Lesser Known Luftwaffe Aircraft Quiz

Answer: The RLM could not find a "role" for it to fill

The "Falke" was an incredible machine, as originally designed (around the DB600 series motor). First flown in May 1937 (with the Jumo210 motor), it was 80km/h faster than the Bf 109B which was entering squadron service at the time (also Jumo powered). Teething troubles with the DB600 series meant that almost all German inline engines were of the Jumo210 series at this point. When the DB600 series did become available it was prioritized for the Heinkel 111P bomber; even the Bf 109 soldiered on with the Jumo motor at first. The Bf 109 and He 111 literally "traded engines" with the introduction of the He 111H and Bf 109E models; that's how tight the Luftwaffe was running as far as engine production was concerned. Tank had envisioned the "Falke" as a long range, twin engined, single seat air superiority fighter; a role later proved out by the P-38 Lightning. Two additional factors can be considered as having had some effect on the RLM's rejection of the design; the widespread belief that "the bomber would always get through" and the doctrinal blunder that was the "Zerstörer" concept. Both of these were proven to be grave errors once the shooting started. The "Falke" was ordered "re-designed" to serve as insurance against the failure of the Bf 110 in the "Zerstörer" role; this revamped machine was not a success. Events in the "Kanalkampf" and "Adlerangriff" (commonly known as "The Battle of Britain") revealed the need for a machine with the original Fw 187's capabilities; the only thing available was the Bf 110; we all know how that turned out.
Still in the process of learning this hard lesson, the RLM persisted with the flawed "Zerstörer" idea, wasting a huge amount of plant and resources on the fiasco that was the Me 210 project. Why they didn't backtrack and build the "Falke" with the DB601 motor lies, in part, with the success of Tank's Fw 190 design. Focke Wulf would be too busy with production of the "Würger" to allow for any other diversion of effort. Tank's design should have been "forced down Messerschmitt's throat" when the Me 210 failed; imagine this machine against the USAAF in 1943, with DB605A-1 engines (1455 hp/ea. with GM1)and a battery of MG151/20's in it's nose...Ouch!
Extrapolating forward from the comparative performance of the Bf 109B/Fw 187V1 shows minimum expected performance would be in the 700-750km/h (435-465mph) range (at altitude with WEP [GM1] being used). Most importantly in the "Defense of the Reich" role would be its incredible "time to altitude" performance. In this regard, the 1939 Fw 187A-0 (fitted with 2 x 730hp Jumo210G motors (1460 total hp.) and an armament of 4 x MG17, 2 x MG FF) had a higher rate of climb (I don't know if this is initial or sustained; source is unclear), than did 1943's Bf 109G-6 with one 1445 hp. DB605.
Imagine the 1943 model Fw 187 with a COMBINED 2890 HP., at least twice the 109's combat radius on internal fuel, and the offensive punch of a Fw 190A-6. Concentrating the cannons in the nose also provides for far more destructive firepower. There is no effect on rate of fire due to synchronization and harmonization (aiming the wing mounted cannons at a specific ranging point in space, usually 150-250m in front of the aircraft, in the case of the Fw 190) is not required, just point the airplane and shoot. Give this same airframe a pair of the last generation Jumo 213E's (2060hp WEP with MW50) and you've got a solid contender for fastest piston engined aircraft of all time.

Answer: Blohm und Voss Bv 40

This was one of several "interesting" designs that actually made it to the prototype stage of development. The mission profile was similar to that of the Me 163B, but without the rocket motor. This tiny glider was to be towed to its attack position (above and in front of the bomber formation) by a Bf 109 fighter. Upon release, the pilot (laying prone behind 120mm of armored glass) was to dive the aircraft through the bombers, attacking (head on, at speeds up to 900km/h (560mph)) with the two 30mm MK108 cannon (35 rpg/each) mounted in the wingroots.

Some testing was also done with an aerial mine attached by a tow cable; this would be detonated by the pilot as he passed through the formation of bombers. Upon release from the Bf 109 tow plane, the mine was to be paid out behind the Bv 40 to a safe distance; the diving attack profile was the same.

The mine system required the removal of one of the two MK 108 cannons. It was found that due to the high diving speed, the mine tended to follow in the wake of the glider as opposed to below it, making accurate placement for detonation problematic.

The heavily armored forward fuselage was re-usable, the rest of the plane was built from "non-strategic" composites (laminates) and wood. Pilots were to be drawn from the thousands of German youth (those not already drafted for the Russian front) who had received rudimentary glider training in the Hitler Youth gliding program; "remusters" from the disbanded Kampfgruppe's were also "up for grabs". Fortunately for these potential martyrs, the programme was canceled after the loss of several prototypes during development testing. By the time this scheme would have been operational the skies over Germany were a very dangerous place to be, even for an adequately trained pilot in a high performance single engined fighter. Flying a tow plane (dragging one of these one ton anchors up to 10,000+m) would require a highly skilled pilot; it would also be a virtual death sentence for this pilot. The advent of the "Volksjäger" programme found a new use for the potential pool of "pilots" that were to be used in this one; for the most part, few of the Hitler Youth trained under these schemes ever saw combat.

Answer: Junkers Ju 322

Both this design and the "Gigant" arose in response to (one of the many) "Seelöwe" specifications; the first of these hurriedly issued in the summer of 1940. Prior to the stunning success of Manstein and Hitler's "Sichelschnitt" on the Northern plains of France, the problem of an invasion of England had been deemed as scarcely worth consideration. Fall "Gelb's" initial goals were actually far more modest than the outright capitulation of France. The capture of a narrow band of coastline on the English Channel (to allow for prosecution of a bombing campaign against England) was the stated objective of the initial plan.

The overwhelming success of the Fallschirmjäger in Weserübung (and particularly the gliderborne operations against the Belgian forts defending the Albert Canal and the northern Meuse crossings), proved gliderborne assault theories beyond a doubt; reenforcement and supply in an airborne assault on southern England would be an obvious problem. Following the failure to establish air superiority over southern England, Seelöwe was given a complete re-appraisal by OKW. One of the further conclusions now reached was that the seaborne delivery of the initial assault wave's armor, artillery and heavy transport would be nicely complemented if further heavy assets were delivered by glider alongside the airborne forces. This forward-thinking idea brings us to the specification that was issued (in late October, 1940), given the code-name Unternehmen Warschau. The broad requirement was for a glider capable of carrying either: a combat-ready PzKfw IV with crew and spares; an 88mm Flak 18 along with its SdKfz 7 prime mover, crew, and ammunition; a combat-ready StuG III assault gun with crew and spares; or any combination of ammunition, fuel, spares or provisions totaling up to 22,000kg. As this was to be a "one-way" aircraft, it was seen as critical that "non-strategic" resources were to be employed in it's construction.

Requests for submission were issued to Messerschmitt AG and Junkers AG, each with its own particular caveat. While Messerschmitt's design was to be based on welded steel tubing, Junkers was required to design the Ju 322's airframe entirely out of wood. For an aircraft of this size (82m wingspan, later reduced to 62m), this was a truly formidable challenge; nothing like it had ever even been contemplated. The final nail in the coffin for the Junkers design team was the extremely limited time span allowed for by the specification in which to produce a flying prototype. While Messerschmitt quickly cobbled together a lightweight, fabric covered, tubular steel box with wings, Junkers struggled.

Construction of the wing spars required massive timbers and joinery. Wood being wood, you don't just chop down a bunch of trees and build an airplane out of them. There are moisture content (inconsistent density), erratic drying (leading to shrinkage, "checking", and "splitting") and adhesive concerns in particular, and these greatly affect the joinery's ability to achieve design strength (I'm a carpenter by trade). With the heavy wooden wing spars that were required to support the specified all up weight, serious aerodynamic (weight and balance) issues also quickly arose. On its first flight (12 March, 1941, less than five months after issuance of the spec.) the Ju 322 V1 pitched up violently; this, while still under tow at low altitude. Only quick action on the part of the test pilot (detaching the towline) saved the glider and its Ju 90 tow plane. The solution to this problem was the addition of two 4,000 litre water tanks (8000kg) forward of the spar, to balance the unanticipated aerodynamic forces. This then required that the empenage be redesigned, as control issues now arose. As if this wasn't bad enough, in an effort to save weight, the cargo floor had been insufficiently engineered; when the first ground trials with the V1 prototype and a PzKfw IV were carried out, the tank promptly crashed through the belly of the aircraft! By this point (May 1941) a reported 45 million RM had been wasted, the V2 aircraft was "ready" to fly, and there were 98 of these things in various stages of production. With the obvious (pre-ordained?) superiority of Messerschmitt's design, the Ju 322 program was canceled and all the planes were reportedly broken up for firewood!
As a side note, there is a DeHaviland Mosquito on display at the Alberta Aviation Museum, not far from where I live. The joinery used on the wing spar can be readily inspected within the open bomb bay of this machine. Trying to imagine this kind wood joinery on an aircraft with a TWO HUNDRED FOOT wingspan boggles the mind!

Sir Bedevere, Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Perhaps if we build a large wooden badger...?"

Answer: Blohm und Voss Bv 144

Not much interesting about this bird; interesting that the Germans actually thought they might win the war though!
*Please note that this aircraft (which actually received RLM number 8-144, should NOT be confused with the Blohm & Voss P.144, a proposal for a long range flying boat which was only a "paper" project.*
All kidding aside, this machine had its roots in the RLM's need to find profitable things to do with the massive aeronautical industry that was inherited with the fall of France. A team of French engineers from the Breguet firm were retained by Blohm und Voss and set up in Hamburg, tasked with designing an aircraft that would meet the DLH (Deutsche Lufthansa) specification. What they came up with is the Bv 144. One very notable feature of the design is the inclusion of a variable incidence wing; one that can change the angle of attack of the wing chord, relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. This was to allow for better takeoff and landing performance, without suffering higher drag penalties at cruising speed (a well known example of a variable incidence wing is the US Navy's Chance-Vought F-8 "Crusader" from the 1960's). The sources I have to hand do not provide clarity as to whether this inclusion was wholly on the part of the French design team, or whether it was "suggested" by a German engineer. Regardless, it was an innovative approach to the anticipated problem of operating from the shorter runways at the smaller "regional" airfields that the Bv 144 would be required to service. Adjustment was provided for by a mechanical system (I'm guessing on a worm-gear arrangement of sorts) which rotated the spar of the mainplane through a range of up to nine degrees positive, relative to the designed neutral incidence. It was a medium-small twin, powered by two BMW 801MA radials, each developing 1,560 hp (boost); 1310hp (continuous cruise). Production was to be carried out in France at the Breguet facility in Bayonne, and two prototypes were completed; this despite the fact that the "warm afterglow" had long since faded in Germany. Only one of the machines is known to have flown, one source reports this as occurring sometime in August 1944 following evacuation of the prototypes by truck, to the Toulouse area; another states that three flights were conducted post war (1946) and that this machine was scrapped shortly thereafter following an in-flight hydraulic failure.
Both sources confirm that the aircraft were scrapped by the French. No doubt the whole affair left a rather bad taste in a few too many mouths!

Answer: A two place STOL design that flew in the competition won by the Fi 156

Pull this one out the next time you've got the ear of one of those Luftwaffe "buffs" that seem to pop up at "social events" from time to time. Ask them what they thought of the Bf 163... then sit back and let them tell you all about how it's the ME 163 Komet, how only prewar designs were known by the Bf designation, how the nomenclature was changed in 1938 when Willi bought the company and renamed it ... Your "expert" might even know how to pronounce Bayerische Flugzeugwerke properly ... Then explain that no, you meant the Bf 163, you know, Willi's revolutionary (but over engineered) entry in the pre-WWII STOL competition; the one with the variable incidence wing, the one that lost the competition because Fiesler's "Storch" was cheaper to mass produce, that anomaly that got caught in the RLM's numbering system; then walk away feeling smug and superior...but seriously ...
The variable incidence wing on the Bf 163 was as much responsible for its loss in the competition as anything else. The additional gearboxes and ball joints that allowed the strut-supported wing to pivot, added so much weight that its effective payload was less than half that of Fiesler's machine. Although Messerschmitt designed the Bf 163, the prototype was actually built by the small firm of Wesser Flugzeug in Stuttgart. BFW was far too busy with the 109 and 110 to be able assign a team and facility to construct a hand built, "one-off" prototype; this likely played a role in the decision as well. The "Storch" was already flying when the call for competing designs was announced. The Bf 163 copied it's design features ruthlessly (high wing, leading edge slats, full span "slotted" flaps, tall undercarriage with long suspension travel) and used the same Argus As10, inverted V8 motor. The short field performance was actually a little worse than that of the Storch because of the additional weight of the wing system!
As such, the Bf 163 best served as (yet another) example of wasted time, money and productive effort on the part of the RLM.

Answer: Ju 288

Bomber "B" is one of the better known (of the many) fiascos that plagued the RLM's Technisches Amt. Aircraft engine development problems were a global phenomenon; the history of the Curtiss-Wright R 3350 radial is well known. Germany's "problem child" was the Junkers-Jumo 222, a 24 cylinder, "star configuration" engine. Essentially this was six four cylinder, liquid cooled, inline cylinder blocks, configured like a radial around a central crankshaft. Development of the 222 had already been underway for more than two years when the Bomber "B" specification was issued; the new design promised a monumental leap in the state of the art. It first ran on a test bench in April 1939 and flying tests began on a modified Ju 52 in November of that same year. In terms of power to weight and power to displacement ratios it was expected to surpass both the BMW801 radial and DB600 series inline by factors approaching 40%. It's relatively small size meant it might also be suitable to power a version of the Fw 190 fighter, then in an advanced state of development. So what happened?
The conclusion drawn by one of the most respected authorities on German aero engine development in the period, Kyrill von Gersdorff, is that the Jumo design was simply "pushing the envelope" too hard for the existing metallurgical technology of the time. Persistent failures of the complex bearing arrangement in the crankcase caused severe oscillation, resulting in vibration fractures in the crankshaft itself. By the time that the bearing issues had finally been solved through design, it was 1943. Many of the rare metals required for the mass production of the 222 were no longer available in the required quantities; what little that were available had been re-allocated to other programmes. By this point, the Bomber "B" specification itself had been overtaken by the events of the four years that had elapsed since it's being issued; the whole sorry mess was finally abandoned at the start of 1944, in favor of increased fighter production.
Von Gersdorff also lays blame firmly at the feet of T. Amt for the continuously changing technical requirements placed upon the Ju 288 airframe. Each of these resulted in a higher all up weight and an engine with a higher rated takeoff output was required. This happened twice in the development and required a complete redesign of the motor each time. The original spec called for a takeoff rating of 2000hp; the aforementioned changes (resulting in the Ju 288B) saw this increased to 2500hp. After failing to achieve this rating with the 222 A/B series motor (222 A-1/B-1 and 222 A-2/B-2) Jumo literally went "back to the drawing board". A completely new cylinder bank with a larger bore and stroke had now to be designed and proven; this effort was given the designation 222 C/D. In the meantime the redesigned Ju 288B was fitted with the DB606 (coupled V12's) from the equally disastrous He 177 program, and flight testing proceeded.
The Jumo 222's failure was likely the most costly of the war; pinning down an exact figure in Reichsmarks is just not possible. The effect on the entire schedule for Luftwaffe aircraft production was profound. So firm was the belief that they had "invented a better mousetrap" with the Jumo 222, no contingency was made for the situation that ended up happening. An entire generation of aircraft were designed around the anticipated power output of this engine; when it failed, all these designs (and the untold billions of Reichsmarks in development costs) had to be written off.

Fewer than 300 Junkers Jumo 222 engines were produced and not a single one of these ever saw service in a combat aircraft.

Answer: 8-209

There were three Me 209s that actually flew; the well known Me 209V1 (the record breaker of 1939), and the two lesser known combat models, developed later during the war.
An effort to adapt the world record setting racing design for combat service resulted in the Me 209 V4. Although bearing a superficial resemblance to the racer, it was actually redesigned almost "from the ground up" at great expense. Messerschmitt persisted for more than a year but handling (particularly in the "transitory" [take off and landing] and air combat maneuvering parts of the flight envelope) remained abysmal. After all of the modifications, the 209 V4 was so heavy that it couldn't even beat the Bf 109E-3 (already in frontline service) in a drag race!

The third aircraft is often referred to as the Me 209 II to avoid further confusion. The Me 209's second lease of life was a completely different aircraft, although curiously, the first example built was designated "V5", adding further to the confusion! This aircraft was to be a follow-on to the Bf 109G; the original intention being to incorporate the new higher output inline engines, while maintaining a significant degree of compatibility with the "Gustav", allowing for a smooth transition on the production line. This was quickly proven impossible, in part because the T. Amt kept changing the specifications (where have we heard this before?!); the resultant V5 was an entirely different aircraft by the time it flew on 3 November, 1943. This aircraft was powered by a DB603 motor (the V6 was fitted with the Jumo 213) with an annular radiator, giving the appearance that it was equipped with a radial (a la Fw 190D, Ta 152). The tail was new; the landing gear were mounted in a completely redesigned wing, retracting inwards; the only commonality that remained was the fuselage (from the cockpit back to the point where the new empenage was attached), by far the easiest part of the 109 to manufacture!

RANT ON
Poor flight performance relative to the Fw 190D is cited in William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich" as the major reason for the last 209's cancellation (this is regurgitated in the Wikipedia entry on the subject) but this is NOT the case. Although groundbreaking at the time it was first published, Green's book is also the source of MANY falsehoods that continue to be propagated when the Luftwaffe is discussed; look at the date of initial publication: 1968. In the past FOURTY YEARS a wealth of authors have supplanted and corrected most of Green's erroneous conclusions and poorly supported assertions.
RANT OFF

The fact of the matter is that the Me 209 failed in its purpose...where the Fw 190D-9 excelled...COMMONALITY. The 190D-9 was a standard production A-8 model with a Jumo 213A bolted to the front, a plug inserted in the rear fuselage to offset the weight and balance issues and a slight extension to the fin (this is a little simplified, but basically true). The only thing that hampered the transition to the "D-9" was the availability of it's new engine. The reason the first Dora's were given the designation -9 is that Focke Wulf anticipated switching ALL A model production to the "D" specification, ending the "A" line at the above noted A-8. Only when it became obvious that shortages of the Jumo 213 would require the continued use of the BMW 801 was the A-9 designation issued; this primarily reflected the fitting of the BMW 801TS and "blown" canopy; the A-9 was the last of the Anton line to see service. While Messerschmitt tweaked and tinkered with the 209, the re-engined "Dora" entered squadron service. Kurt Tank considered the Dora as a "stop gap" measure while work moved forward on the Ta 152 project, a more significant redesign of the Fw 190. The 209 was just another blatant example of what was wrong with German procurement policy, and with Messerschmitt AG in particular...they continued to waste vast resources on redundant nonsense projects like BOTH Me 209s.

Answer: A pivoting tail, allowing for more effective defensive fire

The Ju 187 was the first of two attempts to "breathe new life" into the venerable "Stuka". Both of these featured this seemingly bizarre idea and extensive wind tunnel testing was conducted to assess its feasibility. The first of the two designs began life as the Ju 87F in mid 1940, prior to the lessons learned over the Channel and Southern England.

The primary intention was to incorporate the "next generation" Jumo 213 inline engine (then under development) and a retractable undercarriage into the original Ju 87's design; a considerable increase in performance was anticipated. Delays with the Jumo 213 allowed the luxury of considerable "tinkering time" and the team took full advantage of this, initiating design work on a pressurized cabin, remotely operated rear turret and the movable fin/rudder that is the subject of this question.

Despite what you will find written in many online sources, the complete tail of the aircraft did NOT rotate 180 degrees, the fin and rudder simply pivoted downward through approximately 60 degrees of travel.

Another innovation was linking the tail wheel to this mechanism, retracting it as the tail was lowered into the operational flight position. This innovative idea was included in conjunction with the fitting of the powered remote turret, thereby obviating the need for an interrupter mechanism (to avoid hitting the tailfin of the aircraft). Because this turret was fitted with a greatly increased firepower (1 x MG151/20 cannon, 1 x MG131 HMG) and failure of an interrupter mechanism during use would almost surely result in the immediate loss of the fin (if it was hit by the explosive shells the MG151/20 fired), this was seen as an imperative. The added "field of fire" was a bonus in this case. The tail was only moved twice, following take off and again prior to landing. It is most unlikely that this would have been linked to the controls that cycled the main undercarriage but I cannot find a definitive source that states that this was not the case; it is definite that the entire flight would be flown with the tail lowered however. The "tinkering" continued and the original wing had now been redesigned following failed attempts to incorporate the retractable undercarriage into the original one; still of "inverted gull" design, this new wing also featured redesigned dive brakes which were much "cleaner" when retracted, integrated into the landing flaps. Considerable streamlining of the fuselage and a lowering of the mounting location of the engine to afford greater visibility during ground maneuvering was also done. By the spring of 1943 this first redesigned version bore scant resemblance to the Ju 87 and was re-designated Ju 187. Wind tunnel and theoretical testing also revealed that despite the increased power of the Jumo 213 and all the aerodynamic improvements, the increased weight largely negated any significant increase in performance. Work was initiated on another theoretical project (designated Ju 287) which finally "did away" with the inverted gull wing, opting for a conventional design of greater lift; the hope was to salvage the three years of development monies spent to this point. With the successful introduction of the Fw 190G "Jabo Rei" and Fw 190F "Jabo" into full series production by the middle of 1943 (providing the high speed ground attack aircraft sought by the Luftwaffe) and the late model Ju 87D soldiering on in the east, the decision was taken to cease development of both aircraft sometime late in 1943. The Ju 287 designation was reallocated to the well known jet bomber prototype, which had been in development under the project designation EF.122 up to that point.

Answer: Junkers Ju 90

The saga of the "Amerika-Bomber" is VERY convoluted. The first specification (referred to in my question) was entirely theoretical; two of the three contenders in this first "request for proposals" were adaptations of operational aircraft. The third aircraft that was proposed was based on a long range maritime patrol aircraft being designed by Messerschmitt; the Me 264. We'll meet the Ta 400 a little later in the story.

Globally, aircraft technology was at an interesting point in the fall of 1940; the advances in structural design that came with widespread introduction of "all metal monocoque" construction allowed much larger airframes to be built, yet the power output of proven aero engines of the day lagged far behind. This was further complicated by the fact that the rate of production of advanced high performance engines was a choke point for aircraft production as a whole. At the time, "suitable powerplants" (ones that could be spared from existing production) were at best able to generate "cruise" ratings on the order of 900-1000hp so six of these were deemed necessary to achieve the desired performance.

Two large four engined aircraft were in service (both of which were prewar Lufthansa designs), the Fw 200 "Condor" and the Ju 90; work started on a militarized version of the Junkers design in April 1939. The focus of the work was geared toward a heavy-lift transport role and two prototypes (V5 and V6) were built, known as Ju 90B. The contract let in September 1940 was for two further aircraft in the series (V7 and V8); these were to be maritime patrol bombers, known as Ju 90S. They carried forward elements of the work done on the V5/V6 coupled with a completely new wing; defensive armament was fitted on the V8. Solving numerous "teething troubles" that arose as the Ju 88 went into widespread frontline service required an "all hands on deck" approach and as a result, work on the Ju 90S was sporadic; first flight occurred in September 1941.

The "weaknesses" in the militarized Fw 200C showed a need for a maritime patrol/transport aircraft designed "from the ground up" to military specs; Junkers proposed the Ju 90. A contract was issued in 1941 for two further prototypes, Ju 90V11 and V12 although by this time, these machines bore little resemblance to the original Ju 90. As a result, the entire programme was re-designated Ju 290. It was also in this time period that the specification for an "Amerika Bomber" was reissued; this was a direct result of American entry into the war.

The Fw 300 was a proposal which had been in development since the outset of "Amerika" in 1940. One of the proposed models was configured to meet the bomber requirement, but the Fw 300 was primarily designed as a "milspec" competitor to the Ju 90 in the maritime patrol and transport roles. It was a substantial upgrade of the Fw 200 airframe, designed to proper military specifications; these included a fully pressurized crew compartment, remotely controlled "barbettes" for the defensive armament, greatly improved range and warload and correction of the structural weaknesses of the Fw 200. Unfortunately for the Focke Wulf design team, they based all their work around the 2500hp takeoff output of the ill-fated Jumo 222; this decision condemned much of their work to the scrapheap (actually wastepaper basket, as most work was theoretical) of history.

Junkers was privy to the true nature of the "problems" with the Jumo 222 and based their Ju 290 around the BMW 801 (which was by now, pretty much over it's "developmental difficulties"). The Ju 390 was proposed for the revised "Amerika" spec using the work done on the Ju 90S as a foundation. The proposal was novel in its simplicity; the inner wing section on each side (containing the engine nacelle with the main undercarriage) would simply be fitted twice, bringing the total motors to six and doubling the main undercarriage to four individual units. A "plug" was also to be inserted into the rear fuselage "stretching" it by approximately twelve feet. Based on the design proposal, Junkers was awarded a contract for the production of two prototypes under the programme, the first of these was to be a "re-build" of the Ju 90V6.
Messerschmitt AG also submitted an entry in the redefined programme, a six engined upgrade of the Me 264. Theoretical work had started as "Projekt" P.1061 in 1937 and continued erratically, as dictated by the exigencies of development and production of the Bf 109 & 110: the company's "bread and butter". Issuance of the Autumn 1940 RLM spec (12000 km [7457 miles], 5000 kg[11023 lbs] internal bombload) saw the work stepped up; an order for six (later reduced to three) developmental prototypes was received in early 1941. At this same time, work started (subcontracted to the Dutch firm Fokker) on an adaptation which was to use six BMW 801's. Extensive delays saw the RLM's enthusiasm for this project (now designated Me 264B) fade, in favor of the far simpler Ju 390 proposal.

It was at this point that the "rising star" in the German aircraft industry (Dipl.-Ing. Kurt Tank) threw his hat into the ring with the Ta 400 proposal. It "recycled" much of the theoretical work that had been done on the ill-fated Fw 300, starting as a "make work" project to re-engine the Fw 300 (with six BMW 801's) when the delayed Jumo 222's held up issuance of a construction contract for prototypes of the Fw 300. Component production contracts were issued to firms in occupied France, northern Italy and Germany; some of the airframe portions were reportedly completed. Although the Ju 390 had already been selected under the programme, Tank's growing reputation afforded the design significant support within the RLM and work was vigorously prosecuted in 1943.

By mid-October of this year the war situation was chaotic. German forces had been devastated in the East by the Red Army's general offensive, launched in the wake of the fiasco at Kursk. Only with great losses (in well conducted fighting retreats) was the Wehrmacht able to reverse the initial rout allowing a patchwork front to be re-established. Following a brief pause, the Soviet juggernaut rolled forward again; the two huge offensives were continued, hitting both Army Group Center at Smolensk and Army Group South, holding the west bank of the lower Dnieper. These two operations were prosecuted at a terrible cost to the Red Army, but prosecuted nonetheless; the bloodletting incurred on both sides was horrendous. When coupled with the debacle in Tunisia, the manpower cost to the Wehrmacht was decisive. From the start of "Zitadelle" to the fall of Kiev (6 November) the Ostheer suffered 320,000 KIA and around 1,000,000 wounded and missing (this alone literally "chewed up" the entire 1943 draft). There was also the loss of Sicily and invasion of mainland Italy (requiring German intervention) and the collapse of Mussolini's regime and Italian surrender; AND...there was ALSO the onset of large scale daylight penetration of German airspace by the USAAF...the writing was on the wall.

The axe fell on the "Amerika" programme in a (typically) uncoordinated manner; the Ta 400 was canceled on 15 October 1943 so Focke Wulf could concentrate on fighter production. Willi Messerschmitt used his considerable political connections to keep the Me 264 alive for a year longer; definitive cancellation was issued on 18 October, 1944. Despite this order, work continued until the end of the war; this was likely an act of benevolence on Messerschmitt's part, preventing those involved in the project from being "press ganged" into the ranks of the "Volksturm". At the same time while Tank's Ta 400 was "getting the chop", the Ju 390V1 made it's first flight. Performance was as promised and work was allowed to continue on the V2 machine, being built from scratch as a test bed for the fitting of the defensive weaponry and operational modifications. The V2 was fitted with an additional "plug" in front of the wings, further stretching the fuselage to a total length of 112' 2". Based on the tested performance of the V1, a production contract was issued for 26 machines; these were to be fitted out as maritime patrol and long range transports. Credible references to the idea of bombing "Amerika" drop off sharply at this point in the timeline; reality was kicking in hard in Germany by now. With the issuance of the "Emergency Fighter Programme" in July 1944 an order went out canceling production of all non-essential designs forthwith. Conditions in Germany allowed most of the firms to do as they pleased however and (as in the case of Messerschmitt) many projects were continued, thus sparing the talented engineers a trip to the Ostfront.

Answer: high speed reconnaissance

The Bf 110's successor had in fact already been chosen; it was the ill-fated Me 210 project. In an effort to maintain the illusion of a fair competition, Arado's proposal was given a development contract as well; this machine was allocated the RLM number 8-240.

The Arado design had been on the drawing board as a private development initiative since the mid 1930s; the pet project of the firm's chief designer, Walter Blume. It employed a number of major advancements in design for the period, most notably a radical wing design. To achieve the high speeds which were perceived as being vital for survivability, the wing area was very small, thereby reducing parasitic drag although at the expense of increased induced drag (by definition: drag created through the creation of lift, which has a diminishing curve as speed is increased).

This gave the aircraft an extremely high wing loading (300+ kg/sq metre) and wind tunnel testing showed that landing speeds would be unacceptably high. This was accounted for by the inclusion of automatic maneuvering slats (based on the work done by British firm Handley-Page) on the outer leading edge, and a full span two stage ("traveling") flap.

In this system, the ailerons were "split" and their lower portion became part of the flaps when the aircraft was in the takeoff/landing configuration. It also featured a pressurized crew compartment, this made possible by the inclusion of the FA9 (later FA13) remotely controlled defensive armament system, which Arado had invested heavily in (as a joint venture with the firm DVL). It was powered by two of the Daimler-Benz 601 series inline engines; these were however, fitted with an annular radiator in a further effort to reduce the parasitic drag and increase speed. The design was immediately proven to be highly unstable in all three axes and major redesigns were carried out throughout the life of the development programme, finally ending with the complete redesign of the wing (which had been the root of most of the problems in the first place!). Although on a far smaller scale than the Me 210, the Ar 240 was also ordered into production "straight off the drawing board" and as such, became another example of the poor planning exhibited by the T. Amt when it came to proper proving of advanced technical innovations as a whole. Some of the "V-series" prototype machines and Ar 240A-0 production models were stripped of their armament in favor of cameras and operated with great success over the south of England and on the Eastern Front; like the DeHaviland Mosquito, their high speeds (380+ mph.) made them virtually unassailable by interceptors of the time period (1942).