because of the limitations imposed by the BMW801 engine two stage superchargers. The first stage cut in at 21,000ft and practically doubled fuel consumption. I can't recall to hand what altitude the second stage kicked in, but suffice to say, reaching 35,000ft would treble the fuel flow.
Would you mind providing a source, and what particular version does this apply to, as I heard the 801TJ had good cruise efficiency over 11,000 meters? Also, wouldn't this also apply to the Me 264 and Ju 390?
The BMW801D-2 was bench tested in the United States and the data comes from there. A normally aspirated BMW801 engine will only operate up to 26,000ft. The real difference with the BMW801TJ is that the TJ was boosted to operate at 41,000ft. The BMW801TJ is a direct development of the BMW801D with a Hirth TK19 turbocharger.

This extra boost increases fuel consumption in two stages, first cutting in at 21,000ft.

The BMW801E was a supercharged development of the BMW801D-2 with slightly better fuel consumption at a maximum 36,600ft altitude but with less altitude performance than the BMW801TJ. All suffered the same increased fuel consumption issues at altitude.

I gathered the data from a pdf copy of an American NACA report available through a google search. It relates to bench testing of the BMW801D-2 engine:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... -e-192.pdf
The Ju 390 was never suited to a bombing role as the entire aircraft was far too slow. Quite modest turns induced wing flutter in the Ju 290 and the shorter V1 aircraft with a bomb pannier forward of the wing root suffered longitudinal instability. Intended use of the Ju 290 V3 as a bomber against New York with three Hs 293 glide missiles was abandoned for the simple reason the wings could not cope structurally with the weight so far outboard. There was no practical way with a low mounted wing in the Ju 390 to incorporate a bomb bay. The projected Ju 290E bomber however did incorporate a pannier extending the entire length of the belly. in practical terms they could not fly fast enough to survive fighter defences nor fly high enough due to fuel consumption to avoid fighters.
You're quite right (especially with the pannier), but this is what a friend had said about it with 222's:
Most web pages give the speed of the Ju 290V1 as 314mph with 1700hp BMW801G2/D2 engines. The aircraft flew in 1943 and that was certainly the maximum power available at that time. It's possible these ratings are for the more powerful BMW801E but I doubt it.

Assuming the Jumo 222A2/B2 had the same full throttle height and drag and that the extra weight has not effect (a fair assumption) the speed increase would be
314 x (2500/1700)^0.33 = 357mph.
Assuming 1900hp had been available 344mph.

The Jumo 222E/F at least 10% faster again due to the operation in thinner air, about 392mph.

The aircraft had much lower wing loading than the B-29. With the Jumo 222E/F or BMW801TJ it would have good altitude and speed.
The maximum airspeed (VMO) of the Ju 390 was dictated by airframe drag and airfoil section, not engine power. All aircraft have a maximum safe operating speed, also referred to as VNE = velocity never exceed. If you try to drive an airframe over that speed bits fall off and the aircraft shakes itself apart. The Ju 390 could not fly any faster and suffered dangerous wing flutter in turns at slow speed.

The real cruise speed was about 270mph which makes it vulnerable to fighters flying nearly twice as fast.
The Ju 290 has its origins in the Ju 89 bomber which was like the B-17 a low wing monoplane. The bomb bay would have to go between the wing spars as on the B17, He 111. I do not see that as a problem for a long range aircraft.
Bomb weight needs to be kept at the centre of gravity so that dropping a bomb load does not suddenly shift the centre of gravity forward or aft. The only practical place for a bomb bay is under the wing root. Dropping bombs through the wing spar is not practical, in which case they would be pathetically small 250kg bombs.
...A B17 bomb load out might be 6 x 1000lbs and surely the bigger Ju 290 could do better in terms of size and number of bombs. Nevertheless the Ju 290/390 was I believe to receive a pannier for carrying bombs. I suspect since the pannier could be used to carry a ventral gun it would allow the elimination of the ventral gun gondola leading to a minimal increase in overall drag.

A typical B17 load out was load 6 x 1000lb, the Ju 290 surely could have carrier more and bigger bombs if it had been given an internal bomb bay. However if you can make a pannier act as a ventral gun station then it makes sense to go with the pannier.
Of all the proposals, RLM was most impressed by the He 274
I'm sure they were, but as a Amerika Bomber it was not.
RLM were the people on the ground at the time with access to all the info and I merely relate their preference for the He 274. The He 274 flown by France after the war was fitted with hybrid turbocharged DB603A engines (DB603S) and not the DB603G it was intended to use. Had the DB603G engine been fitted performance would have been far superior.

Image

The Jumo 222 was two engine Vee blocks on a single crankshaft which presented huge plumbing problems that prevented fitting a turbocharger, thus prevented high altitude flight. It was also plagued with cooling problems that were never solved. The Jumo 222's huge advantage was power to weight ratio and thus better fuel consumption.

General91
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 21 Jun 2016 22:23
Location: America

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by General91 » 14 Jul 2016 05:38

SpicyJuan wrote:Hello, I was wanting the forums opinion on the most promising Amerika Bomber design. Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

Here are some pictures of the contenders:
Me 264
Ju 390
He 277
Fw 238
Ta 400

Here are some small lists comparing the performance of the bombers:
Max Speed (in mph):
Ta 400: 447
Fw 238: 417
He 277*: 407
Ju 390*: 392
Ju 390**: 357
He 277: 354
Me 264: 350
Ju 390: 314
*with Jumo 222 A/B
**with Jumo 222 E/F

Service Cieling
The base types were all about average at 30,000 ft (except the Ju 390 with BMW 801's whose was 20,000 ft), of course this would change with the plethora of powerplant proposals given.

Bombloads
Fw 238: 33,069 lbs @ 5,592 miles
Me 264: 29,100 lbs @ 5,343 miles
Ta 400: 22,040 lbs at 5,589 miles
He 277: 13,224 lbs @ 5,340 miles
Ju 390: 9,680 lbs for long range missions (exact range unknown)*
*for shorter ranges a bomb pannier was envisaged, the Ju 290E incorporated one which raised the max payload to 44,000 lbs).

IMO, the Me 264 is the best choice as it was an exceptional aircraft in all regards, not only in performance but in handling qualities as well.

NOTE: There is a reason why this is in the aircraft section, because this is a place to discuss the technical aspects of the competing aircraft, and NOT to discuss the Amerika Bomber program as a whole, nor its results if carried out.
If I am reading this correctly, the Fw 238 seems to be the best compromise overall. It has the second highest speed, longest range, and largest payload. Can someone explain why it didn't progress? Anyone have further data on the Fw 238? (I am also a big fan of Kurt Tank and Focke Wulf).

User avatar
Bader's Briar
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 21:34

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Bader's Briar » 30 Sep 2017 18:42

Der Fellow Amerika Bomber Fans:

Bader's Briar here again, and from a similar "assertion" from one Mr. Gunson earlier this year about "real-world He 277s" he asserted that "actually existed", I've been able to counter him on each and EVERY single assertion he's made (based on each individual aircraft example he'd specified himself), as to exactly WHAT each exact example he had "asserted" had been, with documentation from the Griehl/Dressel book backing me up every single time.

So, "here goes" with my VERY detailed "refutation file" of Mr. Gunson's "assertions"...the Griehl/Dressel book on the "Gruesome Griffin" is a GOLD MINE of info that completely "smashes" the "oft-told story" about any "completed He 277s" ever existing!

The Sy Gunson REFUTATION Textfile of Phony "He 277" aircraft data, and the
ACTUAL records of He 177As he's alleged that were never "He 277s" to begin with...

His listings:

"The three He 177B were NN+QQ (first prototype He 177B) W.Nr.535550, GA+QQ former He 177 A-08 (He 277 W.Nr.23). Only one of the He 177B ever became an He 277. The He 277 was developed as a kitset modification that could be applied to existing He 177. However a number of He 177 A-6 prototypes were converted at E-2 Rechlin workshops as production prototypes and issued Stkz: GA+QQ Heinkel He 277 V9 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QR Heinkel He 277 V10 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QM Heinkel He 277 V26 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QX Heinkel He 277 V18 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin). These He 277 were not produced by Hienkel Schwechat."

ACTUAL Listings of He 177B quartet of prototypes and purported "He 277" airframes qouted by Sy Gunson, with all verifications from the pages (where mentioned in this reply) and appendices of the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel book ISBN 1-85310-364-0, appendices existing on pages 220-241:

Format of: RLM/Luftwaffe individual a/c type designator, serial number/Werknummer, alphabetic Stammkennzeichen (StmKz) factory a/c ID, role of aircraft/eventual fate.

He 177B Prototype Airframe notes, from Griehl/Dressel book's pgs. 162-163, 165-167 & 226:

He 177 V101: Serial number 535 550, NN+QQ, an A-3 airframe rebuilt to B-5 standard with four separate DB 603-dedicated Heinkel/Kraftei He 219 style nacelles/annular radiators, intended for fitment (but never fitted) with "drag rudders" on stab for engine-out testing as shown on Heinkel engineering drawing - the He 177 V101 was almost certainly the four-engined He 177B-series prototype found wrecked at Cheb, Czech Republic in May 1945 (fuselage blown to tiny bits), only one surviving photo of it intact, on a foggy German airfield from a near nose-on attitude (the photo's vantage point was offset to airframe's starboard side). Said to have been allegedly fitted with a quartet of Jumo 222s (which in reality had a trio of exhaust stack sets per nacelle [upper flanks P/S and bottom-center] as with Ju 288s powered with them), but as the Cheb photos show He 219-pattern Kraftei nacelles ONLY, with twin exhaust stack sets fitted per nacelle as with He 219, and hinged upper-flank nacelle panels identical in outline to those on an He 219 Kraftei nacelle. The "Jumo 222 refit" supposition remains unproven, and likely an incorrect assumption. The He 177 V101 wreck at Cheb had four-blade props fitted, as with early He 219 V1-V5 and Fw 190C prototypes powered with DB 603s.

He 177 V102: Serial number 00 0023, GA+QQ, the eighth 177A service test airframe (He 177A-08 or He 177 V9), rebuilt as the V101 was (but HAD to include the 1.6 meter lengthening of the rear fuselage first mandated for A-3s onward in the initial refit) for quartet of Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603s, but with He 219-inspired twin tail unit (only one so equipped); first to fly on four DB 603s on December 20, 1943, after fitment of twin-tail unit, stated "as scrapped" after February 1945, no surviving photos.

He 177 V103: Serial number 550 036, KM+TL, an A-5 that was the first and only aircraft from the "quartet of Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603"-engined He 177B prototype airframes whose rear fuselage was completely rebuilt to use the Borsig hydraulically-driven Hecklafette HL 131V quadmount tail turret (not completely like the He 177 V32 through V34 trio of test airframes actually used for the Borsig quadmount turret tests), had single vertical tail only as V101 did, blown to pieces on July 8th, 1944 by USAAF 15th Air Force raid on Heinkel-Süd/Vienna suburb facility at Floridsdorf.

He 177 V104: Serial number 550 005, KM+TE, an A-5 meant to be the "pattern aircraft" for the Arado Flugzeugwerke-built He 177B-5 airframe series production project meant to have a twin-tail empennage as V102 had, meant to start by November 1944 - conversion never completed, "in-progress" airframe blown apart in same July 1944 American air raid in Floridsdorf that wrecked the V103.

True facts about the aircraft alleged by Mr. Gunson to have been purportedly rebuilt as "He 277s", when in reality this never happened: No He 177A-6 production aircraft were ever completed, as pre-production work on the type was shelved after its initiation in January 1943, with engineering work on both the He 177A-5 and B-series taking over during 1943 causing the A-6's shelving (G/D book pg. 106), so no A-6s were available for the purported "He 277" conversions...the alleged aircraft's corrected identities are documented using same format as before, most documentation coming from Griehl/Dressel book's appendix page 232...

Purported "He 277V9" (only a trio of He 277 prototypes were ever called for by the RLM in the first place, expected to be completed by May/June 1943 timeframe) was actually the aforementioned He 177 V103...mention of requested trio of prototypes [and ten further A-0 service test airframes, also never-built] for 8-277 category airframes mentioned on Griehl/Dressel book's pg.104.

Purported "He 277V10" was actually the He 177 V10, WkNr 00 0024, StmKz GA+QR, started out as the He 177A-09 service test series airframe, used for testing of the He 177A-4's high altitude pressurized cockpit, remained with DB 606 "welded-together engines" for power, last metioned on June 20, 1944, stated as "cannibalized" for parts. The He 177 V11 airframe, otherwise identical to the V10 but with s/n of 00 0025 and StmKz code of GA+QS, was used for flying the A-4 format pressurized test cockpit to 9.2 km altitude on August 9, 1943. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pg. 179)

Purported "He 277V26" was actually the He 177A-04 service test airframe, WkNr 00 0019, StmKz GA+QM, remained with DB 606 "welded-together engines" for power, last officially mentioned on April 24, 1943 with the prototype designation V26 at Rechlin with "improved aerial torpedo installation", victim of aircrash. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pgs. 226 & 232)

Purported "He 277V18" was actually the He 177A-015 service test airframe, WkNr 00 0030, StmKz GA+QX, last mentioned on June 28, 1943 as the He 177 V18 prototype airframe for the He 177A-1/U2 Zerstörer version, using twin MK 101 30mm flexible-mount autocannon at front of dramatically forward-extended Bola for anti-ship/close support attack, solely powered with DB 606 "welded-together engines", fate otherwise unknown past last official mention. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pg. 110)

No known documentation exists for the anomalous, Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603 engined He 177B prototype airframe bearing the Stammkennzeichen "NE+OD" on the only other surviving photo (in this one, the aircraft is seen from its starboard side, almost side-on) of an intact, four-engined He 177B prototype, as fragmentary evidence exists for the "NE+Ox" code block being used for He 177A-3 airframes, of an unknown number.

The actual He 277 Amerika Bomber project designs, from February 1943 onward (that February 1943 date from G/D book pg. 179) the Amerika Bomber proposal itself pre-dated the He 277's latest verifiable mention date by some ten months, in April 1942). Despite proposal sideviews and 3-views for inline inverted-V12 planned formats from the Heinkel engineering departments, the He 277 Amerika Bomber design was only meant to be powered by a quartet of BMW 801E radials with four-meter diameter, three-bladed propellers, as mentioned on pg. 196 of the Griehl/Dressel book. The 3-view on page 159 of the book is mis-marked as an "He 177B-5", but with this 3-view having the 7 m x 1.75m bomb bay, as shown on pg. 184 of the G/D book of a May 12, 1943-dated bom loadout chart, meant specifically for the He 277.

Let's hope this CLEARS UP a few parts of that cobwebbed, "oft-told story" that far too many people have been "convinced to believe" for far too long.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,

Bader's Briar

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015 02:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by SpicyJuan » 02 Oct 2017 02:50

General91 wrote:
SpicyJuan wrote:Hello, I was wanting the forums opinion on the most promising Amerika Bomber design. Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

Here are some pictures of the contenders:
Me 264
Ju 390
He 277
Fw 238
Ta 400

Here are some small lists comparing the performance of the bombers:
Max Speed (in mph):
Ta 400: 447
Fw 238: 417
He 277*: 407
Ju 390*: 392
Ju 390**: 357
He 277: 354
Me 264: 350
Ju 390: 314
*with Jumo 222 A/B
**with Jumo 222 E/F

Service Cieling
The base types were all about average at 30,000 ft (except the Ju 390 with BMW 801's whose was 20,000 ft), of course this would change with the plethora of powerplant proposals given.

Bombloads
Fw 238: 33,069 lbs @ 5,592 miles
Me 264: 29,100 lbs @ 5,343 miles
Ta 400: 22,040 lbs at 5,589 miles
He 277: 13,224 lbs @ 5,340 miles
Ju 390: 9,680 lbs for long range missions (exact range unknown)*
*for shorter ranges a bomb pannier was envisaged, the Ju 290E incorporated one which raised the max payload to 44,000 lbs).

IMO, the Me 264 is the best choice as it was an exceptional aircraft in all regards, not only in performance but in handling qualities as well.

NOTE: There is a reason why this is in the aircraft section, because this is a place to discuss the technical aspects of the competing aircraft, and NOT to discuss the Amerika Bomber program as a whole, nor its results if carried out.
If I am reading this correctly, the Fw 238 seems to be the best compromise overall. It has the second highest speed, longest range, and largest payload. Can someone explain why it didn't progress? Anyone have further data on the Fw 238? (I am also a big fan of Kurt Tank and Focke Wulf).
According to Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode's "Luftwaffe Secret Projects Strategic Bombers 1935-1945" the Fw 238 was regarded by the RLM as "interesting design studies for which there is no foreseeable use". The context of this quote is that the Fw 238 (and its many variants) were submitted between 1942-1944 where Germany's fortunes were turning for the worse and the Amerika bomber project was no longer deemed a priority. Another reason is that the engines that the Fw 238 was relying on (BMW 803, BMW 802, Jumo 222) were not worked out. There was a design of using 6 DB 603 or Jumo 213 but performance data is unavailable (and likely not too good). It's interesting to note that the author believes the plane could have been operational by 1944 if the design was accepted in late 1942.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015 02:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by SpicyJuan » 02 Oct 2017 02:52

Bader's Briar wrote:Der Fellow Amerika Bomber Fans:

Bader's Briar here again, and from a similar "assertion" from one Mr. Gunson earlier this year about "real-world He 277s" he asserted that "actually existed", I've been able to counter him on each and EVERY single assertion he's made (based on each individual aircraft example he'd specified himself), as to exactly WHAT each exact example he had "asserted" had been, with documentation from the Griehl/Dressel book backing me up every single time.

So, "here goes" with my VERY detailed "refutation file" of Mr. Gunson's "assertions"...the Griehl/Dressel book on the "Gruesome Griffin" is a GOLD MINE of info that completely "smashes" the "oft-told story" about any "completed He 277s" ever existing!

The Sy Gunson REFUTATION Textfile of Phony "He 277" aircraft data, and the
ACTUAL records of He 177As he's alleged that were never "He 277s" to begin with...

His listings:

"The three He 177B were NN+QQ (first prototype He 177B) W.Nr.535550, GA+QQ former He 177 A-08 (He 277 W.Nr.23). Only one of the He 177B ever became an He 277. The He 277 was developed as a kitset modification that could be applied to existing He 177. However a number of He 177 A-6 prototypes were converted at E-2 Rechlin workshops as production prototypes and issued Stkz: GA+QQ Heinkel He 277 V9 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QR Heinkel He 277 V10 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QM Heinkel He 277 V26 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin); GA+QX Heinkel He 277 V18 (delivered to Eprobungstelle Reichlin). These He 277 were not produced by Hienkel Schwechat."

ACTUAL Listings of He 177B quartet of prototypes and purported "He 277" airframes qouted by Sy Gunson, with all verifications from the pages (where mentioned in this reply) and appendices of the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel book ISBN 1-85310-364-0, appendices existing on pages 220-241:

Format of: RLM/Luftwaffe individual a/c type designator, serial number/Werknummer, alphabetic Stammkennzeichen (StmKz) factory a/c ID, role of aircraft/eventual fate.

He 177B Prototype Airframe notes, from Griehl/Dressel book's pgs. 162-163, 165-167 & 226:

He 177 V101: Serial number 535 550, NN+QQ, an A-3 airframe rebuilt to B-5 standard with four separate DB 603-dedicated Heinkel/Kraftei He 219 style nacelles/annular radiators, intended for fitment (but never fitted) with "drag rudders" on stab for engine-out testing as shown on Heinkel engineering drawing - the He 177 V101 was almost certainly the four-engined He 177B-series prototype found wrecked at Cheb, Czech Republic in May 1945 (fuselage blown to tiny bits), only one surviving photo of it intact, on a foggy German airfield from a near nose-on attitude (the photo's vantage point was offset to airframe's starboard side). Said to have been allegedly fitted with a quartet of Jumo 222s (which in reality had a trio of exhaust stack sets per nacelle [upper flanks P/S and bottom-center] as with Ju 288s powered with them), but as the Cheb photos show He 219-pattern Kraftei nacelles ONLY, with twin exhaust stack sets fitted per nacelle as with He 219, and hinged upper-flank nacelle panels identical in outline to those on an He 219 Kraftei nacelle. The "Jumo 222 refit" supposition remains unproven, and likely an incorrect assumption. The He 177 V101 wreck at Cheb had four-blade props fitted, as with early He 219 V1-V5 and Fw 190C prototypes powered with DB 603s.

He 177 V102: Serial number 00 0023, GA+QQ, the eighth 177A service test airframe (He 177A-08 or He 177 V9), rebuilt as the V101 was (but HAD to include the 1.6 meter lengthening of the rear fuselage first mandated for A-3s onward in the initial refit) for quartet of Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603s, but with He 219-inspired twin tail unit (only one so equipped); first to fly on four DB 603s on December 20, 1943, after fitment of twin-tail unit, stated "as scrapped" after February 1945, no surviving photos.

He 177 V103: Serial number 550 036, KM+TL, an A-5 that was the first and only aircraft from the "quartet of Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603"-engined He 177B prototype airframes whose rear fuselage was completely rebuilt to use the Borsig hydraulically-driven Hecklafette HL 131V quadmount tail turret (not completely like the He 177 V32 through V34 trio of test airframes actually used for the Borsig quadmount turret tests), had single vertical tail only as V101 did, blown to pieces on July 8th, 1944 by USAAF 15th Air Force raid on Heinkel-Süd/Vienna suburb facility at Floridsdorf.

He 177 V104: Serial number 550 005, KM+TE, an A-5 meant to be the "pattern aircraft" for the Arado Flugzeugwerke-built He 177B-5 airframe series production project meant to have a twin-tail empennage as V102 had, meant to start by November 1944 - conversion never completed, "in-progress" airframe blown apart in same July 1944 American air raid in Floridsdorf that wrecked the V103.

True facts about the aircraft alleged by Mr. Gunson to have been purportedly rebuilt as "He 277s", when in reality this never happened: No He 177A-6 production aircraft were ever completed, as pre-production work on the type was shelved after its initiation in January 1943, with engineering work on both the He 177A-5 and B-series taking over during 1943 causing the A-6's shelving (G/D book pg. 106), so no A-6s were available for the purported "He 277" conversions...the alleged aircraft's corrected identities are documented using same format as before, most documentation coming from Griehl/Dressel book's appendix page 232...

Purported "He 277V9" (only a trio of He 277 prototypes were ever called for by the RLM in the first place, expected to be completed by May/June 1943 timeframe) was actually the aforementioned He 177 V103...mention of requested trio of prototypes [and ten further A-0 service test airframes, also never-built] for 8-277 category airframes mentioned on Griehl/Dressel book's pg.104.

Purported "He 277V10" was actually the He 177 V10, WkNr 00 0024, StmKz GA+QR, started out as the He 177A-09 service test series airframe, used for testing of the He 177A-4's high altitude pressurized cockpit, remained with DB 606 "welded-together engines" for power, last metioned on June 20, 1944, stated as "cannibalized" for parts. The He 177 V11 airframe, otherwise identical to the V10 but with s/n of 00 0025 and StmKz code of GA+QS, was used for flying the A-4 format pressurized test cockpit to 9.2 km altitude on August 9, 1943. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pg. 179)

Purported "He 277V26" was actually the He 177A-04 service test airframe, WkNr 00 0019, StmKz GA+QM, remained with DB 606 "welded-together engines" for power, last officially mentioned on April 24, 1943 with the prototype designation V26 at Rechlin with "improved aerial torpedo installation", victim of aircrash. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pgs. 226 & 232)

Purported "He 277V18" was actually the He 177A-015 service test airframe, WkNr 00 0030, StmKz GA+QX, last mentioned on June 28, 1943 as the He 177 V18 prototype airframe for the He 177A-1/U2 Zerstörer version, using twin MK 101 30mm flexible-mount autocannon at front of dramatically forward-extended Bola for anti-ship/close support attack, solely powered with DB 606 "welded-together engines", fate otherwise unknown past last official mention. (G/D ISBN 1-85310-364-0 pg. 110)

No known documentation exists for the anomalous, Heinkel He 219/Kraftei DB 603 engined He 177B prototype airframe bearing the Stammkennzeichen "NE+OD" on the only other surviving photo (in this one, the aircraft is seen from its starboard side, almost side-on) of an intact, four-engined He 177B prototype, as fragmentary evidence exists for the "NE+Ox" code block being used for He 177A-3 airframes, of an unknown number.

The actual He 277 Amerika Bomber project designs, from February 1943 onward (that February 1943 date from G/D book pg. 179) the Amerika Bomber proposal itself pre-dated the He 277's latest verifiable mention date by some ten months, in April 1942). Despite proposal sideviews and 3-views for inline inverted-V12 planned formats from the Heinkel engineering departments, the He 277 Amerika Bomber design was only meant to be powered by a quartet of BMW 801E radials with four-meter diameter, three-bladed propellers, as mentioned on pg. 196 of the Griehl/Dressel book. The 3-view on page 159 of the book is mis-marked as an "He 177B-5", but with this 3-view having the 7 m x 1.75m bomb bay, as shown on pg. 184 of the G/D book of a May 12, 1943-dated bom loadout chart, meant specifically for the He 277.

Let's hope this CLEARS UP a few parts of that cobwebbed, "oft-told story" that far too many people have been "convinced to believe" for far too long.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,

Bader's Briar
Sorry Bader this is all somewhat confusing, what's the tl;dr?

Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Cantankerous » 19 Feb 2021 00:30

If anyone's aware, the 1941 long-range bomber design by Focke-Wulf known as "Fw 238" in some publications (design number 0310.206-20) never actually received an RLM designation, and "Fw 238" is basically a fictitious designation derived from drawing Nr. 238 for the Focke-Wulf long-range bomber design with four engines driving counter-rotating propellers. The size of the Focke-Wulf bomber design with drawing Nr. 238 was comparable to the Nothrop XB-35 and unbuilt Vickers Victory Bomber design, as well as some early Convair designs for the B-36 Peacemaker.

Source:
Sharp, Dan. (2016) Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich. Mortons.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 912
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Peter89 » 19 Feb 2021 08:47

Cantankerous wrote:
19 Feb 2021 00:30
If anyone's aware, the 1941 long-range bomber design by Focke-Wulf known as "Fw 238" in some publications (design number 0310.206-20) never actually received an RLM designation, and "Fw 238" is basically a fictitious designation derived from drawing Nr. 238 for the Focke-Wulf long-range bomber design with four engines driving counter-rotating propellers. The size of the Focke-Wulf bomber design with drawing Nr. 238 was comparable to the Nothrop XB-35 and unbuilt Vickers Victory Bomber design, as well as some early Convair designs for the B-36 Peacemaker.

Source:
Sharp, Dan. (2016) Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich. Mortons.
Your point being?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 524
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 20:06

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by LineDoggie » 20 Feb 2021 01:50

B-29's flew combat in group sized (and Larger)missions, none of these wehraboo fantasies even ever made a squadron mission

On March 9th, 1945 279 B-29's flew 1,278 Nautical miles and Bombed Tokyo for a loss of 14 B-29's and 98 crewmen.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Cantankerous » 20 Feb 2021 02:35

Peter89 wrote:
19 Feb 2021 08:47
Cantankerous wrote:
19 Feb 2021 00:30
If anyone's aware, the 1941 long-range bomber design by Focke-Wulf known as "Fw 238" in some publications (design number 0310.206-20) never actually received an RLM designation, and "Fw 238" is basically a fictitious designation derived from drawing Nr. 238 for the Focke-Wulf long-range bomber design with four engines driving counter-rotating propellers. The size of the Focke-Wulf bomber design with drawing Nr. 238 was comparable to the Nothrop XB-35 and unbuilt Vickers Victory Bomber design, as well as some early Convair designs for the B-36 Peacemaker.

Source:
Sharp, Dan. (2016) Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich. Mortons.
Your point being?
I wanted to emphasize that the Ju 390 and Focke-Wulf long-range bomber designs mentioned under drawing Nrs. 238, 242, and 247 had wingspans comparable to those of the Northrop XB-35, Vickers Victory Bomber project, early Convair designs for the B-36 Peacemaker, and the Douglas Model 423. The Ta 400, He 277, and Me 264, however, had wingspans comparable to the B-29 and B-32 as well as the unbuilt XB-30 and XB-31.

Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 476
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Cantankerous » 20 Feb 2021 03:28

SpicyJuan wrote:
02 Oct 2017 02:50
General91 wrote:
SpicyJuan wrote:Hello, I was wanting the forums opinion on the most promising Amerika Bomber design. Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

Here are some pictures of the contenders:
Me 264
Ju 390
He 277
Fw 238
Ta 400

Here are some small lists comparing the performance of the bombers:
Max Speed (in mph):
Ta 400: 447
Fw 238: 417
He 277*: 407
Ju 390*: 392
Ju 390**: 357
He 277: 354
Me 264: 350
Ju 390: 314
*with Jumo 222 A/B
**with Jumo 222 E/F

Service Cieling
The base types were all about average at 30,000 ft (except the Ju 390 with BMW 801's whose was 20,000 ft), of course this would change with the plethora of powerplant proposals given.

Bombloads
Fw 238: 33,069 lbs @ 5,592 miles
Me 264: 29,100 lbs @ 5,343 miles
Ta 400: 22,040 lbs at 5,589 miles
He 277: 13,224 lbs @ 5,340 miles
Ju 390: 9,680 lbs for long range missions (exact range unknown)*
*for shorter ranges a bomb pannier was envisaged, the Ju 290E incorporated one which raised the max payload to 44,000 lbs).

IMO, the Me 264 is the best choice as it was an exceptional aircraft in all regards, not only in performance but in handling qualities as well.

NOTE: There is a reason why this is in the aircraft section, because this is a place to discuss the technical aspects of the competing aircraft, and NOT to discuss the Amerika Bomber program as a whole, nor its results if carried out.
If I am reading this correctly, the Fw 238 seems to be the best compromise overall. It has the second highest speed, longest range, and largest payload. Can someone explain why it didn't progress? Anyone have further data on the Fw 238? (I am also a big fan of Kurt Tank and Focke Wulf).
According to Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode's "Luftwaffe Secret Projects Strategic Bombers 1935-1945" the Fw 238 was regarded by the RLM as "interesting design studies for which there is no foreseeable use". The context of this quote is that the Fw 238 (and its many variants) were submitted between 1942-1944 where Germany's fortunes were turning for the worse and the Amerika bomber project was no longer deemed a priority. Another reason is that the engines that the Fw 238 was relying on (BMW 803, BMW 802, Jumo 222) were not worked out. There was a design of using 6 DB 603 or Jumo 213 but performance data is unavailable (and likely not too good). It's interesting to note that the author believes the plane could have been operational by 1944 if the design was accepted in late 1942.
The initial Focke-Wulf long-range bomber designs of 1941 were never given an RLM designation; "Fw 238" is a fictitious designation derived from drawing Nr. 238 for the original Focke-Wulf Fernkampfflugzeug bomber designs with four BMW piston engines (one with four BMW 803s and a slightly smaller one with four BMW 801s). Specifications for the Focke-Wulf Fernkampfflugzeug designs with Daimler-Benz DB 603 piston engines and Junkers Jumo 222 (drawing Nrs. 242 and 247) can be found at this web link:

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw238.html

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 749
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by daveshoup2MD » 14 Mar 2021 07:37

LineDoggie wrote:
20 Feb 2021 01:50
B-29's flew combat in group sized (and Larger)missions, none of these wehraboo fantasies even ever made a squadron mission

On March 9th, 1945 279 B-29's flew 1,278 Nautical miles and Bombed Tokyo for a loss of 14 B-29's and 98 crewmen.
Quantity has a quality all its own, someone said once... ;)

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2910
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by Sheldrake » 14 Mar 2021 23:26

This thread topic is the best US bomber compared to German bombers,. The result is a long thread about various German bombers that only existed as drawings. The Amerika bomber was a pointless fantasy. Without a nuclear or chemical payload, bombing the US was not going to have any effect- unless US Citizens turned to to have had far less moral fibre than those of Britain or Germany.

There are a lot of US bombers to choose from that existed and flew. US heavy bombers included the B29, B24 and B17. These deployed in numbers and had a material effect on the war. The He177 was a heavy bomber, but had serious technical issues and arrived in service too late,

The US B26 and B26 medium bombers were roughly comparable to the Ju88. However, German procurement was set several years before those of the US. The Ju88 first flew in 1936 while the B25 and B26 first flew four years later in 1940 - as did the DH Mosquito. The Ju88 was arguably the most versatile bomber of WW2.

User avatar
sailorsam
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 14 Feb 2021 23:10
Location: Merryland USA

Re: Best american bomber compared to german bombers

Post by sailorsam » 15 Mar 2021 00:14

I wonder how much the High Command regretted not having a heavy bomber for the USSR.

saw this pic on internet somewhere of the Ta-400
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Saint Peter, let these men enter Heaven; they served their time in hell.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”