POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 213A inline engine, rated at 1,750 hp
PERFORMANCE: 354 mph, estimated
COMMENT: Independent from each other the design teams of Blohm & Voss, Dornier and Focke-Wulf worked on projects with mid-mounted engines, driving pusher propellers via a long extension shaft. By that the pilot had an excellent view and a wide field of fire. Furthermore it was possible as far as a night- or bad-weather fighter was concerned to install a radar equipment. Dornier worked on the projects Do P.247 and Do 252 and Focke-Wulf on the Fw P.0310251. The Blohm & Voss team designed a ground attack/dive bomber that was similar to the Bv 192.01-01. A Junkers Jumo 213A engine drove a three-bladed pusher propeller via a very long extension shaft and a single fin and rudder was mounted beneath the fuselage to protect the propeller during take-off and landing. The wing had a straight leading edge and tapered trailing edge and a tricycle undercarriage was provided. The armament consisted of two MK 103 30mm cannon in the wings and two MG 151/20 20mm cannon on the nose sides. A bomb load up to 1,000 kg could be carried (Ref.: 17, 18).
POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 213A-1 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2,240 hp (with MW 50)
PERFORMANCE: 426 mph at 21,653 ft
COMMENT: The Focke-Wulf Fw 190, perhaps the most successful of Germany’s wartime fighters, was subjected to continuous development in order to keep pace with the rapidly changing requirements of the air war. Before the type had entered wide-spread service in its initial form work on adapting the basic frame to take liquid-cooled engines and improving the high-altitude capabilities was being undertaken by the Focke-Wulf design team, led by Prof. K. Tank. Work on three high-altitude interceptor variants powered by liquid-cooled engines was inaugurated almost simultaneously. The first of these was the Fw 190B with the Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine, this being followed by the similarly powered Fw 190C which featured an extended wing spanning, and the Fw 190Dm powered by the Junkers Jumo 213. The last-mentioned type proved easily most effective of the trio, development of the B- and C-series eventually being abandoned in its favour. The first prototypes began flight trial in early 1942 and shows spectacular performance. Small batches of pre-production Fw 190D-0’s and production Fw 190D-1 for service evaluation were delivered and tested during summer 1943. The Fw 190D-1 was not manufactured in large numbers, the first major production model being the Fw 190D-9 (nicknamed “Dora”; or “Langnasen-Dora” (“Long-Nose Dora“). For some unexplained reasons no sub-series suffix numerals between D-1 and D-9 were allocated, and the Fw 190D-9 was the only D-series fighter intended solely for the interception role. While these “long nose” versions gave them parity with Allied opponents, it arrived far too late in the war to have any real effect. The early production Fw 190D-9 shown here is fitted with original style cockpit canopy, most “Dora-9” fighters having a blown hood (Ref.: 11).
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: 631 mph
COMMENT: The Messerschmitt Me. P.1110 “Ente” (“Duck”) was the third variant of the Me P. 1110 projects proposed for the “Jägernotprogramm” (Emergency Fighter Program). It was of canard configuration with small wings in the front and larger wings in the rear part of the fuselage. This was felt would allow good pitch and lateral stability at low-speed flight characteristics. The air intakes were located on the fuselage sides like in the Me P.1110/I. The cockpit was located at the nose end of the plane and the wings had a 40° wing sweep back. Projected maximum speed was 631 mph. As with the other two Messerschmitt Me P.1110 designs the project would be soon dropped in favor of the Junkers EF 128 (Ref.: 17)
POWER PLANT: One Daimler Benz DB 603G liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,750 hp
PERFORMANCE: No data available
COMMENT: This project of a ground attack and dive bomber was one of the most unusual designs of Dr. Vogt and his team. The front part including the cockpit was completely separate from the fuselage and only held by two booms projecting from the wing leading edge. A Daimler Benz DB 603 engine, located mid-fuselage immediately behind the cockpit, drove a four-bladed propeller rotating around the fuselage. The wing had a straight leading edge and was pronounced taper on the trailing edge. The aircraft had a tricycle landing gear and was heavily armed with two MG 151/20 20mm cannon located in the nose and two MG 151/20 20mm cannon located in the twin booms that held the front part. Also up to 500 kg bomb load could be carried. This project was never realized (Ref.: 17, 18).
TYPE: Anti-ship and -fortification destroyer. Project
ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only in the Heinkel He 162
POWER PLANT: Two BMW 003A-1 turbojet engines, rated at 800 kp thrust each in the Ju 268 and one BMW 003A-1 turbojet engine in the He 162A-2
PERFORMANCE: 497 mph
COMMENT: The Junkers Ju 268 was the un-manned bomber component of the “Mistel 5” parasite bomber project designed in Germany during 1944. It was a composite bomber comprising a Heinkel He 162A-2 piloted component and a specially developed Arado Ar E.377 glide bomb. Due to shortages at the Arado design offices, several other composites were studied as replacements for the Arado Ar E.377, and in late 1944 Junkers proposed the Ju268 as an alternate bomber component for the “Mistel 5”, with a Messerschmitt Me 262 studied as an alternative piloted component. The Ju 268 was simply designed with a cylindrical wooden fuselage, a hollow-charge of up to 10 tons of explosive in the nose part, rectangular mid-mounted wings, and a cruciform un-swept tail unit. A jettisonable tricycle landing gear was fixed attached to the fuselage during take-off only and power was provided by two BMW 003 or Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines. For suicide- or “Kamikaze”-missions a manned version of the Ju 268 was under study with a glazed cockpit section in the front of the aircraft. No further details are known and the project never left the drawing-board (Ref.: 20, 24).
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junk62A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
Junkers Ju 268 with Heinkel He 162A-2 (“Mistel 5”, “Mistletoe 5”)
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: 621 mph
COMMENT: As part of the “Jägernotprogramm” (“Emergency Fighter Program”) at the beginning of 1945 a program was launched by the OKL for a new generation of fighter/interceptor aircraft in order to replace the Heinkel He 162 “Salamander” or “Volksjäger” (“Peoples fighter” as called by the authorities). The new aircraft was intended to have superior performance in order to deal with high-altitude threats such as the Boeing B-29 “Superfortress”. Messerschmitt designed three different single-seated, high-altitude fighter projects which were submitted in February 1945. One of the designs of the Messerschmitt Me P.1110 series was a turbo-jet powered interceptor with a conventional-looking design with the air intakes located on the fuselage sides (“Rampen-Einlauf”, “Ramp-air-intake”). The wings were swept-back at 40 degrees, as well as the tail-plane. Power was provided by a single Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet engine, projected maximum speed was 621 mph. The project would be soon dropped in favor of the Junkers EF 128 and none of the Messerschmitt designs made it to the prototype stage (Ref.: 17).
POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 213E liquid-cooled inverted V-12 inline engine, rated at 2,250 hp with MW-50 injection
PERFORMANCE: 472 mph at 41,000 ft using GM-1 boost
COMMENT: The superb qualities of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D fighter did not go unrecognized by the RLM, who rewarded Prof. Kurt Tank, primarily responsible for its design, by permitting him to employ the prefix “Ta” (indicating “Tank”) in place of Fw (Focke-Wulf) for designating of designs produced by his team. Tank took the opportunity provided by the incorporation of some modifications in the Fw 190D design to apply the designation Ta 152 for a modified fighter. Initially there were relatively few differences between the Fw 190D and the Ta 152. The Junkers Jumo 213C engine was similar to the Fw 190D-9’s Jumo 213A but made provision for a 30-mm engine mounted MK 108 cannon which augmented the twin 20-mm MG 151s and the twin 13-mm MG 131s. It was intended to be made in at least three versions – the Ta 152H “Höhenjäger” (“high-altitude fighter”), the Ta 152C designed for medium-altitude operations and ground-attack using a different engine and smaller wing, and the Ta 152E fighter-reconnaissance aircraft with the engine of the H model and the wing of the C model. About 20 Ta 152H-0 were ordered and the first aircraft entered service with the Luftwaffe in January 1945. These were too few and too late to allow the Ta 152 to make a significant impact on the air war(Ref. 11).
POWER PLANT: One Hirth HM 60 four cylinder inverted air-cooled in-line piston engine, rated at 80 hp, driving a four-bladed pusher propeller via an extension shaft
PERFORMANCE: 137 mph
COMMENT: The Göppingen Gö 9 was a research aircraft built to investigate the practicalities of powering a plane using a pusher propeller located far from the engine and turned by a long driveshaft. In 1937, Claudius Dornier observed that adding extra engines and propellers to an aircraft in an attempt to increase speed would also attract a penalty of greater drag, especially when placing two or more engines within nacelles mounted on the wings. He reasoned that this penalty could be minimized by mounting a second propeller at the rear of an aircraft. In order to prevent tail-heaviness, however, the engine would need to be mounted far ahead of it. Dornier patented this idea and commissioned a test plane to evaluate it. This aircraft was designed by Dr. Hütter as a 40% sized, scaled-down version of the Dornier Do 17 ‘Fast bomber’ fuselage and wing panels without the twin-engine nacelles, and built by Schempp-Hirth at Wüsterberg. The airframe was entirely of wood and used a retractable tricycle landing gear – one of the earliest German airframe designs to use such an arrangement. Power was supplied by a Hirth HM 60 inverted, air-cooled inline four-cylinder engine mounted within the fuselage near the wings. Other than the engine installation, the only other unusual feature of the aircraft was its all-new, full four-surface cruciform tail, which included a large ventral fin/rudder unit of equal area to the dorsal surface. This fin incorporated a small supplementary tail-wheel protruding from the ventral fin’s lower tip that assisted in keeping the rear-mounted, four-blade propeller away from the ground during take-off and landing. The Gö 9 carried the civil registration D-EBYW. Initially towed aloft by a Dornier Do 17, flight tests began in June 1941, but later flights operated under its own power. The design validated Dornier’s ideas, and he went ahead with his original plan to build a high-performance aircraft with propellers at the front and rear, producing the Dornier Do 335 ‘Pfeil’ (‘Arrow’) the fastest fighter aircraft in service during WW II. The eventual fate of the Gö 9 is not known (Ref.: 24)
POWER PLANT: One Walter HWK 509A-2 liquid-fueled rocket, rated at 1,700 kp
PERFORMANCE: 503 mph
COMMENT: In mid 1944 the RLM called for proposals of a small, cheap, easy to build, reusable short-range, high speed interceptor in the context of the ‘Miniaturjägerprogramm’ (Miniature fighter program). Aircraft companies such as Bachem, Focke-Wulf, Heinkel, Junkers and Messerschmitt submitted proposals: Bachem Ba 349 ‘Natter’ (‘Grass Snake’), Focke-Wulf Fw ‘Volksjäger’, (‘People Fighter’), Heinkel He P.1077 ‘Julia’, Junkers EF 126 ‘Lilli’, Junkers EF 127 ‘Walli’ and Messerschmitt the designs Me P.1103 and Me P.1104, each in several variants. The Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II design was a simple wooden construction with a cylindrical fuselage, the wings were shoulder-mounted and un-swept so as the tail-plane. Power was provided by a Walter HWK 509A-2 liquid-fuel rocket engine with a main combustion chamber of 1.700 kp thrust and a smaller cruising chamber of 300 kp thrust. The pilot was in a conventional seated position, the armament consisted of one single MK 108 30 mm cannon beneath the cockpit. For take-off the fighter was positioned on a trolley so as the Messerschmitt Me 163 ‘Komet (‘Comet’) that was jettisoned when the aircraft was airborne. The tiny plane was towed by a Messerschmitt Me 109G or Messerschmitt Me 262A-1 towards the enemy, released when in attack position and ignited the rocket motor. After attack the aircraft glided back to its base and landed on retractable skids. As with projects of other companies all work was cancelled in favour of the Bachem Ba 349 ‘Natter’ (Ref.: 17, 20)
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
Messerschmitt Me P.1104/II and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a
POWER PLANT: Two Junkers Jumo 004C turbojet engines, rated at 980 kp each and one Walter HWK 509S-2 liquid-fueled rocket engine, rated at 1,700 kp
PERFORMANCE: 510 mph at 32,800 ft
COMMENT: The major disadvantage displayed by the ‘Heimatschützer I’ had been the strict limitation imposed on J2 tankage (for the Jumo 004 turbojet engines) by the internally mounted rocket motor, and the need to use some of the available tankage for its propellants. The Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, therefore, had a Walter R II-211/§ rocket motor slung beneath the fuselage with ‘C-Stoff’ and ‘T-Stoff’ tanks mounted on modified bomb carriers immediately ahead of the power plant. The rocket motor was jettisonable, and was to be dropped by parachute after the fuel had been consumed. Fuel was fed to the power plant by means of a flexible line, but difficulties were encountered with the fuel feed as a level of tanks was slightly below that of rocket combustion chamber, and these had not been resolved when further work on the Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’ terminated.
Another ‘Heimatschützer’, the Messerschmitt Me 262C-3 ‘Heimatschützer III’ was a proposed version of the basic Me 262A-1a with Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines replaced with Walter HWK RII-211 liquid-fueled rocket engines (Ref.: 7).
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Messerschmitt Me 262C-3a ‘Heimatschützer IV’, (Home Protector IV’)
Scale 1:72 aircraft models of World War II
Mit der weiteren Nutzung unserer Webseite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies verwenden um Ihnen die Nutzerfreundlichkeit dieser Webseite zu verbessern. Weitere Informationen zum Datenschutz finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
