What if the Luftwaffe technological gambles worked out? (2 Viewers)

[bobbysocks]

ther germans are going to need more than a few technological gambles to run in their favor for the outcome to be any different....delayed yes but different no. unless they can change water into av and tank fuel, exceed the allied production of planes, trains, trucks, tanks and the like....and find some unlimited source of pilots and soldiers...then things might turn around for them. even it the weather favored them....you can only go so far with so much.

 

[wiking85]

It is 928 miles from Moscow to Tankograd or 842 miles from Stalingrad to Tankograd. It is 900 miles from London to Warsaw.

Germans are going to need a miracle to bomb Tankograd with any effect and without horrendous losses.

With the full 6 ton payload the operational radius was about 950 miles; with 3 tons it was well within range from bases around Smolensk. What were the fighter/AAA defenses of Tankograd?

 

[Shortround6]

We have to believe that the Manufacturer's estimates were almost 100% accurate. We also have to believe that the plane would have gone into production as originally proposed with NO modifications or added equipment. We also have to believe
that this super-plane can traverse 900 miles or more of enemy airspace while flying singly (or in very small and loose formations) or can do what no other aircraft can do and fly in large formations without any loss in range or radius.

According to charts in the Pilots manual the B-17F was supposed to be able to fly 1900 miles at 222mph at 25,000ft while carrying 6,000lb of bombs. I have my doubts given how much fuel it needed to climb to 25,000ft but obviously how a single plane might perform vrs a formation are rather different things.

Russia was not exactly a target rich environment for bombers, unlike Europe and England. Once the bombers had penetrated a few hundred miles and their course plotted, the likely targets become rather few. And getting back out again gives the Russians around 2 1/2 hours to set up intercepts on the return journey.

BTW the original JU-288 had a max bomb load of 3000kg not 6 tons.
If you are referring to the He 177A1 then over a radius of around 950 miles it was good for four 1000kg bombs max or (due to the bomb bay) four 500kg bombs. One wonders what the long range cruise speed was too as the A5/R2 (perhaps due to under wing missiles?) was certainly no speed demon with an economical cruise speed of 210mph at 20,000ft.

 

[parsifal]

Im more than a little bemused by this whole discussion. The Luftwaffe was never really challenged technologically. it wasn't flying biplanes into the face of a vastly superior technologies. What defeated it was numbers and fuel. The attrition it suffered arose from overuse and a wrecked training program, not because anyone was really outflying them. Introduce new types, with all their teething problems, production bottlenecks, training issues, serviceability issues, and you end up making the primary issues dogging the Luftwaffe worse, and not make much of a difference or gain much advantage from the technology.

The issues the LW needed to get to were a better supply of pilots and fuel. Better technologies are nice to have, but make very little difference to the battle problem facing the Germans for most of the war.

 

[kool kitty89]

It would have been a lot easier from an engineering point of view to build a lot more diesel trucks (a few hundred extra pounds of engine weight making a lot less difference) than to fool around with small aircraft diesels.

Trucks and tanks both. I understand that focusing on petrol driven armored units and heavy transport trucks was in part done to facilitate fueling on the front lines during the Blitz. (using captured fuel reserves from local petrol fueling stations) That may have simplified logistics early war, but continuing that mid/late war cost them much more.

For that matter, development of the BMW 114 might have been more useful as a tank engine.

While it is nice to talk about large, long range or long endurance transport, bomber, recon, and patrol aircraft in reality the Germans could not build the numbers required to actually affect things much. They could have built more recon/patrol aircraft and coordinated them better with the U-boats but that is about the only significant difference. An extra couple hundred tons per week into Stalingrad wasn't going to change the outcome. It took the allies 4 engine bombers in the tens of thousands to bomb Germany. The Germans going from 1000-1200 big bombers to 2400 big bombers wasn't going to change the course of the war.

Isn't that a good argument against pursuing heavy bombers or transports at all? Or, I suppose the likes of the Jumo 290 and He-177 (with 4x Jumo 211s) would have doubled as replacements for the Fw-200 in the long range maritime patrol role. Except the He-177 should have been able to reach service earlier and at lower cost than the considerably larger Ju 290. (similar in size to the Fw 200 but a much more capable combat aircraft)

That said, would there have been any more sense in pursuing the Fw 200 itself more seriously as a long-range bomber? (internal bomb bay capacity seems to have been a major limit there along with the engines employed and structural issues ... perhaps more complicated to address those than move on to newer replacements entirely)

My suggestion is not a lot. Earlier production of the Spit IX and an increased urgency given to the development of the Jet engine would cover the problem

That assumes the political issues fell into order more favorably and PowerJets got paired with Rolls Royce earlier, avoiding the Rover debacle, and even then the Meteor Airframe went through a lot of teething problems to work though. Putting a higher (and more official) priority on the Vampire+Goblin projects might have been more useful. (or perhaps collaboration between Halford and Rolls Royce early on -prior to or in place of the De Havilland merger, given their larger resources and infrastructure than Dehavilland's engine division)

No, Germany lacked the means to attack them and was planning a strategic campaign in 1943 that lacked the range to hit the targets needed, while demands at the front caused the flexible bombing units to support the army; the He177 really had only one major use so is likely to remain on strategic bombing, rather than be diverted like the more maneuverable medium bombers were.

Didn't the Fw-200 have the range capabilities to pull that off? To manage deep penetration to the Urals, its altitude performance may have been too lacking, so different engines at least. And bombload would be limited at maximum range. Would that all add up to just being too limited to be useful?

Lack of escorts would be a problem too. Hmm, if they managed a high-altitude variant of the Fw 200, it might be difficult to intercept at all. This might be one of the cases where the high alt Jumo 207 (not to mention fuel economy) might have been useful. In fact, given the size and weight involved (especially if omitting the dive bombing requirements), the 4-engine He-177 airframe might have fit reasonably well with the Jumo 207 in a high alt variant. (granted, turbocharged BMW 801s would make plenty of sense too)

The issues the LW needed to get to were a better supply of pilots and fuel. Better technologies are nice to have, but make very little difference to the battle problem facing the Germans for most of the war.

Better logistic management along with more optimal use of technology would both be important. Quality over quantity might have worked better than it did if the quality was actually consistent. Too many mid/late war projects dragging on with resources spread out and not enough standardization on production or improper allocation of resources. (including just betting on the wrong horse design/development wise -often seemingly for arbitrary political reasons) That goes for technology used on the ground and in the air. That and a failure to adapt doctrine ... lack of strategic offensive capabilities or strong defensive capabilities. (lack of the interest they should have had for developing high performance interceptors -piston or jet)

It's more the early-war designs that got delayed, hindered, or canceled outright that are the bigger issues here, including some cases that very well may have reduced pilot attrition. (more resources into potent high performance aircraft at some expense to sheer volumes put out -no use in having lots of weapons without the proper crews and pilots to man them)

Adopting the Fw-187 as a single-seat fighter as originally intended would be one of the bigger examples I could see. (a high performance long-range fighter and -potentially- heavily armed interceptor with exceptional speed and climb rate and room for growth throughout the war) The RLM took even less serious interest in the single-seat Fw-187 than they did the Jet Fighter program a couple years later. (Udet himself was more supportive of Heinkel's jet fighter and engine programs than he appears to have been towards the single-seat Fw 187)

 

[Shortround6]

The Jumo 222 was an attempt to get around the limitations of 87 octane fuel. But so were the British sleeve valve engines (and to a limited extent, the Dagger). The, shall we say mechanical, improvements were not as great as the improvement allowed by better fuels.
Using lots of little cylinders gives you more cylinder and head area for cooling for the same displacement engine as fewer large cylinders which helps cut down on hot spots and let you use more compression and/or boost with the same fuel. Using small cylinders also allows for higher RPM so more air moved through the engine in a given period of time. However more cylinders means more weight for the same displacement. It also means a more complicated/expensive engine to build and maintain.

Some designers came down on one side and some on the other. But as Parsifal says, trick engines are not going to solve basic fuel shortage problems and pilot shortages.
Perhaps a better/different training program could have helped but it would need a total overhaul of the program (and not killing off the instructors by flying supply missions) and not just substituting a trick engine in the existing trainer aircraft.
Perhaps more dual control fighter trainers sooner? May pay off in fewer crashes while new pilots fly their first "operational" missions at the front? saves on both planes and pilots.
High performance (relatively speaking) fighter trainer?

240-280 hp Argus or Hirth with high wing loading to keep fuel burn down while getting the pilot more acclimated to handling more difficult aircraft?

The FW 56 may not have been 'challanging' enough

Fixed gear, open cockpit and low wing loading.

But no amount of juggling a few % here and there is going to make up for the lack of millions of tons of raw materiel.

 

[Shortround6]

Isn't that a good argument against pursuing heavy bombers or transports at all?

It depends on what you want. The Ju-52 was actually a pretty crappy transport. However useful it may have been as a short/rough field transport it had limited space, short range and low speed for the amount of installed power.

Imagine the US trying to use Ford Tri-motors instead of DC-3/C-47s. The Germans didn't need trans-oceanic transport capability.

You don't need super trick aircraft either.

About the same capacity as a Ju-52 and used a pair of 915hp 9 cylinder radial engines. Even this thing, hardly the last word in modern bombers or transport, could cruise about 30mph faster than a Ju-52 (20-25%) and had over double the range.

For something much more "modern" see the Douglas DC-5. Not used in quantity by the US because they standardized on the DC-3 (already in large scale production), a few were used and a captured KLM airliner was used by the Japanese.

Capacity: 18-24 passengers

Powerplant: 2 × Wright GR-1820-F62 Cyclone, 900 hp (671 kW) each

Maximum speed: 230 mph (200 kn, 370 km/h) at 7,700 ft (2,345 m)
Cruise speed: 202 mph (176 kn, 325 km/h)
Range: 1,600 mi (1,391 nmi, 2,575 km)

Almost 50% faster than a Ju 52 and triple the range. And easier to load.

Or, I suppose the likes of the Jumo 290 and He-177 (with 4x Jumo 211s) would have doubled as replacements for the Fw-200 in the long range maritime patrol role. Except the He-177 should have been able to reach service earlier and at lower cost than the considerably larger Ju 290. (similar in size to the Fw 200 but a much more capable combat aircraft)

Just fix the Fw 200 and have done with it. It got minimal beefing up/modifications because the next Vundar Plane was almost ready (sound familiar?)

That said, would there have been any more sense in pursuing the Fw 200 itself more seriously as a long-range bomber? (internal bomb bay capacity seems to have been a major limit there along with the engines employed and structural issues ... perhaps more complicated to address those than move on to newer replacements entirely

While the FW 200 might have a made a decent Maritime patrol/recon plane it might have a lot harder to turn it into a heavy bomber. The Fw 200 wasn't just a converted airliner, it was a converted record breaking airliner and strength/capacity margins might have been a bit low to begin with. A plane with a higher payload but shorter intended range might have been a better candidate.

Didn't the Fw-200 have the range capabilities to pull that off? To manage deep penetration to the Urals, its altitude performance may have been too lacking, so different engines at least. And bombload would be limited at maximum range. Would that all add up to just being too limited to be useful?

Pretty much. Just finding the target could be a problem

The radio beacon system won't work, the distance is too far. Lots of "empty" space in Russia (farm fields and small villages. Not much for roads and even rail lines could be hundreds of miles apart. Lots of rivers and lakes in some areas, perhaps too many for easy identification.

Lack of escorts would be a problem too. Hmm, if they managed a high-altitude variant of the Fw 200, it might be difficult to intercept at all. This might be one of the cases where the high alt Jumo 207 (not to mention fuel economy) might have been useful. In fact, given the size and weight involved (especially if omitting the dive bombing requirements), the 4-engine He-177 airframe might have fit reasonably well with the Jumo 207 in a high alt variant. (granted, turbocharged BMW 801s would make plenty of sense too)

Well, much like the "bombing" carried out by the JU-86, it could be annoying and drain off assets to counter it but wasn't going to actually do much of anything. High altitude bombing by handfuls of planes doesn't have the impact needed.

 

[gjs238]

But no amount of juggling a few % here and there is going to make up for the lack of millions of tons of raw materiel.

Hence, Blitzkrieg

 

[Koopernic]

As they say, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

In terms of transport aircraft having something better than the Ju 52 might have been low hanging fruit.

One of the reasons the Germans experience severe fuel shortages is that trucks trying to get through Russian quagmire during Barbarossa increased the Army's fuel consumption 10 fold over anticipated requirements. I've got photographs of Half tracks being used to pull semi-trailers through deep mud or just up a shallow hill with shallow mud. Basic 4WD and 6WD won't even cut it here, you need something with big wheels that looks more like an earth moving machine. Send 200 trucks through an unsealed muddy road and see what happens. That's why rail was so important. Obviously efficient airlift would have been most useful.

A Ju 52/3m could carry about
1.6 tons for 1100km(660 miles) or
2.5 tons for 800km(480 miles)
This varies significantly as to version since engine power and MTOW weight increased, above being fairly late model.

A DC3 could have carried the same cargo twice the distance with only a little more fuel. On a ton cargo mile per pound fuel usage the DC3 was much better, moreover it offered greater ranges and speeds (more trips, less staging, forward airfields safely further back). The DC3 landing distance was the same, about a 1000ft grass strip could do. The DC3, having been designed as a bunk bed sleeper offered significantly better volume even if its max cargo was little better.

Ju 52/3m did remarkable things. They could transport horses, small vehicles or 8 x 200L drums of fuel (about 4 Me 109 missions). Wedged between the fixed undercarriage could be carried a 50mm PAK high velocity Anti Tank gun that could be parachute dropped using a triple parachute.

The German airline Lufthansa contracted a replacement: the result was the Ju 252 tri motor powered by Jumo 211 engines. For comfort it was pressurised. It was a very fast aircraft.

This aircraft was re-engineered for military use. One innovation was the "trappoklappe" rear loading ramp, a good idea since it would significantly reduce load/unload times and therefore turnaround times. The reengineering took a fair amount of time that some considered unnecessary. When war broke out between France-Germany it was all hands to the pump and the Ju 252 program was delayed. About 15 entered service in 1943.

Compared to the Ju 52/3m carrying 2.5 tons barely 800km the Ju 252 could carry the same 5 ton load 4000km. It could literally have carried several tons direct from Berlin to Stalingrad (1200 miles), landed, offload and returned without refuelling.

Maximum speed was 272 mph (438 km/h) with a maximum cruising speed of 242 mph (390 km/h). The service ceiling was 20,670 ft (6300 m). Range of 2,473 miles (3980 km) with maximum payload. With only 4,410 lbs (2000 kg) of payload range increased to 4,100 miles (6600 km). Empty the aircraft weighed 28,880 lbs (13100 kg), with a normal loadout it weighed 49,560 lbs (22480 kg) and with maximum overload it weighed 52,910 lbs (24000 kg). It had a span of 111 ft 10 in (34.09 m); length 82 ft 4 in (25.10 m); height 18 ft 10 1/4 in (5.75 m) and a wing area of 1,320 sq ft (122.3 sq m).

"Junker Ju 52 in action" gives the fuel tankage of the Ju 252 as 2 x 198 imp gallon tanks outboard of the engines and 1 x 320 inboard so a total of 1432 gallons, about 6000 Litres which would weigh 4300kg/9460lbs. All protected. Possibly other tanks. Using the empty weight and MTOW (non overload) minus Empty weight I get a max payload of 5.05 tons with a full fuel load. Seems to make sense as with the Jumo producing say 900hp at sfc of 0.48 I get 1300lbs/hour or 590kg should given an endurance of 7.2 hours at 240mph. With reduced fuel and in overload cargos of 9-11 tons were possible.

The Reich started experiencing Aluminium shortages so they converted the Ju 252 to wooden construction as the Ju 352. Because the Jumo 211 was still conceived of as too valuable they used The BMW Bramo 323 of 1000hp instead of 1350hp of the Jumo 211F. As a result of this and greater weights the payload range performance halved. The use of C3 during takeoff and water inection was expected to restore some of that but never seems to have happened.

All the fiddling meant the Ju 52 remained the bulk of the transport force and still made of Aluminium.

AFAIKT the Ju 252 would have carried twice the load using the same fuel and crew. It would have actually probably quadrupled the Luftwaffe's lift capacity given that it didn't need to land at intermediate airposts to for any conceivable Luftwaffe missions and that its speed allowed more trips. It also would have been harder to intercept and shoot down due to its much greater speed.

Quite possibly this could have made quite a difference. The Jumo 211 as used on combat aircraft produced death traps such as the Ju 88A4 and He 111 which in 1942-43 could not survice in airspace dominated by 400mph canon armed P-38,P-47, Spitfire IX.

Obviously the Ju 52 was already setup for production, it was easy to setup production (many produced in France) but its performance over the Luftwaffe's extended supply routes was dismal.

 

[kool kitty89]

Some designers came down on one side and some on the other. But as Parsifal says, trick engines are not going to solve basic fuel shortage problems and pilot shortages.
Perhaps a better/different training program could have helped but it would need a total overhaul of the program (and not killing off the instructors by flying supply missions) and not just substituting a trick engine in the existing trainer aircraft.

Adapting and reorganizing for changing strategies and conditions would have been necessary, yes, but getting into all of that really just points out the fundamental flaws and unrealistic goals the Reich was targeting, without fallbacks or contingency plans for a long-term war (or a potential cold war/stalemate). And if you start expanding on those issues, you might as well go about suggesting an entire alternate history situation with more rational, less radical leadership (or suddenly had a dramatic coup/shift in leadership after the fact) ... which is fun and all, but beyond the scope of the technology-centric discussions like this. (perhaps one of the more interesting scenarios where different/better tech might have been used more successfully and a possible 'point' to some of these hypothetical discussions, but certainly far beyond the technology-centric topic at hand)

Perhaps more dual control fighter trainers sooner? May pay off in fewer crashes while new pilots fly their first "operational" missions at the front? saves on both planes and pilots.

Purpose-built advanced trainer versions of the 109 or 190 might have been grounds for allocating Jumo 211s to as well, more so the 109. (training in underpowered 190s somewhat defeats the purpose of dealing with the handling characteristics, then again if said pilots were going into 190s it might make sense -lower weight and better specific fuel consumption could be pluses there too ... but the 109 airframe would be even better for the latter as well and more airframes to 'spare' compared to the 190)

High performance (relatively speaking) fighter trainer?

240-280 hp Argus or Hirth with high wing loading to keep fuel burn down while getting the pilot more acclimated to handling more difficult aircraft?

So either have more advanced (full) combat aircraft 2-seat operational trainers or focus more on more challenging single-seat advanced lightweight trainers? (doing both seems a bit redundant when resources are already so tight)

The Go 149 itself is an interesting aircraft (interesting it was tentatively considered as a lightweight emergency defense fighter too given the construction and dimensions are fairly similar to Bell's later XP-77).

Gotha's wooden aircraft all had the appeal of efficient use of construction resources too. A few more of those designs favored over competitors pre-war could have helped to some degree in aluminum shortages. (the Go 146 comes to mind, and given the speed, size, and wing loading, probably a better advanced trainer for twins than the Fw-58 -especially relevant if the Fw 187 had been produced)

It depends on what you want. The Ju-52 was actually a pretty crappy transport. However useful it may have been as a short/rough field transport it had limited space, short range and low speed for the amount of installed power.

For something much more "modern" see the Douglas DC-5. Not used in quantity by the US because they standardized on the DC-3 (already in large scale production), a few were used and a captured KLM airliner was used by the Japanese.
Capacity: 18-24 passengers

Almost 50% faster than a Ju 52 and triple the range. And easier to load.

The Lodestar is probably worth mentioning in too, somewhat faster and even longer ranged than the DC-5 (and similar age). The DC-5 is a bit larger and higher passenger/cargo capacity though, so probably closer to the German needs.

I wonder if the He-111 had any merit in being developed further as a transport aircraft. (the operational airliner versions were a bit limited in capacity -worse than the lodestar, let alone DC-3, but the Lodestar itself had been extended from the limited capacity of the Super Electra -or the DC-3 compared to the DC-2, so something along those lines might have been useful)

While the FW 200 might have a made a decent Maritime patrol/recon plane it might have a lot harder to turn it into a heavy bomber. The Fw 200 wasn't just a converted airliner, it was a converted record breaking airliner and strength/capacity margins might have been a bit low to begin with. A plane with a higher payload but shorter intended range might have been a better candidate.

For super long range duties, large bombloads tended to be limited anyway, so having shorter range aircraft doing most of the heavy bombardment and whatever specialized long-range strikes needed could fall to aircraft also suited to the patrol role. (that is, if long range strategic bombing was actually feasible, and of course had the powers that be supported such a role)

But regardless, focusing on a fully militarized Fw-200 as the mainstay patrol aircraft would make plenty of sense. (adopting more powerful/fuel efficient engines than those Bramo 323s would have been good too -jumo 211s should have been fine) My earlier comment on using Diesels for even longer range/endurance patrol might not be all that useful if the engine reliability wasn't up to combat standards. (not sure if the 207s solved some of the servicability problems of the 205s, but that'd be a deal-breaker on long endurance over-water flights, plus Jumo 211s offered more power, so better handling in an engine out scenario)

The radio beacon system won't work, the distance is too far. Lots of "empty" space in Russia (farm fields and small villages. Not much for roads and even rail lines could be hundreds of miles apart. Lots of rivers and lakes in some areas, perhaps too many for easy identification.

Right, and if it turned out to be totally infeasible to make strategic strikes deep into Russia, then investing in aircraft specifically capable of that is a waste of limited resources.

Though the issue of the value of a 4-engine (from the start) He-177 vs just producing more Ju-88s, Do-217s, and Fw-200s (and derivatives thereof). The Do-217 seemed to do well enough (or better) most of the things the Ju-188/288/388 managed but was flying much earlier. (the smaller Ju-88 airframe itself still had some advantages and development potential in that vein -a 'small' successor to the Ju-88 focusing on speed/performance over gains in range/bombload might have been more useful ... maybe they'd have managed something better than the Me-210/410 or Ar-240)

The German airline Lufthansa contracted a replacement: the result was the Ju 252 tri motor powered by Jumo 211 engines. For comfort it was pressurised. It was a very fast aircraft.

The Ju 252 is a good aircraft, but very much more a contemporary of the C-46 than C-47/DC-3. The range, speed, capacity, size, engine power, and pressurized cabin all mirror the C-46 (aside from the 2 x 3 engine layout -and the C-46 having a higher ceiling) The 252 had an advantage in that rear cargo door arrangement, though.

Obviously the Ju 52 was already setup for production, it was easy to setup production (many produced in France) but its performance over the Luftwaffe's extended supply routes was dismal.

Exactly, and it contributed to the mess of logistical pitfalls Germany ran into during the war, but just pushing harder for the Ju 252 might not have been the most practical. Push for it certainly (and priority over the likes of many other Junkers projects), but something a bit smaller and preferably cheaper/easier to build or especially already tooled for production (or based on a design already in production) would be extremely useful to complement the Ju 252.

Given many of the LW's bombers had already been designed/employed as transports/airliners pre-war, looking at those existing designs would be fairly useful as well. Junker's own Ju-86 would be a rather poor fit (not as bad, but not a great replacement), but as I suggested above to SR6 the He-111 seems a fair bit better. It's no DC-3, but it's much longer ranged, much faster, more fuel efficient, but likely weaker in troop and high-volume/bulk cargo capacity (without major fuselage modifications). Still not a DC-3, but perhaps getting close to a Lodestar. (and with a substantial speed advantage over a DC-3)

A more limited number of Ju-52s could continue to fill in where their strengths were still valued, but having them as the mainstay transport is pretty unrealistic, if not insane.

And as an aside, having more Fw-200s around early war might have partially offset delays in the Ju-252. (larger and more costly, but it was in production and having more of them around as transports AND as patrol/bomber aircraft would have filled some roles better than existing alternatives -should be significantly lower cost than the larger Ju-290 as well ... which the Ju-252 also certainly should have had development priority over)

The real problem is that, with all those high speed airliners (and bombers in disguise) developed pre-war, there was nothing in the bare bones practical and efficient department to totally supersede the obsolete Ju-52 in the vein of the DC-3 or even DC-2. Well, alright, the He-111 was better than the DC-2 at least. (and B-18 ... and B-23)

 

[Shortround6]

Purpose-built advanced trainer versions of the 109 or 190 might have been grounds for allocating Jumo 211s to as well, more so the 109. (training in underpowered 190s somewhat defeats the purpose of dealing with the handling characteristics, then again if said pilots were going into 190s it might make sense -lower weight and better specific fuel consumption could be pluses there too ... but the 109 airframe would be even better for the latter as well and more airframes to 'spare' compared to the 190)

So either have more advanced (full) combat aircraft 2-seat operational trainers or focus more on more challenging single-seat advanced lightweight trainers? (doing both seems a bit redundant when resources are already so tight)

The Go 149 itself is an interesting aircraft (interesting it was tentatively considered as a lightweight emergency defense fighter too given the construction and dimensions are fairly similar to Bell's later XP-77).

You just need enough dual control 109/190s for each student to get a few hours in. 6-12 landing and take-offs? I am not a pilot so I don't know what the dividing line would be. Going from a 109C/D (if they were lucky) or a D 520/MS 406 (5-10 hours?) to a 109G might not be good enough. You need some close to the operational aircraft to smooth the transition or show the quirks.

A small fighter like aircraft could have 1/3-1/4 the fuel burn of a full sized fighter, even an obsolete one. But it needs to be designed as a 'mimic' with a wing loading and landing speed close but not equal to the service fighters. It is still a trainer after all.

But using things like old He 51s or the Fw 156 Stosser as "fighter" trainers teach the wrong things. They teach maneuver with their low wing loading, with fixed landing gear and no flaps they aren't teaching the landing skills needed.
The Stosser has a wing loading less than 3% higher than a loaded Cessna 172.

Something close to the "modern" (1964) SIAI-Marchetti SF.260. Perhaps even a two seater in tandem, but it needs a wing loading in the low 20lbs per ft range, retracting landing gear, flaps, etc.
Italians had the Ambrosini SAI.7 design but didn't do much with it until post war.

I wonder if the He-111 had any merit in being developed further as a transport aircraft. (the operational airliner versions were a bit limited in capacity -worse than the lodestar, let alone DC-3, but the Lodestar itself had been extended from the limited capacity of the Super Electra -or the DC-3 compared to the DC-2, so something along those lines might have been useful)

The He 111 was very limited compared to a Loadstar. The He 111 airliners were 10 seat aircraft. and even then they had two "cabins" one for 4 seats and one for 6 seats. While faster they didn't hold any more people than a Lockheed 10 (which used two 450hp engines) any only a few more people than an early Beech 18.
The Lockheeds were biased more towards speed, speed was used for advertising to attract customers. ALL airlines in the early 30s were subsidized to a greater or lesser extent (air mail contracts at the least) and the DC-3 was the first airliner that could actually make money carrying passengers. Ticket price/cost would pay operating expenses (fuel/maintenance/payroll) and pay back the loan for the aircraft purchase. Note that it took 21-28 passengers in an airplane using two nominal 900hp engines to do this. The 1200hp engines (and higher gross weights) came later. Using a pair 900-1000hp engines to haul 10-12 passengers wasn't going to make money.
The Lockheeds (14 and 18 ) were faster than a DC-3 using the same engines and went further per gallon but they weren't carrying enough payload to be really profitable.
Airliners designed for "prestige", like the Fw 200, first land based airliner designed for transatlantic crossings and flying with a subsidized airline are probably not the best choices for an all round or military transport.

 

[Koopernic]

From 1944 Onwards the He 111 H-20/R1 and R2 replaced the Ju 52 in most roles such as transport, glider towing, paratrooper dropping. 16 paratroopers could be carried in addition the bomb racks could carry two ETC1000 parachute containers which contained weapons and supplies for the paratroopers. It doesn't seem so bad compared to the DC-3 which could carry up to 24 paratroopers but frequently had only between 12-18 due to weight restrictions and other cargo. The He 111 did not have much cabin space but was obviously much faster than a Ju 52 or even C-47 something likely to be critical for survivability as well as offering good range.

The 276 or so Fw 200's built and the 60 or so Ju 290's would have better served as transports rather than maritime reconnaissance bombers. The Fw 200 seems to be only about 25% larger in length and therefore volume to the DC3/C47. However it offered substantially greater range and cargo mass. About twice the payload and 80% more range (about 2200miles with full load). It being difficult to determine due to the weight of armament carried. The distance from Berlin to Stalingrad was 1200 miles, North AFrica maybe 800. This gives an indication of the supply problems the Germans were facing. Obviously one would prefer to supply from a rail head much closer but range matters if one is attempting resupply and transport one can't expect to be refuelled at the destination. I probably wasn't as fuel efficient but due to range offered a myriad of options not available to shorter range aircraft. Being back 300 miles instead of 150 miles from the front keeps ones transport airbase away from most fighter bombers for instance.

The DC3/C47 was a surprisingly large aircraft, over 62ft: almost as long as a Lancaster or B-17.

The Arado Ar 232C transport was potentially great utility due to its extremely good rough field performance and extreme STOL capability, runway length 1/3rd that of C-47 and ju 52.

The Luftwaffe's dream transport fleet was probably based mainly around Ju 252, an aircraft which would seem to be economical both over extreme ranges and with heavy loads over short ranges into grass airfields. The Ar 232 would provide STOL when required. Even loaded to 16,000 kg (35,270 lb), it could take-off in 200 m (656 ft). (That with 4 tons of fuel and cargo after a drop off) and shorter with RATO.

Its hard to see what they could have done better, certainly not spent so much effort and time on producing the a handful of belated Ju 352 of wood to no avail while all aluminium ju 52 continued to be pumped out.

 

[GrauGeist]

One often overlooked transport was the Siebel Si204, a twin that was relatively fast for it's time with a range of 875 miles and a max. load of 3,600 pounds. Could be crewed by either one or two personnel and used non-essential Argus As411 engines.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You just need enough dual control 109/190s for each student to get a few hours in. 6-12 landing and take-offs? I am not a pilot so I don't know what the dividing line would be. Going from a 109C/D (if they were lucky) or a D 520/MS 406 (5-10 hours?) to a 109G might not be good enough. You need some close to the operational aircraft to smooth the transition or show the quirks.

A small fighter like aircraft could have 1/3-1/4 the fuel burn of a full sized fighter, even an obsolete one. But it needs to be designed as a 'mimic' with a wing loading and landing speed close but not equal to the service fighters. It is still a trainer after all.

But using things like old He 51s or the Fw 156 Stosser as "fighter" trainers teach the wrong things. They teach maneuver with their low wing loading, with fixed landing gear and no flaps they aren't teaching the landing skills needed.
The Stosser has a wing loading less than 3% higher than a loaded Cessna 172.

Something close to the "modern" (1964) SIAI-Marchetti SF.260. Perhaps even a two seater in tandem, but it needs a wing loading in the low 20lbs per ft range, retracting landing gear, flaps, etc.
Italians had the Ambrosini SAI.7 design but didn't do much with it until post war.

The transition into a fighter like a -109 would depend on how much or how good the primary training was. Since most aircraft of the day were taildraggers, those who made it out of primary training already had a grasp of some of the issues with flying a taildragger. As far as mastering the aircraft for normal operations so one could at least take off and land safely - wing loading has nothing to do with it IMO. You worry about wing loading when you start flying more aggressive at higher speeds and Gs.
So, it I was to guess, probably 4 to 5 hours in the pattern with continual take offs and landings to a full stop should be enough to get someone proficient in a higher performance single engine recip. To be on the safe side I would also tack on a few more hours in gusty and cross wind conditions as well. Keep in mind that a pattern in a -109 from takeoff to landing was probably about 6 to 8 minutes.

As far as the DC-3 and a comparison to its peers (especially German), It was the PERFECT transport and IMO one of the best aircraft ever built PERIOD! It wasn't the fastest and didn't carry the greatest payload but it combined all the desirable traits into one package; it was durable, easily flown, easily maintained, RELIABLE and probably the most important thing it had was a good product support line where there were plenty of spare parts to keep the fleet going.

 

[parsifal]

The obvious point about the discussions relating to better transports are the operations in the east, most notably Stalingrad. less well known was the absolute dependence of the armoured deep penetration thrusts by the heer in 41-2. They absolutely needed airborne re-supply to keep the pressure up. Absolutely. Would better transports make a difference. Im really doubtful. For all its shortcoming the "Aunties" were excellent in the rough conditions and poor weather conditions in the east. They kept going when other types just gave it up. A DC-3 probably would have done better, as the Russian DC-3s were to show later, and range did become an issue, especially at stalingrad, but no aircraft could have changed that situation. once the Russians got going in the encirclement, there really was no stopping them.

 

[stona]

The transition into a fighter like a -109 would depend on how much or how good the primary training was. Since most aircraft of the day were taildraggers, those who made it out of primary training already had a grasp of some of the issues with flying a taildragger.

There were NO dual Spitfires or Hurricanes available to the RAF during the war. Pilots were given a copy of the Pilot's Notes to read, a few hints and tips from someone who knew the ropes and told to get on with it. The same applied for those converting from Hurricane to Spitfire or vice-versa (which did happen, sometimes to the dismay of the pilots concerned).
If, and its a big if, the Bf 109 had an unusually high accident rate for newly qualified pilots, then there are factors other than the aircraft's handling that might need consideration. The Luftwaffe seems to have had a poor safety record generally and this was as much due to its procedures, or lack of them, as the aircraft it flew.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

The He 111 may have been better than a JU 52 at somethings but that hardly makes it a good transport.

Speed for these aircraft doesn't really matter for combat let alone be "critical for survivability". A Plane cruising at 180-200mph vs one cruising at 220-230mph isn't going to that much more vulnerable to 330-360mph fighters. Pushing the engines to 270mph in the case of the He 111 isn't really going to change the outcome much and how long does it take to accelerate from 230mph to 270mph?

The Ju 52 was slow (cruise 130-140mph) and short ranged. Long range parachute missions were few and far between unless near suicide commando missions.
C-47 cabin was 6'5" high, up to 7'8" wide and 27ft long. DC-3/C-47 specs are all over the place due to different engines on commercial models (and Military, several thousand got two stage engines for fly the "hump") and the increase (in steps) max gross weight from 24,000lb to 31,000lbs.

But to show how out of it the JU-52 was an early Beech 18 using 330hp Jacobs engines could carry 100 gals aof gas, a crew of two (170lb each) AND 9 passengers+310lbs baggage. top speed 205mph, cruise at 10,000ft 195mph. Cruise used 35 gallons an hour and with 160 gallons on board range was 800 miles (7 passengers+254lbs baggage). Plane was certified June of 1938 with this engine but was a development of an earlier Wright powered version.
First DC-3s (Douglas Sleeper Transport) were certified in May of 1936, they used R-1820 Wright engines rated at 930hp for take-off and 850hp at 5800ft max continuous and had a useful load of 8250lbs or a payload (with 650 gals of fuel) of 3475lbs, 16 passengers, 3 crew and 755lbs baggage/mail at a gross weight of 24,000lbs. Max speed 219mph at 11,500ft, cruise 184mph at 10,000ft (75% power) range at 75% power (93.6 gallons an hour) was 1250 miles. Obviously higher powered engines and higher gross weights changed things.

The C-47 had some capabilities that the Ju-52 and He 111 lacked.

The jeep may have been a stunt (although much photographed) and is hardly the ideal way of carrying a small vehicle but it beats slinging small vehicles/guns underneath the airplane.

I am not holding out the C-47 as the ideal military transport but with the basic airplane flying over 3 years before the attack on Poland it should have been obvious that the Ju 52 left something to be desired.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There were NO dual Spitfires or Hurricanes available to the RAF during the war. Pilots were given a copy of the Pilot's Notes to read, a few hints and tips from someone who knew the ropes and told to get on with it. The same applied for those converting from Hurricane to Spitfire or vice-versa (which did happen, sometimes to the dismay of the pilots concerned).
If, and its a big if, the Bf 109 had an unusually high accident rate for newly qualified pilots, then there are factors other than the aircraft's handling that might need consideration. The Luftwaffe seems to have had a poor safety record generally and this was as much due to its procedures, or lack of them, as the aircraft it flew.Cheers
Steve

I think that was probably the issue

 

[Shortround6]

There were NO dual Spitfires or Hurricanes available to the RAF during the war. Pilots were given a copy of the Pilot's Notes to read, a few hints and tips from someone who knew the ropes and told to get on with it. The same applied for those converting from Hurricane to Spitfire or vice-versa (which did happen, sometimes to the dismay of the pilots concerned).
If, and its a big if, the Bf 109 had an unusually high accident rate for newly qualified pilots, then there are factors other than the aircraft's handling that might need consideration. The Luftwaffe seems to have had a poor safety record generally and this was as much due to its procedures, or lack of them, as the aircraft it flew.
Cheers
Steve

You do have the comment from one German pilot (Werner Molders?) after flying a captured Spitfire that "they were Childishly simple" to land.

Most air forces of the time had a rather dismal safety record. The US lost as many or more planes inside the Continental US than it did in combat in WW II.

The Germans were not the only ones who could have used a better training program, they (and the Japanese) were the ones who could not make up in numbers and hours of flight time, the deficiencies of their programs.

For the US pilots went through at least 3 different trainers before being turned loose in a fighter type aircraft.
Factsheets : Flight Training on the Eve of WWII

And at some point in 1943 the US was giving at least some 'fighter' pilots 10-15 hours in P-40s before posting them to P-38,P-47, P-51 squadrons. A P-40 had an approach speed about 20mph slower than the P-47 and not much different than an AT-6.

The Stosser may have been a fun plane to fly and performed a good service to the Luftwaffe but they built around 1000 of them and for the investment it seems they might not have gotten out what they could have.

 

[BiffF15]

The Luftwaffe did have some two seat 190's and 109's. We're those late additions for transition help or did they serve another purpose?

When I went thru F15 school they solo'd you on the fourth ride. It was easier and safer than the T38!

Cheers,
Biff