Aircraft tech tree?

[Sacer]

Jet CAS? No. Jet engines were really expencive and didn`t provide any advantage for low-altitude CAS and they already had huge lines producing reliable high-power piston engines.
Jet light bomber intended to be something like a better version of Mosquito, fast, high altitude bomber, like what Hitler`s vision of ME-262 was - that is quite a possibility, as Germans already had people like Hitler rooting for such plane.

Wierd thing jet engines suddenly started to provide an advantage for low-altitude CAS in the 70s then. Of course jet engines are expensive and I fail to see your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD5QqsVofg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnjWmtfvFo

 

[1alexey]

Wierd thing jet engines suddenly started to provide an advantage for low-altitude CAS in the 70s then. Of course jet engines are expensive and I fail to see your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD5QqsVofg

In 60-70s jet engines actually became more weight, cost and fuel efficent to replace the legacy proper powered CAS planes.

My point is actually pretty clear. A country has countless plants that already produce reliable propeler engines. You have all the logistical chain in place.
You get new jet engine planes. Obiously you would prioritise planes that require speed for them.

Eqarly Jet fighters were fast, but their range suffered because jet engine was not yet fuel efficent, nor were they reliable and with long service life yet. Bombers didn`t really transition to new engine types for another decade for that reason. Any type of plane that doesn`t require speed should stay propeler powered in WW2 timeframe due to jet engines still having serious draw backs.

 

[Sacer]

In 60-70s jet engines actually became more weight, cost and fuel efficent to replace the legacy proper powered CAS planes.

My point is actually pretty clear. A country has countless plants that already produce reliable propeler engines. You have all the logistical chain in place.
You get new jet engine planes. Obiously you would prioritise planes that require speed for them.

So why build jet fighters? Or jet anything? Why build aircraft when you have so many factories already producing bicycles. Your argument is essentially flawed.

IEqarly Jet fighters were fast, but their range suffered because jet engine was not yet fuel efficent, nor were they reliable and with long service life yet. Bombers didn`t really transition to new engine types for another decade for that reason. Any type of plane that doesn`t require speed should stay propeler powered in WW2 timeframe due to jet engines still having serious draw backs.

CAS requires speed. The fact that Germany and all other countries developed Jet CAS should confirm this. And I'm sure those designing such aircraft know more about it than you.

 

[Alex_brunius]

CAS requires speed.

Like the A-10 in your linked videos? It's not much faster then an Me 109

And certainly slower when it enters combat during the attack runs

 

[Sacer]

Like the A-10 in your linked videos? It's not much faster then an Me 109

And certainly slower when it enters combat during the attack runs

All those hundreds of aerospace engineers should have spent more time on this forum so they would know that their jet CAS actually didn't need jet engines

 

[Alex_brunius]

CAS requires speed. The fact that Germany and all other countries developed Jet CAS should confirm this. And I'm sure those designing such aircraft know more about it than you.

If you seriously don't have a single clue about jet-aircraft design, then perhaps you should not debate that subject?

A-10 (first flown 1972) Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h)
F-15 (first flown 1972) Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,665+ km/h)

CAS did not require high speed in any way what so ever. Neither during WW2 nor Today.

 

[Sacer]

If you seriously don't have a single clue about jet-aircraft design, then perhaps you should not debate that subject?

A-10 (first flown 1972) Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h)
F-15 (first flown 1972) Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,665+ km/h)

CAS did not require high speed in any way what so ever. Neither during WW2 nor Today.

The A-10 is signifiantly faster than any propeller driven aircraft. And of course, the fact that it has a jet engine enables it to climb faster, roll easier, carry a greater payload etc.

I wasn't the one who brought up that jet engines are only about speed. Nontheless, CAS needs speed. Not as much as an interceptor and not as much as to compromise other air support fighting abilities but it still needs speed. Like any other aicraft, a ground attack aircraft needs to reach it's target as fast as possible and evade enemy fire.

If you seriously don't have a single clue about jet-aircraft design, then perhaps you should not debate that subject?

 

[GunthiHrod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178

The first jetfighter in 1939

 

[SuperTechmarine]

Why the hell is the 229 an advancement of the Me-262?! It's not!

 

[amalric de g.]

The A-10 is signifiantly faster than any propeller driven aircraft.

Funny
Mustang 51D = 703 km/h thats -3 km/h.
FW 190 D12/R25 = 770 km/h thats +67 km/h.
Spitfire XIV 448 mph, (391 kn, 717 km/h) +11km/h.

 

[Le_Carabinier]

I like this German tech tree. Almost no prototype or obscure aircrafts except in the late game units.

My only concern is the fact that the Ju 87 takes two spaces alone, with Ju 87 and Ju 87G being two different units. Wouldn't it be more logical to see Ju 87G as a strongly upgraded variant of the basic Ju 87, and use something else for the 1940 level CAS ?

Why not something like the Hs 129 ? While technically a twin-engine aircraft, it wasn't that large and heavy, and fits the "mid-war anti-tank plane" slot perfectly.

 

[apfelstrudel]

Why the hell is the 229 an advancement of the Me-262?! It's not!

yeah, i was hoping for Me 262 HG III as a Me 262 successor

 

[Chromos]

CAS needs high speed as possible, much payload and much armor.
So you need strong engines, and so jet engines are a logical choice.

So I'm sure the speed gain was seen in comparison with other CAS and not with Fighters..
If you don't dive bomb, a jet CAS will provide many advantages over piston engine driven. As soon as you have reliable jet engines.
Reliable jet engines were rare at the end of war for GER, but nonetheless the existing ones were improved and getting better and better.
That they might have not beeing cost effective if you have already plenty(thousands!) of CAS at hand might be logical too.
For GER in late war it was a different situation as for the allies after(!) the war..

So that a nation could build Jet-CAS in WW2 should not be dependend if that was not done by allies, because of lacking tech at that time or not willing to do because of cost savings after the war.
Or because a Ger that had many such techs in development but was not capable anymore of fielding them because of industry shortage..

It should be dependend if you have researched the techs and are willing to invest in a new modell. The same as for Jet Fighters or Jet Bombers.



Ho229
And as a sidenote, afaik the Ho229 was seen superior in handling compared to the Me262 by testpilot Ziller. So the Ho229 was able to outturn and outclimb the Me262 while having nearly the same other benefits.
For the "instability guys" here, the last tested prototype did some heavy testings on maneuvers before it chrashed due to an engine malfunction, not an aerodynamic problem as such.
To be more precise, on last testflight the plane got maybe an engine malfunction(one engine failed). It was reported that the responsible technican said that one engine had previosuly problems and shouldn't have been used anyways for that flight. But as no replacement was at hand..
Ziller then seemd to try and restart that engine, by dropping out of great high down to ~800 meters and doing ups and downs. Nothing you would do with an highly unstable plane. Even more with one that lost the power of one engine..
Then at some lower height already the landing gear was put out with the emergency system(later reseach found out that hydraulic system failed so air pressure emergency system was used, and the sudden aerodynamic change might have led to more problems) and the remaining engine seem to go to full throttle wich put the plane in a dangerous situation wich could not be recovered by Zillner. He seems to have tried to the very last to get the plane under control and did not ejected with the ejection seat, nor did he find the time to contact tower with radio. Seems that all went really fast.
So overall, the plane was clearly not mass production ready by then, but also not a dead end either.

 

[Porkman]

CAS needs high speed as possible, much payload and much armor.
So you need strong engines, and so jet engines are a logical choice.

So I'm sure the speed gain was seen in comparison with other CAS and not with Fighters..
If you don't dive bomb, a jet CAS will provide many advantages over piston engine driven. As soon as you have reliable jet engines.
Reliable jet engines were rare at the end of war for GER, but nonetheless the existing ones were improved and getting better and better.
That they might have not beeing cost effective if you have already plenty(thousands!) of CAS at hand might be logical too.
For GER in late war it was a different situation as for the allies after(!) the war..

This is not right.

The A-10 was invented basically by asking soldiers on the ground after Vietnam what they feared and wanted out of a CAS aircraft. The name of the game was loiter time. None of them wanted fast aircraft, they wanted an aircraft that could stay over the target for a long time without having to fly back to reload or refuel. All of the F series of fighters would

flyindropbombsdidwehit?Noideatimetogobackforfuelandbombsbye!

They weren't able to accurately acquire and attack ground targets on their own and they'd only be there for 30 seconds. The A-1 and the A-6 could stay there for a long time but they were aging and underarmed, and under armored. They kept getting taken out by small arms and light weapons.

The US airforce was afraid of losing the CAS mission and the funding that came with it, so they designed a purpose built CAS aircraft for the first time in a long time.

They said, what does a CAS craft need?

The answer was: Payload and loiter time with the armor and reliability to keep it alive to deliver it. These are what's important, not speed beyond the ability to get to the target area fast. So they used the Jet engines on the A-10 to make the craft have the power to carry a ton of weapons and very heavy armor, not about giving it a super high speed.

There's a reason that the US kept using the A-1 until the 60's.

What advantage to 1950's era jet engines give a CAS craft?

Piston engines are cheaper and far more reliable and longer lasting during that era. The type of anti aircraft weapons that the ground forces have are less powerful and they aren't guided. If you're in a situation where the CAS need speed to avoid being bounced by enemy aircraft then it's better to put the jet engine into an interceptor to protect the CAS.

There is no alternate universe where a jet engine designed and built only in the last few years would ever be more useful on a CAS craft as opposed to a bomber or a fighter.

 

[1alexey]

They said, what does a CAS craft need?

The answer was: Payload and loiter time with the armor and reliability to keep it alive to deliver it. These are what's important, not speed beyond the ability to get to the target area fast. So they used the Jet engines on the A-10 to make the craft have the power to carry a ton of weapons and very heavy armor, not about giving it a super high speed.

That, more or less is what Soviets had with Il-2 and Il-10, and later in 70s SU-25.

Plane that was very well armored and carried a lot of payload for several runs on a target. It was not a fast aircraft, and it was never a problem.

Il-2s were downed by hundreds, and were absolutely helpless if caught without fighter escort, but no real attempts at rising it`s speed were ever tried, plane just had too much armor and payload.

 

[Kovax]

Look at other attempts at ground attack aircraft, like the C-47 conversion referred to as "Puff the Magic Dragon". Loiter time was everything, and a durable airframe that could handle the returning ground fire was highly desirable. Of course, the plane was not designed for that kind of abuse, and was a "stopgap" measure at best.

Note that the A-10's engines are on top, to help protect them from damage by small arms, as well as to allow operation from poor airfields where lower placement might suck in more dust and debris. The so-called "Titanium bathtub" that contains the most vulnerable parts of the A-10 is virtually immune to small-arms fire. With earlier jet engine technology, the large engines would have been the key weak points. A piston engine was far more resilient (as well as cheaper to build and maintain), and wouldn't lead to the characteristic catastrophic failure of most jet engines, with the rotors and shaft assembly ending up suddenly embedding itself in the fuselage or some other inconvenient location, and other bits and pieces doing an admirable job of converting into shrapnel.

A jet-powered CAS was "possible" in the WWII timeframe, but it was counter-productive to produce one with the technology at the time.

 

[Chromos]

This is not right.

The A-10 was invented basically by asking soldiers on the ground after Vietnam what they feared and wanted out of a CAS aircraft. The name of the game was loiter time. None of them wanted fast aircraft, they wanted an aircraft that could stay over the target for a long time without having to fly back to reload or refuel. All of the F series of fighters would

flyindropbombsdidwehit?Noideatimetogobackforfuelandbombsbye!

They weren't able to accurately acquire and attack ground targets on their own and they'd only be there for 30 seconds. The A-1 and the A-6 could stay there for a long time but they were aging and underarmed, and under armored. They kept getting taken out by small arms and light weapons.

The US airforce was afraid of losing the CAS mission and the funding that came with it, so they designed a purpose built CAS aircraft for the first time in a long time.

They said, what does a CAS craft need?

The answer was: Payload and loiter time with the armor and reliability to keep it alive to deliver it. These are what's important, not speed beyond the ability to get to the target area fast. So they used the Jet engines on the A-10 to make the craft have the power to carry a ton of weapons and very heavy armor, not about giving it a super high speed.

There's a reason that the US kept using the A-1 until the 60's.

What advantage to 1950's era jet engines give a CAS craft?

Piston engines are cheaper and far more reliable and longer lasting during that era. The type of anti aircraft weapons that the ground forces have are less powerful and they aren't guided. If you're in a situation where the CAS need speed to avoid being bounced by enemy aircraft then it's better to put the jet engine into an interceptor to protect the CAS.

There is no alternate universe where a jet engine designed and built only in the last few years would ever be more useful on a CAS craft as opposed to a bomber or a fighter.

That seems as I had written that only speed ist important or the major need of a CAS.
But I didn't do that.
I wrote that speed is among payload and armor important. And I also pointed out that a speed of a fighter was not(!) the aim..

If you have more speed at hand, you can pass the target area faster, get faster in and out etc.. So it is of course "nice to have".
And I bet that had a reason to not choose that reliable piston engines again instead of jets wich provides next to more power to carry more weapons/armor also more speed..

And if you only get aimed by conventional AA like back in that ww2, then fast passing by is even more important as ever, as the aiming time is less and so the risk of being shot down. Seems only logical, no?
So JET CAS, -> big(!) advantage.


I tried to understand why so many seem to think by CAS speed automatically in the same scope as for fighters.. As if Tac/Strat-Bomber speed needs to be as high as fighters too..
But I hope all will agree that faster bombers would be better then slower, no?

Again, jet engine are more powerfull. So you can build stronger(faster, armoured, payload) planes. So if you can build them(money /tech), you likely will do it. Who would give his units "bad equipment" if not forced by politicans or whatever reason?.. Why thinking that in wartime(WW2) the same will happen as in peacetime 20 years later? It needed again real fighting experience for USA/SOV to see that fighter-bombers are not good enough for CAS role. But by that time(Korea) no money/political will was at hand to develop a new pure CAS. As it finally started, the development took years because of peactime low need/money etc..

Look at other attempts at ground attack aircraft, like the C-47 conversion referred to as "Puff the Magic Dragon". Loiter time was everything, and a durable airframe that could handle the returning ground fire was highly desirable. Of course, the plane was not designed for that kind of abuse, and was a "stopgap" measure at best.

Note that the A-10's engines are on top, to help protect them from damage by small arms, as well as to allow operation from poor airfields where lower placement might suck in more dust and debris. The so-called "Titanium bathtub" that contains the most vulnerable parts of the A-10 is virtually immune to small-arms fire. With earlier jet engine technology, the large engines would have been the key weak points. A piston engine was far more resilient (as well as cheaper to build and maintain), and wouldn't lead to the characteristic catastrophic failure of most jet engines, with the rotors and shaft assembly ending up suddenly embedding itself in the fuselage or some other inconvenient location, and other bits and pieces doing an admirable job of converting into shrapnel.

A jet-powered CAS was "possible" in the WWII timeframe, but it was counter-productive to produce one with the technology at the time.

C-47 is more "Gunship" in my opinion and quite different plane in usage. Even while both have the role to support ground units.

And if you take the situation of GER at the end of WW2, they seemed desperate enough to build Komets. GER build the first armoued CAS in ww1. I guess they would have the possibility to shield the engines in a needed way, or would rather just live with the fact and love the overall higher performance of such a plane.
Seriously anyone who knows in wich horrible state the ME262 was most times and what they still were able to achieve in such a state of development and maintenance will have no problems seeing GER field Jet CAS.
You all know these were the guys wich did build these big railroad guns and KingTiger and had Maus in development and Anti Air Rockets(SAM) and ICBM etc..

 

[1alexey]

That seems as I had written that only speed ist important or the major need of a CAS.
But I didn't do that.
I wrote that speed is among payload and armor important. And I also pointed out that a speed of a fighter was not(!) the aim..

If you have more speed at hand, you can pass the target area faster, get faster in and out etc.. So it is of course "nice to have".
And I bet that had a reason to not choose that reliable piston engines again instead of jets wich provides next to more power to carry more weapons/armor also more speed..


I tried to understand why so many seem to think by CAS speed automatically in the same scope as for fighters.. As if Tac/Strat-Bomber speed needs to be as high as fighters too..
But I hope all will agree that faster bombers would be better then slower, no?

Again, jet engine are more powerfull. So you can build stronger(faster, armoured, payload) planes. So if you can build them(money /tech), you likely will do it. Who would give his units "bad equipment" if not forced by politicans or whatever reason?.. Why thinking that in wartime(WW2) the same will happen as in peacetime 20 years later? It needed again real fighting experience for USA/SOV to see that fighter-bombers are not good enough for CAS role. But by that time(Korea) no money/political will was at hand to develop a new pure CAS. As it finally started, the development took years because of peactime low need/money etc..

For bombers, what meters is fuel efficiency, not speed. You can`t build better bombers by having engine that requires more fuel to arrive at destination, and Jet engines were really bad at it in WW2, so your premise is terribly flawed.

And if you only get aimed by conventional AA like back in that ww2, then fast passing by is even more important as ever, as the aiming time is less and so the risk of being shot down. Seems only logical, no?
So JET CAS, -> big(!) advantage.

Getting in and out fast was not the goal, quite the opposite, without modern guided weapons plane needs a lot of time to aim and strafe. Gravity is more than enough of a speed up to strafe, in fact most WW2 planes would tone down their engine to fall slower, and have more time!

I already mentioned Il-2. It was slow. It was not getting faster over course of war. Soviets could increase it`s speed, but chose not to.
Ju-87, also was not a fast plane, not in the slightest.

Yes, CAS planes are susceptible to AA fire. No, making them faster is not a solution, armoring them more, or just building more of them is.

 

[f1nalstand17]

This probably a great place to ask this, but wasn't the Horten Ho 229 renamed to the Gotha Go 229?

 

[Chromos]

@1alexey
I again seem to "terrible failed" in making my point clear.

I still hope others got my intention/point though.

This probably a great place to ask this, but wasn't the Horten Ho 229 renamed to the Gotha Go 229?

Because the one company that should build the new plane was "Gothaer Waggonfabrik". Göring was so excited about that plane that he ordered a production of some right away before testigs were fully done. That company however thought that the Ho229 would not be usefull as a fighter without a rudder and saw the plane more in a role as a bomber. So they developed a version with a rudder without knowlegde of the Horten Brothers.
That way you got some more different prototypes/namings Ho/Go and the overall situation is harder to understand at first.