Development
The origin of the Me 264 design came from Messerschmitt's long-range reconnaissance aircraft project, the P.1061, of the late 1930s. A variant on the P.1061 was the P.1062 of which three prototypes were built, with only two "engines" to the P.1061's four, but they were, in fact, the more powerful Daimler-Benz DB 606s, each comprising a pair of DB 601 inverted V-12 engines, themselves derided by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring as "welded-together engines" in August 1942. In early 1941, six P.1061 prototypes were ordered from Messerschmitt, under the designation Me 264. This was later reduced to three prototypes.
The progress of these projects was initially slow, but after Germany had declared war on the United States, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) started a more serious programme for a very long range bomber, with the result that a larger, six-engine aircraft with a greater bomb load was called for. To meet this demand, proposals were put forward for the Junkers Ju 390, Focke-Wulf Ta 400, a redesign of the unfinished and unbuilt Heinkel He 277 design to give the Heinkel firm an entry in the Amerika Bomber program later in 1943, and a design study for a six-engine Messerschmitt Me 264B. As the Junkers Ju 390 could use components already in use for the Ju 290 this design was chosen. The Me 264 was not abandoned however as the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) separately demanded a long-range maritime patrol and attack aircraft to replace the converted Fw 200 Condor in this role. As a result, the two pending prototypes were ordered to be completed as development prototypes for the Me 264A ultra long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
Read more about this topic: Messerschmitt Me 264
Famous quotes containing the word development:
“I have an intense personal interest in making the use of American capital in the development of China an instrument for the promotion of the welfare of China, and an increase in her material prosperity without entanglements or creating embarrassment affecting the growth of her independent political power, and the preservation of her territorial integrity.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“Somehow we have been taught to believe that the experiences of girls and women are not important in the study and understanding of human behavior. If we know men, then we know all of humankind. These prevalent cultural attitudes totally deny the uniqueness of the female experience, limiting the development of girls and women and depriving a needy world of the gifts, talents, and resources our daughters have to offer.”
—Jeanne Elium (20th century)
“Theories of child development and guidelines for parents are not cast in stone. They are constantly changing and adapting to new information and new pressures. There is no “right” way, just as there are no magic incantations that will always painlessly resolve a child’s problems.”
—Lawrence Kutner (20th century)