# Fw-187 could have been German P-51?



## wiking85 (Oct 18, 2013)

During the later stages of WW2 the P-51D gave the USAAF a serious speed advantage over the LW, which was used to massacre what remained of the Jagdwaffe in early 1944; the Germans lacked a similar high speed, long range air superiority fighter during the Battle of Britain, so experienced what the USAAF felt in 1942-43 over Germany. However, when looking back at some German forum topics on the Fw-187 and the several on this board about the projected speed and range for a single seat long range escort/air superiority fighter version of the Fw-187 with DB601A engines, it would seem that they would have an aircraft with a similar or greater speed advantage over British fighters in 1940; It was suggested here that the top speed of the Fw-187 would be 387mph, while the Spitfire Mark IIa was only 357mph with 100 octane fuel (but not WEP). So with the Fw-187s might not the Luftwaffe have had its Mustang to attrit RAF fighter command?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

I have several questions about this idea;
1. How was the potential speed of the Fw-187 with DB-601s computed. (I suspect the results are low. 393 Minimum. Possibly more, much more, ~423, depending on what your criteria are.)
2. Because of the much longer range of the FW-187, I suspect that the "Effective" speed would have been much higher in relation to the other combatants. In that the Fw-187 Pilot could have used much larger throttle openings that were other wise restricted, due to fuel shortages.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 18, 2013)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/effect-operational-fw187s-during-battle-britain-35707.html
Die Focke - Wulf FW 187 Falke
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/1940-luftwaffes-ideal-heavy-fighter-33697.html


----------



## davebender (Oct 18, 2013)

However the Fw-187 was lighter and therefore offered superior performance with similar engine hp. Fw-187 was also less expensive to mass produce.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

How much internal fuel capacity?


----------



## DonL (Oct 18, 2013)

drgondog said:


> How much internal fuel capacity?



1100 Liter as A and B (first version with DB 601 engines)version .
As we habe seen from Dietmar Hermann's book the later version had 1300 Liter.
Also the FW 187 with DB 605 engines had the possibility to carry a 900 Liter drop tank!

For the speed of the FW 187, here are a very sophisticated calculated image of the top speed of the FW 187 with different engines and *normal* (similar to the Bf 110) cooling.










And yes to my opinion the FW 187 was and could have been a german P-51 next to the Ta 152H, but 5 years earlier and
also the best possible german interceptor against a Mosquito. The FW 187 with DB 601 engines could be in mass production beginning 1939.

The possible speed of a FW 187 with DB 601A engines was between 380 to 385 mph, with the DB 601E engine it would be about 420 mph.
The depth of penetration was with 1100 Liter 620km with 30min Steig und Kampfleistung as reserve over enemy territory, with 1300Liter is was 830km with 30 min Steig und Kampfleistung as reserve over enemy territory.
(Take of, landing, rolling and climb are included in this numbers)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

The Fw 187 might have been sorry to catch a Spitrfire. If it got into a turning fight the Spitfire would eat it alive.

So the correct tactics, from the German side, would be to ambush the Spitfires from higher altitude and keep going, being satisfied with the results of the first pass. In this manner, it might have worked for a few times, but British early warning would soon erode that tactic sufficiently to make continued use of ambush over the UK untennable.

I don't think it would have worked for long, but would have been interesting for a time, though to atrit the enemy, you have to have more of what you are fighting with than your enemy does of what you are killing. To have more Fw 187's than the Brits had Spitfires, something else would have to suffer a production loss, and what effect would THAT have had when the Fw 187's proved no match for later Spitfires?

I don't know.

An interesting premise, however.


----------



## DonL (Oct 18, 2013)

Nobody has to go in a turn fight!

Weather the Bf 109 nor the FW 190 were turn fighter or were flown to turn fight with a Spitfire.
From german tests at Rechlin the FW 187 was as agile (turn and roll) as the Bf 109 but much faster with the same engines.
Also the FW 187 was from tests at Rechlin much more easy to fly to the sticks at high speed as the BF 109, more similar to the FW 190.
A FW 187 with a fighter configuration and DB 601 E engines would weight around 6000kg compare to 2700PS horsepower and a formidable aerodynamic.
Such an a/c would be in climb, dive and max speed more then compatetive to any Spit V and SpitIiX and must not go in a turn fight with a Spit. 
Boom and zoom would be the tactic, the same as every F6F against a Zero, or do you want to tell us, a F6F was flown to turn fight with a Zero?


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

The F6F WAS flown in turning fights with the Zeros until they learned not to do so for more than 3/4 of a turn, DonL. Read the history.

The Fw 187 might well have been a good one. It also might have been another Bf 110. The jury is out and the facts will never come forth since it was not proceeded with ... might have been a good choice, but also might not have been.

The only two twin engine fighters that were really successful in the real sense on the word were the P-38 and the Mosquito and the Fw 187 was about 80 mph slower than the P-38 or the Mosquito. It might have made the grade and might not. The WHirlwind seems like a better choice to me, but it wasn't German and so was not possible.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F6F WAS flown in turning fights with the Zeros until they learned not to do so for more than 3/4 of a turn, DonL. Read the history.
> 
> The Fw 187 might well have been a good one. It also might have been another Bf 110. The jury is out and the facts will never come forth since it was not proceeded with ... might have been a good choice, but also might not have been.
> 
> The only two twin engine fighters that were really successful in the real sense on the word were the P-38 and the Mosquito *and the Fw 187 was about 80 mph slower than the P-38 or the Mosquito*. It might have made the grade and might not. The WHirlwind seems like a better choice to me, but it wasn't German and so was not possible.



Can you explain, how the FW 187 V5 (with engines similar to the DB 601A) clocked 630 km/h or 392 mph at 1000m (*near sea level)* at October 1939?
Which P-38 and Mosquito clocked 392mph near sea level? 
So don't do claims which are incorrect!
The aerodynamic quality of the FW 187 is out of question, it is a fact shown from hundreds of test flights with several different engines.

Edit:



> The Fw 187 might well have been a good one. *It also might have been another Bf 110*. The jury is out and the facts will never come forth since it was not proceeded with ... might have been a good choice, but also might not have been.



That's more or less the best joke I have read at this forum

FW 187 V4/A0 with 2 x Jumo 210 G engines.

max speed at sea level: 466km/h
max speed at 4600m : 545 km/h

Bf 110 B with 2 x Jumo 210 G engines:

max speed at sea level: 380km/h 
max speed at 4600m : 455 km/h

It looks realy like a second Bf 110!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

Let’see DonL,

There’s here: Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the performance.

You might check here: Focke Wulf Ta 152 - Luftwaffe Resource Center

Note the performance.

You might check here: Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke (Falcon) Heavy Escort Fighter - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft

Note the performance.

So … I don’t see anything like you claim in these or other reference sites. I also want performance of the real planes, not projections of things never made. But, if you have the data for a plane that was actually built, please post it.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

I have a book with primary documents and written from primary sources, I have told this several times.

The FW 187 V5 flew at October 1939 and clocked 392 mph near sea level! That's from primary sources!

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History: Dietmar Harmann: 9780764318719: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

Yah DonL,

I believe the Fw 187 V6 made the speed you indicated. But the three production Fw 187's were Fw 187A-0's with the much lower speed of 329 mph or so. The P-38 was 414 or so and the Mosquito was anywhwre from 380 to 425 mph depending on model.

The British also made the "high speed Spifire," but never produced it ... like the Fw 187 V6 was not produced. The high speed Spitfire made a better speed than the Fw 187 V6 and if the two prototypes had met, the outcome would maybe be due to the pilots, not the aircraft. In any case, one was about as fast as the other except for production models, where the Spitfire was at least 30 - 50 mph faster and hit about as hard.

Most Spitfires climbed better than 3,400 feet per minute or so (Fw 187 initial climb rate).

As it happens, the Spitfire went into production and far exceeded early performance. The Fw 187 did not do either but would have been an interesting addition to the war if proceeded with. It seems the Third Reich did not agree with your assessment of the Fw 187, and they were in a position to care about it.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> "high speed Spifire,"



The High Speed Spitfire was built for an attempt on the air speed record. It was fitted with a Merlin II (special) rated at 2160hp with +27psi boost @ 3200rpm at sea level. It required special fuel. This when the standard Merlin II was rated at 1030hp @ 16,250ft.

The attempt was abandoned after the Germans took the record with the He 100 and then the Me 209, neither of which had conventional cooling systems. The Me 209 had a total loss evaporative cooling system, with steam exiting the system in flight.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yah DonL,
> 
> I believe the Fw 187 V6 made the speed you indicated. But the three production Fw 187's were Fw 187A-0's with the much lower speed of 329 mph or so. The P-38 was 414 or so and the Mosquito was anywhwre from 380 to 425 mph depending on model.
> 
> ...



It was the V5! The V6 was a normal preproduction A0!
All estimations of several different further developed FW 187, with several different engines (for example DB 605) came from sophisticated Focker Wulf piston aircraft engineers which had thousands of datas from hundreds of test flights from the FW 187.
Are you a piston aircraft engineer with this datas about the FW 187? 
How can you claim you know it better and deny their estimations?



> Third Reich did not agree with your assessment of the Fw 187, and they were in a position to care about it



The next joke, the LW was lead from a *Junkie* and you want to tell he had done rational decisions?
This man was only able to care about himself, he was described as lazy and someone who has not a single clue what he decided.
And Göring was the man who terminated the FW 187.


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

Nice pics, Wuzak.

The Fw 187 V6 was the "fast" unit of the 9 Fw 187's built, and was also a prototype with everything abaondoned for the sake of speed.

I thought it best to bring up the speedy Spitfire for the discussion. It was never built again, as the Fw 187 V6 wasn't.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Nice pics, Wuzak.
> 
> *The Fw 187 V6 was the "fast" unit of the 9 Fw 187's built, and was also a prototype with everything abaondoned for the sake of speed*.
> 
> I thought it best to bring up the speedy Spitfire for the discussion. It was never built again, as the Fw 187 V6 wasn't.



Wrong and incorrect!


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

No and no again. Support your retort, DonL, the web references don't.

Maybe only Germans know the real facts? Or what? There was ONE fast Fw 187 and it was slower than the fast Spitfire of the time. 

Might still have been something to contend with in a real sense if it had been built in numbers, but it wasn't.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> No and no again. Support your retort, DonL, the web references don't.
> 
> Maybe only Germans know the real facts? Or what? There was ONE fast Fw 187 and it was slower than the fast Spitfire of the time.
> 
> Might still have been something to contend with in a real sense if it had been built in numbers, but it wasn't.



Oh yes, germans knows the real facts from *their own primary sources*!
*From original documents from Focker Wulf!*
Who has built and tested the FW 187? Focker Wulf or any other a/c company at the world?
The FW 187 V5 flew with *near normal* DB 601 engines with 1100PS each!
The Fw 187 V7 was planed as record a/c (as you call fast FW 187) with the DB 601 R engines and 2500PS each!
That are facts from primary sources.

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History: Dietmar Harmann: 9780764318719: Amazon.com: Books

Are your web references original sources from Focker Wulf?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2013)

There is no point to compare the Speed Spitfire with any example of the Fw-187 - the Spit used specilly prepared engine with twice the power, unlike the Fw.


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread.
V-5 clocked 635 kph at low level but it was NOT powered by standard DB 601 engines. It was powered by to DB 601 prototype engines based on the DB 601 A designated DB 601 V40 and V42. These were capable of producing 1,350 hp at ground level for one minute, plenty of time for a timed flight. 
V-5 also featured the evaporative cooling system which Focke-Wulf and to some extent Daimler-Benz struggled to make work properly before finally giving up in February 1942.
Neither of these features were seen on any other production version of the Fw 187 and to suggest that figures for such a special prototype have any relevance to an aircraft that might have entered service (we know it never did) is disingenuous at the very least.
I'm not even starting on the rest of incorrect or selectively quoted data I'm seeing here. It gives me a terrible sense of deja-vu.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

stona said:


> There is a lot of nonsense in this thread.
> V-5 clocked 635 kph at low level but it was NOT powered by standard DB 601 engines. It was powered by to DB 601 prototype engines based on the DB 601 A designated DB 601 V40 and V42. These were capable of producing 1,350 hp at ground level for one minute, plenty of time for a timed flight.
> V-5 also featured the evaporative cooling system which Focke-Wulf and to some extent Daimler-Benz struggled to make work properly before finally giving up in February 1942.
> Neither of these features were seen on any other production version of the Fw 187 and to suggest that figures for such a special prototype have any relevance to an aircraft that might have entered service (we know it never did) is disingenuous at the very least.
> ...



Your post is incorrect!
If you look at page 78 you will read that the DB 601 V40 and V42 had 1100PS each and later developed DB 601 H and M had 1350PS for 1 minute!
Also the system is not a classic evaporative cooling system, which you can see on on page 81, where you can see the smal convential radiator, also you can see the radiators on page 82!



> V-5 also featured the evaporative cooling system which Focke-Wulf and to some extent Daimler-Benz struggled to make work properly before finally giving up in February 1942.


This is also incorrect more to nonsense, because every produced DB 605 had a steam separator, which was developed with this engines and system!

The testflight of the FW 187 V5 shows
1. The very good aerodynamik of this a/c, because 635km/h near sea level is outstanding for 1939
2. That the FW 187 had not a single problem to fly with the bigger DB 601 engines.

The next time you will call my posts nonsense or suggest between the lines, that I post incorrect facts, present your facts and arguments, we will see if your claims can stand the facts!
Also we know your biases against the FW 187, but till now you haven't provided any single technical argument against the FW 187 and the estimated datas, from sophisticated piston aircraft engineers, from the book of Dietmar Herrmann.

It is the same anti FW 187 bla bla without facts as everytime.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 19, 2013)

For what it's worth, I have Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta 154, and it's excellent. It provides a great deal of information for the German-language wikipedia entry on the aircraft, which, as I've posted here before, is miles better than its English counterpart.

Contrast this translated page:

Google Translate

with the English-language entry:

Focke-Wulf Ta 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comparison is all in the favour of the German page, and by extension Dietmar Hermann.


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> If you look at page 78 you will read that the DB 601 V40 and V42 had 1100PS each



That is correct, my bad memory.

I don't know what you call a "classic" evaporative cooling system. No production Fw 187 had such a system, classic or otherwise. Why don't you check why the small longditudinal radiator you refer to (under the engine) was fitted? It was always part of the system designed by Focke-Wulf. Compare the intake for this with that for the radiator on the A-0.

Estimated data are just that, estimated. You cannot provide data for a service version of a DB 601 (or 605) powered Fw 187 because no such aircraft ever existed. The prototype version whose data you quote, lacked much equipment (radio, gun sight etc), were unarmed, carried who knows what fuel loads for testing, were "clean" (no racks, armoured windscreens, antennae),had special cooling systems and many other variations from a version that might have seen service.


I don't care how well qualified you feel the technicians calculating the performance of the aircraft were. It remains entirely theoretical and UNTESTED.

It might make a good sales pitch to the RLM, obviously not good enough to get a decent production order.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

> I don't know what you call a "classic" evaporative cooling system. No production Fw 187 had such a system, classic or otherwise. Why don't you check why the small longditudinal radiator you refer to (under the engine) was fitted? It was always part of the system designed by Focke-Wulf. Compare the intake for this with that for the radiator on the A-0.



Then check the radiotors from the Bf 110 B (Jumo 210) to the Bf 110 C (DB 601), the next blend granade claim from you.



> Estimated data are just that, estimated. You cannot provide data for a service version of a DB 601 (or 605) powered Fw 187 because no such aircraft ever existed. The prototype version whose data you quote, lacked much equipment (radio, gun sight etc), were unarmed, carried who knows what fuel loads for testing, were "clean" (no racks, armoured windscreens, antennae),had special cooling systems and many other variations from a version that might have seen service.
> 
> 
> *I don't care how well qualified you feel the technicians calculating the performance of the aircraft were. It remains entirely theoretical and UNTESTED.*



Wrong the FW 187 V5 flew over 2 years, so there was no problem with the bigger engines (DB 601).

And that is what you don't get! The estimations came mostly from the Bf 110 in comparation with the FW 187 A0/V4 and V5.
The Bf 110 had the engines and the cooling for a production FW 187 with DB 601 engines and it is not a mythical to compare the datas from the Bf 110 and Fw 187 and do a very sophisticated calculation
FW produced Bf 110 C's, you also can see the plane in the book, which was for the tests.

Every major german a/c program from Bf 109, Bf 110, Ju 87 (all Jumo 210 to DB 601) or Do 17, 215, He 111 etc.... were gone through engine step ups and at every program it functioned, to suggest a FW 187 would have had problems or didn't reach the performance steps as calculated, is nothing more then the evilst propaganda, without *any single* technical prove.


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

It doesn't matter how long a prototype aircraft, essentially a test bed for the evaporative cooling system, flew for at a specialist test facility. It has NOTHING to do with an aircraft in the hurly burly of service life. The V5 was attended and maintained by a specialist team of Focke-Wulf and Daimler-Benz technicians until the experiments ended in 1942.

You can make all the sophisticated calculations you like. All they provide is untested data. Many, many aircraft designs failed to live up to their projected performance. A Daimler-Benz powered Fw 187 prototype does not represent the performance of an aircraft which might actually enter service.

Look at the cooler intake on V5.







Compare that with the radiator intake on an A-0, the only version to sort of enter some kind of service. These radiators did not have to deal with the heat from the more powerful DB 601.






This is just one of many differences between a prototype aircraft and something which could actually fight. You are completely ignoring this. You don't have to be an aerodynamicist or undertake sophisticated calculations to work out that these kind of differences will degrade the performance figures that you keep quoting.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2013)

Well this thread is quickly degenerating. Same people as well that are involved.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

Be sure the Bf109 used the same radiator from the A model to the K model. There was also no performance increase.


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Be sure the Bf109 used the same radiator from the A model to the K model. There was also no performance increase.



The E series was the first to get the under wing radiators. An entirely new cooling system was introduced with the F series and I vaguely remember modifications to the cores as engine power increased.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

So there is no reason why the Fw187 could not be able to be changed.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 19, 2013)

stona said:


> The E series was the first to get the under wing radiators. An entirely new cooling system was introduced with the F series and I vaguely remember modifications to the cores as engine power increased.
> Cheers
> Steve


Wasn't there a more aerodynamic cowling introduced, or am I thinking of the Fw190?



Milosh said:


> So there is no reason why the Fw187 could not be able to be changed.


Of course, the argument is what the performance would be in that case; there are some good points being made about the tested version having non-standard cooling systems, but also that these were done away with in other tests, as per Harmann:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764318713/?tag=dcglabs-20

The 380-85 mph with the Db601A seems reasonable for a single seat fighter. 
The A-0 series with the Jumo 210 (700hp) managed to achieve 329 mph despite being designed around the much more powerful Db601. With an additional 400hp per engine and the lack of a second crew member (the A-0 had a longer cockpit with a second crew member unlike the single seat fighter version I'm suggesting), which IIRC someone suggested added 500kg extra to the frame, a gain of 60 mph for 500kg less and 800hp more seems reasonable.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

> It doesn't matter how long a prototype aircraft, essentially a test bed for the evaporative cooling system, flew for at a specialist test facility. It has NOTHING to do with an aircraft in the hurly burly of service life. The V5 was attended and maintained by a specialist team of Focke-Wulf and Daimler-Benz technicians until the experiments ended in 1942.



It matters in any way, because the test flights give data's about the structure integrity of the a/c with the bigger/heavier engine, you will get data's about the cas, the agility and stability of the a/c. 
The system of the FW 187 was no evaporative cooling system, because the cooling circle was closed and there was *NO* surface for any evaporation. It was more like someting of an extreme high pressure cooling, that you can also see of the development of the steam seperater, which was introduced for series production at the DB 605.
The FW 187 V5 was absolute the same a/c as a production FW 187 "B" except for the cooling at the engine gondula.



> You can make all the sophisticated calculations you like. All they provide is untested data. Many, many aircraft designs failed to live up to their projected performance. A Daimler-Benz powered Fw 187 prototype does not represent the performance of an aircraft which might actually enter service.



To my opinion and for a technical understanding, your claim is wrong.
The a/c and it's stability was tested with the bigger engines and the engines and the cooling system of a production FW 187 was in service with the Bf 110. All datas are *tested* in reallife.
Also the FW engineer had hundreds of data's from the Bf 110 and the FW 187 V5 and A0, for calculation and comparation.
Not one single LW project failed an engine step up. 

From Dietmar Herrmanns book about the FW 190:
*Every single project/ a/c from Focker Wulf which was calculated and presented to the RLM reached it's estimated performance as production aircraft*

For the cooling:

Bf 110 B (Jumo 210 engines)







campare to the Bf 110 C (DB 601A engines)






That are major differences between the cooling a the Jumo 210 Bf 110 B and the DB 601 coolings of the Bf 110C.




> This is just one of many differences between a prototype aircraft and something which could actually fight. You are completely ignoring this. You don't have to be an aerodynamicist or undertake sophisticated calculations to work out that these kind of differences will degrade the performance figures that you keep quoting.



You should look at my post 6.
The estimated performance of a production FW 187 with normal cooling and DB 601A engines (1100PS each) is 385 mph at 5000m and not 392 mph at near sea level. Your claim against me is simple wrong.

GregP claimed the P-38 and the Mosquito were 80 mph faster as any FW 187 ever flew, what is also simply wrong as we have seen from the flights of the FW 187 V5.



> The 380-85 mph with the Db601A seems reasonable for a single seat fighter.



The estimation from my posted graph is for a two seater version!


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> The estimation from my posted graph is for a two seater version!


So a single seater version would be around 390mph???
Also what was the range for this fighter with the Db601a? IIRC it was around 1000 miles all told.

Edit:
Also the version that was tested included the full weight of armor, armament, and equipment?


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> So a single seater version would be around 390mph???
> Also what was the range for this fighter with the Db601a? IIRC it was around 1000 miles all told.
> 
> Edit:
> Also the version that was tested included the full weight of armor, armament, and equipment?



All preproduction series inclusive the FW 187 V4 were all twin seater and were tested with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.
The graph also shows a twin seater with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.

The theoretical range with 1100 Liter internal fuel and 0,80 ata at 5000m is 1280km, something about 800 miles.
For the later versions the fuel tanks would be bigger and have 1300 Liter internal fuel, the range would be 1520km /950 miles


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 19, 2013)

The two pictures showing the difference in coolant radiators between the Bf110 Jumo powered and Db601 powered are a little deceptive, because the second photo doesn't show the coolant radiators at all.
The Bf110C has the only oil cooler directly behind the propeller spinner, the coolant radiator is outboard of each engine, the left is blocked from view from that angle, and the right is cropped out of the photo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

I think that the FW 187 with the proposed engines (DB 601s) would perform pretty much as calculated. I for one, am not going to argue over a few % points. How much the handling may have deteriorated is another question but with the DB 601s probably not a lot. There is an armament problem until mid/late 1941 and that is that the MG/FF cannon only have 60 round drums, although there is no real reason that larger ones _could not_ have been built. Hispano Suiza was advertising 45, 60, 75 and 100 round drums for their gun before the war. It seems like the 60 round was the only one every really used but the others are not impossible. But still not the quantity of ammo that a belt feed gun would have. Having enough fuel is one thing, having enough ammo for more than 6-7 seconds firing time for an escort fighter is another. 
The other question is the radio. Does the escort fighter need to be able to "talk" to it's base from target area? Radios changed a lot from 1939/40 to 1944. The radio in the 109 was not a long range radio. With out building a new radio does the "escort" fighter need a long range radio and radio operator. The Bf 110 was burdened with the _same_ radio set up as an He 111 and required a separate operator. He also changed the ammo drums on the 20mm cannon. 
With the MG 151 cannon that reason for a rear seater goes away. 

A rough (very rough?) estimate of range may be made by looking at the Bf 109F. Roughly the same top speed using the same (or close) engines which to me means the FW 187 had about twice the drag or the same drag per HP. The Fw 187 carries roughly 62% more fuel per engine (1300 liter version) so should have about 62% more range/radius at similar speeds/power settings. 

How close this is to published figures I don't know but like some allied aircraft, published figures for "max" range often bear little resemblance to the speeds/altitudes actually used on real missions.


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> All preproduction series inclusive the FW 187 V4 were all twin seater and were tested with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.
> The graph also shows a twin seater with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.



It would be less confusing to say that the V4 prototype and A-0 pre-production series were built as two seaters. V1 to v3 were single seaters as that was Focke-Wulf's original intention for the design.
V4 was test flown from 27 October '38 until 6 February '39 when it was returned to the RLM. It was scrapped in September '39.

The V4 was flown with various equipment and the A-0 to the zerstorer specification. What has this Jumo powered version got to do with a fully equipped DB 601 powered version? Once again it is only possible to make estimated and unproven extrapolations. I've only ever seen calculated speeds for V4. Extrapolating the performance of a different engine version from these might well be compounding any error.
I'd be interested if anyone has any measured speeds for the V4 or A-0 series.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

> The V4 was flown with various equipment and the A-0 to the zerstorer specification.* What has this Jumo powered version got to do with a fully equipped DB 601 powered version? Once again it is only possible to make estimated and unproven extrapolations.* I've only ever seen calculated speeds for V4. Extrapolating the performance of a different engine version from these might well be compounding any error.
> I'd be interested if anyone has any measured speeds for the V4 or A-0 series.



The absolutely same as the Bf 110 B compared to the Bf 110 C! Not at same leage, but also the Bf 109 D to the Bf 109 E, or Ju 87 A0 to the A2.
With the Bf 110 you have a similar a/c to the FW 187, so you have reallife datas about the weight increase, adjustment and performance of the "new" (normal) cooling system and the engines from the step of the Jumo 210 to the DB 601.
All other datas, as the new propeller, the structural stability with bigger and heavier engine you got from the FW 187 V5.
Also the armor, armament and equipment was near the same between the Bf 110 B and FW 187 A0 and wasn't changed from the step from Jumo to DB engines at both a/c's.
You can't get any better datas for a very sophisticated estimation. And this is not unproved, because FW did for the FW 187 C with DB 605 engines a complete calculated specification, which was send and presented to the RLM. And as I have written before, not any single presented calculated specification to the RLM from Focker Wulf for several a/c's didn't reach the estimated performances with production a/c's.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2013)

Question: what were the power values for the different versions of the Jumo 210 that powered Fw-187? I'm especially interested in power at altitude.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

Hello tomo,

The FW 187 V1 and V2 were flying the Jumo 210D which was rated with 680 PS with a catributor and no ram effect, the best altitude performance was 3000m with 1,26 ata and 2700 U/min.
Since the FW 187 V3 the FW 187 was flying the Jumo 210G (700PS) with fuel injection and ram effect. The best altitude performance was 4600m at 2700 U/min and a performance output of 670 PS at 3900m and 605 PS at 4600m altitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2013)

I'm not clear what do you mean by saying '(no) ram effect'? Bad/good designed intake opening?
The 210G seem like a sibling of RR Kestrel Vs or VIs - 695 HP for TO, 640 HP at 4400 m?


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

In german it called "schubsteigernde Strahldüsen", which was part of the exhaust system.
Simply translated exhaust thrust.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2013)

Okay - I read it that 210D was not equipped with ejector exhaust stacks, while the 210G was. Looking at the pictures, the stacks of the 210G equipped Falke were similar to the ones used at Bf-109E and further, ie. on DB-601/605 engines.
The ram effect was a 'property' of intake system.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

Both Ram and exhaust thrust are dependent on forward speed. Both are much less at climbing speed or speeds _after_ one or more hard maneuvers than at straight line max level speed.

More properly while the exhaust thrust may be the same the thrust horsepower is less at low speed because of the poor efficiency (matching of exhaust stream speed to forward speed of the plane). 

This is the reason engine makers seldom give figures for either RAM or exhaust thrust/power. The first depends on both the intake ducting before the actual engine intake and the forward speed of the aircraft and the second depends on both the forward speed and altitude of the aircraft. Higher altitude means lower atmospheric pressure and thus high exhaust gas velocity.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

Thanks SR6 for the explanation.

For me the introduction of the exhaust thrust next to the two speed supercharger of the Jumo 210G was the main reason of the performance "explosion" of the FW 187 V4. The V4 was 1050 kg heavier then the V1/V2, but was about 40 km/h faster with "near the same" nominal power output (Jumo 210D to Jumo 210G), then the single seat version, with much better altitude performance through the two speed supercharger and exhaust thrust.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2013)

Maybe someone might tell what variant of the Jumo 210 is depicted here (don't be intimidated with cyrilic letters, the numbers are self-explaining. Note the different lines for the power for different airspeeds (300, 400 and 500 km/h), along for the 'static' engine.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 19, 2013)

The Jumo 210D/E supercharger was two-speed as well, this engine type could be (and was) retrofitted with ejector exhausts.
The 210 B/C used a single-speed supercharger.

If Tomo's graph is from the 210G it just had 10-15 PS more take-off power than the D but it had about 30-40 PS more at ~700m higher altitude.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> The system of the FW 187 was no evaporative cooling system, because the cooling circle was closed and there was *NO* surface for any evaporation. It was more like someting of an extreme high pressure cooling, that you can also see of the development of the steam seperater, which was introduced for series production at the DB 605.



Evaporative cooling systems do not have to be total loss, as was teh case in the Me 209 V1.

Many of the Schneider Trophy racers used closed circuit evaporative cooling systems.

Take the MC.72, for example:






The copper coloured bits on the airframe (ie not painted red) are for cooling - most of them are condensers for the engine cooling system, though I believe the area around the nose is for oil cooling.

The condensers are there to convert steam back into liquid form. The liquid coolant having converted to steam after leaving the engine.

On the Fw 187-V5 it may be that the small radiator is a small condenser to compensate for a lack of surface area on the airframe, or simply a radiator used to further cool the re-liquified coolant.

If the radiator was the only condenser in the system then it would be bigger than a standard radiator.

Higher pressures in the cooling circuit do not lead to a reduction in the required radiator area. This is used simply to prevent the coolant from evaporating, which is not desireable in conventional cooling systems. Steam separators are used in conventional circuits to prevent vapour lock in the engine - which would cause issues with cooling and coolant flow. Both the Merlin and V-1710, for example, required steam separators for their cooling systems to work.

Higher pressure in the cooling system does allow for higher temperatures in the coolant without the danger of it becoming steam. The higher temperatures do allow for a reduction in radiator size, due to the higher temperature difference between the coolant and the air. However, the law of diminishing returns apply - as the coolant temperature rises more heat will be rejected to the lubrication circuit, and at a certain point any reduction in coolant radiator size is more than offset by the increase in oil radiator size. This is something that the USAAC discovered with the hyper engine program. Originally the coolant temperature was to be 300°F (149°C), but was reduced to 250°F (121°C) because it was discovered that the higher temperature gave no aerodynamic benefit.

Higher temperatures can also have an adverse affect on the combustion chamber - reducing the boost/compression ratio that can be used due to detonation.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The two pictures showing the difference in coolant radiators between the Bf110 Jumo powered and Db601 powered are a little deceptive, because the second photo doesn't show the coolant radiators at all.
> The Bf110C has the only oil cooler directly behind the propeller spinner, the coolant radiator is outboard of each engine, the left is blocked from view from that angle, and the right is cropped out of the photo.



Indeed











http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-110/Messerschmitt-Bf-110/images/Messerschmitt-Bf-110C-Zerstorer-03.jpg


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Evaporative cooling systems do not have to be total loss, as was teh case in the Me 209 V1.
> 
> Many of the Schneider Trophy racers used closed circuit evaporative cooling systems.
> 
> ...



What do you want to tell me?
The FW 187 V5 had only 20 Liter more water then the normal FW 187 A0. The whole system was totaly closed with only one overpressure valve.
It was not the same system as the He 100 system with a surface (wings) evaporation. The FW 187 had no surface evaporation!
Please show me anything to back up your claim!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> What do you want to tell me?
> The FW 187 V5 had only 20 Liter more water then the normal FW 187 A0. The whole system was totaly closed with only one overpressure valve.
> It was not the same system as the He 100 system with a surface (wings) evaporation. The FW 187 had no surface evaporation!
> Please show me anything to back up your claim!



I was pointing out that an evaporative cooling system could be a closed system. You made the statement that the Fw 187 V5 didn't have an evaporative cooling system because it was closed. That is my point/claim.

I have no knowledge of the specific system used on the V5. Other than a source that says it was evaporative cooling, without any details. 

If the V5 cooling system was not an evaporative cooling system, and did not have surface coolers of any kind, then I would suggest that it had inadequate cooling for normal operation. Did any other Db 601 powered aircraft have radiators as small?


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I was pointing out that an evaporative cooling system could be a closed system. You made the statement that the Fw 187 V5 didn't have an evaporative cooling system because it was closed. That is my point/claim.
> 
> I have no knowledge of the specific system used on the V5. Other than a source that says it was evaporative cooling, without any details.
> 
> If the V5 cooling system was not an evaporative cooling system, and did not have surface coolers of any kind, then I would suggest that it had inadequate cooling for normal operation. Did any other Db 601 powered aircraft have radiators as small?



No and that's not my intention. From my technical understanding, the cooling system of the FW 187 V5 was an extreme high pressure water cooling sytem.
From this system the steam seperater was developed to the DB 605 production series. An evaporation system *is in need for a surface evaportion!*, but the FW 187 had no surface evaporation.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> An evaporation system *is in need for a surface evaportion!*, but the FW 187 had no surface evaporation.



Not correct. 

The system used in the He 100 used surface condensers, not evaporators. The condenser is basically a type of radiator. And a condenser could, in fact, be a radiator. 

The job of the condenser is to convert steam into water. The water having been changed into steam during the engine cooling process.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

Ähm,

to my knowledge the He 100 *had water cooling lines through the wings for evaporation* and that is the focal point, because the FW 187 had no cooling lines through the wings or any other surface!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> Oh yes, germans knows the real facts from *their own primary sources*!
> *From original documents from Focker Wulf!*
> Who has built and tested the FW 187? Focker Wulf or any other a/c company at the world?
> The FW 187 V5 flew with *near normal* DB 601 engines with 1100PS each!
> ...



Have you got this one also?
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Der vergessene Hochleistungsjager: Dietmar Hermann and Peter Petrick: 9783925505669: Amazon.com: Books

I was just looking for the book you referenced (Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History: Dietmar Harmann: 9780764318719: Amazon.com: Books) and found this other one - which appears to be only in German.


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

I have the german version.

Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Der vergessene Hochleistungsjager: Dietmar Hermann and Peter Petrick: 9783925505669: Amazon.com: Books

Edit:

this is the english version:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764318713/?tag=dcglabs-20


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

I google translated the title and came up with: "Focke-Wulf Fw 187 The forgotten high performance Jager".

This is the same book as "Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History" ?


----------



## DonL (Oct 19, 2013)

> I google translated the title and came up with: "Focke-Wulf Fw 187 The forgotten high performance Jager".



You can translate it: "Focke-Wulf Fw 187 The forgotten high performance (figther)"
In german a fighter is a Jäger!

The original translation would be "a hunter", but in english it is a fighter.

Yes absolute the same!


----------



## stona (Oct 20, 2013)

DonL said:


> The FW 187 V5 was absolute the same a/c as a production FW 187 "B" except for the cooling at the engine gondula.



What production Fw 187 B? It never existed. This is my point. I don't disagree that the Fw 187 might have proven a good performer in service. 
I do object to extrapolating specialist data from prototype aircraft and applying them to hypothetical production aircraft. These aircraft never flew and the data remain untested and unproven. You can choose to take them at face value if you wish, but I choose to be a little more sceptical. I would apply this scepticism to any unproven data about any aircraft, produced anywhere at any time. I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are to yours.

As for cooling, in my post showing the different intakes that's why I referred to V7's cooler intakes and the A-0's radiator intakes.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

DonL’s replies got me interested in the Fw 187, at least enough to go look it up.

According to my references, admittedly not primary Focke-Wulf documents, they made nine Fw 187 aircraft. The first one used the Junkers Jumo 210Da engines of 621 HP and went 326 mph. The V2 – V5 airframes had Jumo engine with 671 HP and were 329 – 335 mph aircraft. The first 2 were single seaters and the rest were two seaters.

The 6th Fw 187, the V6 aircraft, was fitted with 1,060 HP DB 600A engines and surface evaporative cooling that was very problematic, but DID hit 395 mph in level flight. The aircraft suffered from skin buckling and reportedly had severe cooling problems. However, the Luftwaffe, the RLM, and Focke-Wulf all knew that any production aircraft would have had to use standard radiators and the top speed was calculated to be 348 mph with the DB 600A engines fitted with standard radiators.

There followed three Fw 187 A-0 airframes with Jumo 210G engines of 671 HP. These planes had a top speed of 329 mph at altitude and 322 mph at sea level.

So, I stand corrected when I said the P-38 was 80 mph faster than any Fw 187. It was actually 82 to 88 mph faster than 8 of the 9 Fw 187’s and only 19 mph faster than the flawed but fast Fw 187 V6 with surface evaporative cooling that failed and was not proceeded with.

I found these data both on the web and in several books I have at home. All my references state the V6 had surface evaporative cooling and all mention the problems with it as well as skin buckling. So while it might be true that the V6 really did not have surface evaporative cooling, I can’t prove that with any references I have at this time and they all state it DID have surface evaporative cooling.

In any case, the single Fw 187 V6 was not proceeded with, and this is the thing that makes me curious. Since the Fw 187 did show good performance, if not great. The performance of the V6 has to be taken with a grain of salt since it was calculated to be a 348 mph aircraft with real-world radiators, but it seems to me that the Fw 187 DID show enough to at least make it interesting.

In order to displace a weapon already in production, there has to be some improvement in performance, reliability, or SOMETHING, and the Fw 187 apparently didn’t show improvement sufficient to warrant placing it into production in lieu of the Bf 110. The Bf 110 C-4 with DB 601B engines had a top speed of 348 mph … exactly the same as calculated for the Fw 187 when fitted with standard radiators. No improvement there in speed, and I have no reference for a maneuverability comparison with the Bf 110.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 20, 2013)

V6 used a closed-circuit evaporative cooling system AFAIR called Dampfkühlung. The 348 mph with DB 600A may or may not be correct, the 601A adds 100 PS and had 4/4.5km rated altitude so the Fw 187 should easily hit 370 mph at ~5km with this engine. I don't have lots of data about the DB 600A but its rated altitude may have been rather low (Bodenlader).
Also many speed calculations are based on 100% engine power and that's the 30 min rating of an engine.


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

The 348 mph was calculated by Focke-Wulf, so SHOULD have been technically correct. What references do you have for the 370 mph?

Using standard aerrodynamic calculations, assuming no increase in drag (maybe not"), I calculate that the Fw 187 that could go 348 mph on a total of 2,120 HP would go 358 mph on 2,316 HP. I am using HP and not cv or ps, but the calculations are the same no matter which unit you use.

And this potentially 358 mph plane was never built as far as I can discover.

I am sure the Fw 187 proponents would rather have had the Fe 187 built as opposed to Bf 110. But looking at it from the point of view oif the RLM, what advantage did the Fw 187 offer that would displace the already in-place jigs and assembly lines that were producing Bf 110's?

Would the new plane be worth the expense? They apparently thought not.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> Using standard aerrodynamic calculations, assuming no increase in drag (maybe not"), I calculate that the Fw 187 that could go 348 mph on a total of 2,120 HP would go 358 mph on 2,316 HP. I am using HP and not cv or ps, but the calculations are the same no matter which unit you use.



The difficulty with that estimation is that there may have been a significant critical altitude change between the DB 600A and DB 601.


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

Yes, but I have seen NO references to the 370 mph version in print or on the web, so I am a bit puzzled where it came from.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yes, but I have seen NO references to the 370 mph version in print or on the web, so I am a bit puzzled where it came from.



I think it was just a guesstimate.


----------



## DonL (Oct 21, 2013)

Mr GregP,

please show/name this forum the source, sources or photos, that any FW 187 ever flew a DB 600A.
Also please show/name this forum the source, sources of the calculated 348 mph!


Sources about the FW 187 V5 with two DB 601 V40 and V42 with a steam separater.

Focker Wulf sources:

conference Nr.441-187-17: conference about the powerplant FW 187 V5 at 17.08.1939 
conference Nr.441-187-20: conference about the Dampfheißkühlung FW 187 V5 at 20.10.1939

note for the file: Dampfheißkühlung FW 187 V5, visitation of Daimler Benz at Focker Wulf Bremen at 13.09.1939 - 23.09.1939

Daimler Benz sources:

1. test report Nr. 10 18 101 425 Focker Wulf Dampfheißkühlung at 19.05.1939
2. test report Nr. 10 18 101 425 Focker Wulf Dampfheißkühlung at 25.05.1939
test report Nr. 10 18 101 544 Dampfheißkühlung FW 187 V5 at 01.08.1939

Please can you tell the Forum, why this original documents from Focker Wulf and Daimler Benz are talking about the FW 187 V5 in association with the Dampfheißkühlung, which you are translating as surface evaporation cooling, which is also incorrect.

Also please can you explain the forum, how it is possible that you give a calculated number (348 mph)from Focker Wulf and there is not any primary source of a DB 600A that was at any time equipped with a FW 187, weather with experimental nor normal cooling.
Also from the describing of the Dampfheißkühlung, no normal DB 600 or DB 601 would has ever functioned with this system. Any engine of this system was in need of a steam seperator, which only had a DB 601 V, M and H, but not any other DB 601 or 600.



> I found these data both on the web and in several books I have at home. All my references state the V6 had surface evaporative cooling and all mention the problems with it as well as skin buckling. So while it might be true that the V6 really did not have surface evaporative cooling, I can’t prove that with any references I have at this time and they all state it DID have surface evaporative cooling.



Please explain to the Forum, where exactly this skin buckling was, because the FW 187 system *had not any surface for evaporation*, so how is this skin buckling possible without a evaporation surface

Please show us the sources, because from the original sources I have provided from Mr. Herrmanns Book, there were not such problems, also it was never described as surface evaporation cooling, so please present your sources.

To the rest of you post Nr. 60,
it is completely incorrect and all numbers are completely incorrect from primary sources.

Perhaps SR6, who has also the book about the FW 187,can show you, that your whole claims about the FW 187 are wrong, perhaps you believing him more then me.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

DonL said:


> Sources about the FW 187 V5 with two DB 601 V40 and V42 with a steam separater.
> 
> Focker Wulf sources:
> 
> ...



I don't think Greg translated that term, but is relying on sources he has and on others, like Denniss:



Denniss said:


> V6 used a closed-circuit evaporative cooling system AFAIR called Dampfkühlung.




I don't have the book, and I won't be able to get it for a couple of weeks. Does it contain a diagram of the cooling system?

If so, are you able to scan that diagram and post it here? I would be interested to see what it looks like.


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi DonL,

First, if you go back and read it, I didn’t mention ANY tail numbers, so where does THAT statement come from? Out of thin air?

For the rest, if you go to

Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
Focke Wulf Ta 152 - Luftwaffe Resource Center, Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke "Falcon", Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke (Falcon)

you can read the figures for yourself.

If you read “The Great Book of Fighters” by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, the speed is listed at 329 mph for the A-0, which is, after all, the only production version.

If you look in the Encyclopedia of Aircraft by Robert Jackson, the speed for the Fw 187 is listed at 329 mph.

If you look at “German Aircraft of WWII in Colour” by Kenneth Munson, the speed is listed at 329 mph for the A-0.

I have about 5 – 6 more books that say the same, but you get the idea and three is enough even if you don’t think so. I really don’t care about the performance of prototypes that are unarmed or specially modified for speed. They are not production aircraft. The only three production Fw 187’s were 329 mph aircraft at FULL POWER and so we know they were slower than that at cruise and normal operations. Nobody operates at full speed in normal circumstances.

All the sources above cite surface evaporative cooling with major problems for the V6, which was the fast one. As for the 348 mph, sign onto Google and look for it. I did and found it easily in the first several listings. Surface evaporative cooling doesn’t mean tubes on the wing, it mean tubes on a surface, even if the surface is internal.

The fast Fw 187 V6 DID have surface evaporative cooling and DID have major issues including skin buckling. It also wasn’t proceeded with, so the likelihood of it being a world beater is zero.

I’m not attacking YOU. Just stating the facts as they appear in references to which I have access. These references amount to more than 10 listings, all of which state the speed as less than the Bf 110, so it is no wonder why the RLM didn't proceed with the Fw 187, neat though it seems.

Given the performance in combat of the Bf 110, maybe they SHOULD have. Anything close might have been better ... but I wasn't there and don't know for sure what qualities the Fw 187 had that were better than the Bf 110 other than it definitely LOOKED better.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

FWIW, Google translates the term "Dampfheißkühlung" to mean "Hot steam cooling".


----------



## DonL (Oct 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi DonL,
> 
> First, if you go back and read it, I didn’t mention ANY tail numbers, so where does THAT statement come from? Out of thin air?
> 
> ...



You are posting claims without any references!
Are in your books any citations or cross references to original documents, engineering specifications or photos?
Please show us the link to the 348 mph for a normal cooling FW 187 V6 with DB 600 engines and a reference, that it was an estimation from Focker Wulf. 
Also you should explain how on earth a surface for evaporation can be internal.
The book from Mr. Herrmann is basing on *original documents * which he provided in his book, also on photos of the several a/c's with identification number and close engine photos also with identification number. 



> I don't have the book, and I won't be able to get it for a couple of weeks. Does it contain a diagram of the cooling system?
> 
> If so, are you able to scan that diagram and post it here? I would be interested to see what it looks like.



Hallo wuzak, yes there is a diagram of the Dampfheißkühlung in this book, also a very detailed explanation and an original engineering specifications of the Db 601 engines with the steam seperator and also a describing of the cooling system.

Sorry I have no scanner, but Stona scanned some photos of the book and posted them in this thread (Photo of the FW 187 V5 and it's radiators), perhaps he can scan the cooling diagram for you


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2013)

I gave you references. Read them. I know you haven't. None are from Focke-Wulf, but only the Focke-Wulf documents are from Focke-Wulf. So what? Prove it wrong. I don't have the original documents and neither do you ... only a book with references to Focke-Wulf documents. You have a book. So do I. Several, in fact. Prove to me than one book on the subject is better than another. I'm not quoting the citations from ANY book I own. The book is the reference. Get it and look for the citations if you like. I might even send you one if you ask.

How fast WAS the Fw 187 A-0 in your references and what references are they? It was the only production plane of the series. My references, more than 10, say 329 mph. What do yours say? Lest you take exception to the speed, 329 mph is 529 kph.

If different, we can talk. If not, what is your point? Prototypes are not relevant to production planes unless they are basically similar and similarly equipped. The plane was not proceeded with for a reason, and the Germans were NEEDING a reason to get better.

The German procurement arm didn't think the Fw 187 was the way to do it in a time of dire need, but YOU do? Support you claim, like you ask me to do. Nine aircraft certainly won't beat the UK or the Allies.

And ONE fast plane isn't a production item. I mentioned the High Speed Spitrfire and was shouted down as it wasn't a real figher. True. The Fw 187 V6 ALSO wasn't a real fighter, so is equally irrelevant to the subject of fighters as the High Speed Spitfire is.

The only relevant Fw 187 is the Fw 187 A-0, and it was not as good as the Bf 110 according to the German RLM at the time.


----------



## DonL (Oct 21, 2013)

> I gave you references. Read them. I know you haven't. None are from Focke-Wulf, but only the Focke-Wulf documents are from Focke-Wulf. So what? Prove it wrong. I don't have the original documents and neither do you ... only a book with references to Focke-Wulf documents. You have a book. So do I. Several, in fact. Prove to me than one book on the subject is better than another.



A book with original documents from flight tests, engineering specifications, test reports, datasheets and hundreds of original photos is not better on the subject then books or Websites without any references?
Are you serious or is this a joke?



> How fast WAS the Fw 187 A-0 in your refernces and what references are they? It was the only production plane of the series? My references say 329 mph. What do yours say? Lest you take exception to the speed, 329 mph is 529 kph.



The original datasheet from Focker Wulf for the FW 187 V4, which was the base of the A0 preproduction series gave 545 km/h or 338 mph.
Kennblatt 131 from the original enineering specification



> As for the 348 mph, sign onto Google and look for it. I did and found it easily in the first several listings. Surface evaporative cooling doesn’t mean tubes on the wing, it mean tubes on a surface, even if the surface is internal.



Where is your link to this issue and reference, that it was a estimation from Focker Wulf?


----------



## Denniss (Oct 21, 2013)

Both the german end english Wiki articles are in bad shape because either contains almost no credible information or lots of BS. And please don't trust works from Green as they usually contain lots of misinformation. Sadly many authors copied Greens version into their own books/magazines.
The book named by DonL is THE reference for the Fw 187 - consider most others as outdated (or rubbish).


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2013)

Heya, Dennis, care to correct the Walter Sagita article in English Wiki (the cooling type mistake)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

In looking through the book it helps some and is also confusing at certain points.

The DB engines used some sort of cooling that allowed the creation of steam, ( so did the Merlin and Allison but to a lesser extent?). Items called "condensers" _were_ used but NO pictures or diagrams of ANY wing surfaces are in the book (unlike the HE 100)
There are pictures of ""condensers"/radiators _underneath_ the engine that are almost as long as the cylinder blocks, pictures show engine uncowled. Test rigs were built that allowed the tilting of the engine and cooling system to different angles. Cooling system _appears_ to be in unit with the engine. 

There may have been wing buckling on an early prototype but as only one airframe ( work number 1976) seem to have been built and _flown_ with the DB engines, this may be in error or the wing buckling may have been unrelated to the cooling system (early P-36s had problems with wing buckling and used air cooled engines). Other airframes had DB engines but none were completed. One or more were used as test rigs. 

Performance figures are a bit of a problem. While the V4 is listed at 545kph with the Jumo engines it carried only two MG 17mgs instead of the 4 mgs used in the A-0 series. Both had the 20mm guns. A few kph loss due to the extra guns? 

Speed for the V5 with the Daimler engines is given as 635kph at "low level" whatever that is. The engines were NOT standard DB 601s but a model known as the DB601*H* .
The specification sheet in the book for the DB 601H engine gives 1350ps at sea level for 1 minute and 1320ps at 4800 meters at 2700rpm. 1200ps at both 0 and 4900meters for 5 min at 2500 rpm. 

According to the book the V6 was a Jumo powered airframe. and the V5 is the ONLY DB powered plane to fly. There are 3 pictures of the V5, one from the front, one side and one rear but the angles don't really allow the gun muzzles/troughs to be seen so you can't tell if the they are there or not. In a picture of the V7 Daimer airframe test rig (never flown) a single machine fairing can be seen and _appears_ to be the lower one or in the position of the lower gun on the 4 mg fighters. The upper, more prominent fairing is missing. Since the airframe was never finished this may not be conclusive although the cockpit area seems done. 

A later specification sheet for a FW 187 using a "normal" (or not?) DB 605 engines gives the following performance. 

547kph at 0 meters using 1310hp per engine
632kph at 3300 meters using 1450hp per engine
682kph at 7100 meters using 1290hp per engine
658kph at 9000 meters using 980hp per engine. 

This is using a DB 605 A-C (?) rated at 1475hp at 2800rpm for take-off and 1310hp at 2600rpm climb and combat power at low level and 1350hp at 2600rpm climb and combat power at 7000 meters. 

The book says HP and not PS so I don't know if this is a translation fault from the German edition to the English edition or what is going on. Power figures and altitudes don't seem to line up with engine charts on Kurfurst site but may include RAM while the engine charts do not? 
The FW 187 "C" was to carry over 160kg of armor and 4 20mm MG 151s with 250rpg and two MG 131s and a MG 81.


----------



## DonL (Oct 21, 2013)

Hello SR6,

thank you very much for your post!

I have some questions to your post, to clarify perhaps differences between the german and english edition of Mr. Herrmanns book.
I would be very pleased if we can sort it out and get real facts.



> Speed for the V5 with the Daimler engines is given as 635kph at "low level" whatever that is. The engines were NOT standard DB 601s but a model known as the DB601H .
> The specification sheet in the book for the DB 601H engine gives 1350ps at sea level for 1 minute and 1320ps at 4800 meters at 2700rpm. 1200ps at both 0 and 4900meters for 5 min at 2500 rpm.



At my german edition on page 78 is written:
The V5 was equipped with the DB 601 V40 and V42, *which were basing on the DB 601A with 1100 PS.*
Later developments were going from DB 601 V to H to M.
Can you confirm this for the english edition?



> Speed for the V5 with the Daimler engines is given as 635kph at "low level" whatever that is.



In the german edition is written 635km/h in *Bodennähe*. Bodennähe can be translated near ground or as technical term sea level.



> A later specification sheet for a FW 187 *using a "normal" (or not?) DB 605 engines *gives the following performance.



At my german edition is written on page 104:
Offen wird bei der Motornennung für die FW 187 von Me 210 Triebwerken gesprochen.
It was planed to equip the FW 187 with the powerplant of the Me 210.

At page 126:
It was planed to equip the FW 187 C with the powerplant of the Me 210, but there were certain issues from the Technischen Amt.
So the FW 187 C should be equiped with DB 605 engines from the Bf 109 G.
Can you confirm this for the english edition?

So to me it looks like, the FW 187 should be equipped with absolute normal DB 605 engines.

Edit:



> The book says HP and not PS so I don't know if this is a translation fault from the German edition to the English edition or what is going on.



All your written numbers are PS in the german version, so I think it is a translation problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

In the English edition the passage " The V5 was equipped with the DB 601 V40 and V42, which were basing on the DB 601A with 1100 PS." appears on page 77 and says HP instead of PS. I fear this may be a common problem in the English edition. 

"Later developments were going from DB 601 V to H to M." are with hot steam cooling. Since the V5 used the hot steam system ( or appears to, given the condensers) which engine was it using? The following page (78 ) ends the paragraph that started on page 77 with the sentence " These DB 601 engines were capable of producing 1,350h.p. for one minute at ground level."

The next paragraph starts with the sentence " Initial flight trials with the Fw 187 revealed a maximum speed of 635km/h at low level." followed by the sentence " The V5's performace made a good impression on the RLM." No further mention is made of engine type or performance. 

we are left wondering what does " DB 601 V40 and V42, which were basing on the DB 601A with 1100 PS." mean? as one can claim that the DB 605 was based on the DB 601 or we could claim that the early steam cooled engines in the Fw 187 were of 1100PS and it was future planed developments that would give 1350PS. 

The book doesn't give any lower power figure for the steam cooled engines. Doesn't mean they didn't exist though. 

On Page 104 I can find the sentence " There was even talk of using the Me 210 plants for the Fw 187." which I guess is close enough.

on page 126 I find, after a list of contracts;
" It was initially planned to use the Daimler Benz DB 605 power plants of the Me 210 to power the the Fw 187 production series. Various officials in the _Technische Amt_ complained, however, and a decision was made to use the Bf 109G power plant also a DB 605. This meant that Focke Wulf would have to modify or redesign much of the engine cowling".

Now this is going on in the Summer of 1942 with planned production (pre-production) starting in the spring of 1943. The power figures I gave for the DB 605 come from page 118 ( the type sheet) and don't match at altitude ANY DB 605 engine that was available (in service) before 1944. To get the power in the chart you need the model/s DB 605 using the supercharger from the DB 603 engine. Not impossible but what time lines are we working with? 

A "standard" DB 605 A engine was good for 1250PS at 5800 meters as 2600rpm not 1350ps/hp at 7000 meters, RAM will only do so much. Or perhaps Fw was counting in the exhaust thrust power? the type sheet does not say although the earlier one for the Jumo 210 powered plane does (sort of, it give the engine power but notes performance figures were calculated using RAM and exhaust thrust).

While I think the book offers a lot of good information it also fails to clear up a number of questions.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2013)

If I may add 2 cents. SR6 is right on the money here:



> Power figures and altitudes don't seem to line up with engine charts on Kurfurst site but may include RAM while the engine charts do not?



The tables for specific airplanes list high speeds at altitude, while using so many PS there - ie. the engine is using as much ram as possible. The engine charts are for stationary engines, ie. no ram. For example, the data sheet for the Bf-109F-4 gives full throttle height at 6 km (Steig Kampfleistung, 1185 PS, VH (VolldruckHohe - full throttle altitude) 6 km, 635 km/h; here), while the graph for the DB-601E gives the FTH for the same power setting at 4,9 km (here).
Similar stuff is for the Bf-109s with DB-605A - FTH was at 5,7 km (as it can be read at engine-related tables charts), while the max speed was achieved at some 7 km (as found in tests and kennblats). So, our Fw-187'C' would indeed have 1350 PS at 7 km, but only with full ram, ie. at max speed.


----------



## DonL (Oct 21, 2013)

Here is a data sheet from a Rechlin testflight of a Bf 109 G6 with a normal DB 605 A

KurfÃ¼rst - Bf 109G-6 / DB 605 A

At the begiining of the sheet their are some static engine performance figures.

1260 PS at 1,30 ata 2600 U/min at 5,5km altitude
1355 PS at 1,42 ata 2800 U/min at 5,7km altitude

The graph of the test flight shows that the Bf 109 G6 reached it's max speed between 6,5 to 7km with 1,30 and 1,42 ata and full ram.

So to me the data's from the FW 187 C datasheet on page 118 are very near to the performance of the Bf 109 G6, but as SR6 correctly posted, the data sheet of the FW 187 C are 2 x 1350PS with ram (german edition: mit Stauerhöhung) at 1,3 ata, 2600 U/min and 7km altitude.
I think this should be 1,42 ata at 2800 U/min to be correct


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

Thank you Tomo. 
It appears that the DB 605 version may have been able to make the claimed power at altitude after all. My mistake. 

I am left wondering why the discrepancies in speed however. 

466kph a 0 meters for the Jumo 210 version , 635kph for the steam cooled DB 601 version and 547kmh for the DB 605 version, except the DB 605 version _may_ be carrying 1000kg of bomb/s external. One chart does claim a max speed of 670kph at 8000 meters _WITH_ a 1000 kg bomb.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Oct 21, 2013)

A good 1943-special, 2nd half 43, for heavy daylight bomber _travail_ ('work') :
Get a pair of some well working Db-605s (at last!), just a fair amount of armour for the difficult mission, including thick side glasses too but not too much, ennemy escort fighters are to be expected. (Think South Italy, Mediterranea.) One Mk-103 under belly with good ammunition provision inside the fuselage, and two Mg-151s at wing roots _à la_ Fw-190 !

A little incrase in wing span from the roots to allow this fine pair of 20mil (aimers), but else, nothing, not too much heavy gunning. Just the right amount of overall armour (far better than the historical Luftwaffe 1943 breed yet), a welcome help to assault those fearsome Fortresses' boxes... 

You'd get a good agressor well fitted for survival and certainly ready for some scoring against the 8th AF 1944 plans, and still a fighter able to fight and defend itself against US escort jockeys, by design if not by tactics (which were to the advantage of the escort anyway.)

It could have been thought about during the 1st half of 1943, considering only the Mediterranean situation, a 9th AF '2nd ranking' response, where enemy escort fighters were indeed expected in the general theater. (We know that at that time, for central Germany the 'big brass' still thought a P-51D scenario as impossible. But in the MTO it was daily urgency already.) Perhaps a small batch, but an easy desision to get, adressing an increasing threat. (Rome etc.)

Bred as a 2nd ranker, the well armoured FW-187, with one 30mil mk-103 under belly + two 20mils 'aimers' at wing roots, slightly increased wing spans and fully capable Db-605s (at last) ; would not need any miraculous big change of mind from the RLM decisons makers... Just allow a '2nd ranker' industrial batch to adress a '2nd ranking' theater threat (MTO with its 9th AF biggies escorted all the way (Sicilly, South Italy..)) , then you'll get the Fw-187 version as described above.

Which, in turn, would find itself amazingly well fitted to react against the early 1944 'Katastrophe', of Big Week fame; that of central Germany being poundered by a renewed 8th AF _avec son escorte_ of wide spraying P-51D vendettas..

An aircraft able to withold escort fighter presence on a fair foot, while carriyng some usefull armour and a well fitted armament. Very good high altitude behaviour. And already launched in industrial production, although '2nd ranking', for about 6 months...

How easy it is in 2013 lying on cushins..., striking keyboards.. and caring very little too (actual history being just as good), to spice in, at the very least, the distant drama.
One cannot expect a fighting camp to get things always right 8 months in advance, even Napoleon I've heard showed the occasional 'dumbheit' some times..


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

The later proposed FW 187 had various armaments with one practical (to my mind anyway) option of four 20mm MG 151s, Two replacing the original MG/FF cannon and two replacing the original four 7.9mm machine guns. With 250rpg. That is about 20+ seconds firing time which is enough for about 1/2 dozen firing passes in one flight.

MG 151/20s make lousy 'aimers' for the MK 103 as the trajectories and times of flight are too far off unless the distance is so close it doesn't really matter if you have 'aimers' or not. The Germans figured the "effective" range of the MK 103 was about double that of the MG 151/20.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The later proposed FW 187 had various armaments with one practical (to my mind anyway) option of four 20mm MG 151s, Two replacing the original MG/FF cannon and two replacing the original four 7.9mm machine guns. With 250rpg. That is about 20+ seconds firing time which is enough for about 1/2 dozen firing passes in one flight.
> 
> MG 151/20s make lousy 'aimers' for the MK 103 as the trajectories and times of flight are too far off unless the distance is so close it doesn't really matter if you have 'aimers' or not. The Germans figured the "effective" range of the MK 103 was about double that of the MG 151/20.



Could it have taken two Mk108s instead? Or a Mk 103?


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2013)

Any aerial target including heavy bombers would be quickly ripped to pieces by four nose mounted 20mm cannon. Just get your Fw-187 pilots to an aerial gunnery range before posting to an operational unit. 

Forget about Mk103 cannon. That's for aircraft like Me-109 which can carry only one centerline mounted cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

No service 109 ever carried a MK 103 cannon. It is rather doubtful one would fit without sever modification to both gun and aircraft despite the many claims in books and websites.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Oct 21, 2013)

[to Davebendr.]
At the opposite I think the Fw-187 was the one day fighter able to make good use of the Mk103.

Save perhaps for a Ta-152 much later coming. 
On the Fw-187 that 'big' gun was not too big, and overall it could make a slim aerodynamic package, with a lot of ammunition too.
Of course a well fed 4x20mil mount would be classic and efficient, but I maintain the Fw-187 brings a unique occasion to put the Mk-103 into play, at an interesting time and with little disturbance. It seems the fine combination to me.
Also, it migh follow an easy historical track.
Euh.., on a Me-109 ???!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

There was an option for putting one or two MK 103s under the fuselage in place of a bomb load, It is doable but forget the "aimer" guns.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> There was an option for putting one or two MK 103s under the fuselage in place of a bomb load, It is doable but forget the "aimer" guns.


How about two Mk 108s in the nose instead of the four MG 151/20s?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Oct 21, 2013)

> It is doable but forget the "aimer" guns.



Hum. Medium range 'little helpers' then...

Besides, efficiency range is a full military criterium, meaning effective destruction potential I'd guess. For aiming purposes you can 'call' longer ranges, up to a point..


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2013)

Effective range was considered 800meters for the MK 103, 400 meters for the MG 151/20. a 30 mm round for the MK 103 weighed about 4 times what a 20mm round did. The gun weighed about 3 1/2 times as much. The 30mm was much more destructive IF it hit. 
Closest match for an "aimer" is the MG 151/15.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2013)

> So with the Fw-187s might not the Luftwaffe have had its Mustang to attrit RAF Fighter Command?



Not really, because one thing that you haven't mentioned with regards to the Mustang and its impact on the war, Viking, was its availability in numbers over the combat arena, as well as its performance. Whilst I believe the Fw 187 might have been an excellent fighter had it been put into production and service and it would have had a definite impact on precedings during the Battle of Britain, there would not have been enough of them to have made the same impact that the P-51 had over Germany in 1944-45.

What the Fw 187 might have done was prompt the British into developing a faster and better performing fighter sooner than what it did and not sticking with just fitting the Merlin 45 to the Spit Mk.I airframe to make the Spit V, which was intended as an interim only. Had the Germans had access to an aircraft with such superior performance that it would and could outclass anything else in the air at the time, you can guarantee the British would not have sat still. Perhaps instead of producing a two-speed, two-stage Merlin for bombers, as the Merlin 60 was originally intended, it could be argued that Rolls would have been asked to carry out research into this modification sooner to enable it to be fitted to the Spitfire sooner, so the Spit Mk.IX could have been available around mid to late 1941 at a guess.

This would have enabled the Griffon to have been fitted with the same supercharger technology sooner, which might have produed not only a Griffon engined Spitfire sooner, but a two-speed, two-stage Griffon engined Spitfire, the 'XIV sooner. What impact would these decisions have made on the Luftwaffe? Also bearing in mind that if Focke Wulf is putting resources into the Fw 187, what are they _not_ putting resources into that had them in real life? The Fw 190? Surely that might not be the best path to have taken for the Luftwaffe considering how excellent that aircraft was.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Effective range was considered 800meters for the MK 103, 400 meters for the MG 151/20. a 30 mm round for the MK 103 weighed about 4 times what a 20mm round did. The gun weighed about 3 1/2 times as much. The 30mm was much more destructive IF it hit.
> Closest match for an "aimer" is the MG 151/15.


The Zero/"Harmonization" charts I have seen all show 600M Effective range for the Various weapons fits in German fighters, not counting the Mk-103 which was "Over" 1,000M.
The only exception was the Mk-108 which was not effective at under 400M except possibly when shooting at bombers. My favorite bit of German GCF shows several Nazi Fighters trying to down P-47s. The huge curvature of trajectory of the Mk-108 tracers is clearly visible, even at very close range and the obvious lack of effect, as in no hits what so ever, is also clearly visible.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Not really, because one thing that you haven't mentioned with regards to the Mustang and its impact on the war, Viking, was its availability in numbers over the combat arena, as well as its performance. Whilst I believe the Fw 187 might have been an excellent fighter had it been put into production and service and it would have had a definite impact on precedings during the Battle of Britain, there would not have been enough of them to have made the same impact that the P-51 had over Germany in 1944-45.
> 
> What the Fw 187 might have done was prompt the British into developing a faster and better performing fighter sooner than what it did and not sticking with just fitting the Merlin 45 to the Spit Mk.I airframe to make the Spit V, which was intended as an interim only. Had the Germans had access to an aircraft with such superior performance that it would and could outclass anything else in the air at the time, you can guarantee the British would not have sat still. Perhaps instead of producing a two-speed, two-stage Merlin for bombers, as the Merlin 60 was originally intended, it could be argued that Rolls would have been asked to carry out research into this modification sooner to enable it to be fitted to the Spitfire sooner, so the Spit Mk.IX could have been available around mid to late 1941 at a guess.
> 
> This would have enabled the Griffon to have been fitted with the same supercharger technology sooner, which might have produed not only a Griffon engined Spitfire sooner, but a two-speed, two-stage Griffon engined Spitfire, the 'XIV sooner. What impact would these decisions have made on the Luftwaffe? Also bearing in mind that if Focke Wulf is putting resources into the Fw 187, what are they _not_ putting resources into that had them in real life? The Fw 190? Surely that might not be the best path to have taken for the Luftwaffe considering how excellent that aircraft was.



You seem to miss the point that the Mk-IX and the even more extreme Mk-XIV both had very long gestation periods. The single largest problem with both of them was the lack of Directional Stability caused by fitment of the four and later five bladed props which added enough area forward, that the rudder and Horizontal Stab were no longer large enough to have the same sterling flight qualities as the earlier types.


----------



## Juha (Oct 21, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> You seem to miss the point that the Mk-IX and the even more extreme Mk-XIV both had very long gestation periods...



So you think some 4 months from idea to production is a very long gestation period? What is your definitation for a short gestation period? One can say that Mk VIII suffered from a long gestation period but not Mk IX.

Juha


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> You seem to miss the point that the Mk-IX and the even more extreme Mk-XIV both had very long gestation periods. The single largest problem with both of them was the lack of Directional Stability caused by fitment of the four and later five bladed props which added enough area forward, that the rudder and Horizontal Stab were no longer large enough to have the same sterling flight qualities as the earlier types.



Never heard that the IX had any major stability problems. The IX's gestation period was not all that long. The first Spitfire to get a 60-series Merlin was the Spitfire III prototype, in September 1941. The first IX, a converted V, was being trialed by April 1942.

The XIV had some, but they were solved.

And part of the time it took to develop and put these aircraft into production was waiting for production of the engines to get going. Merlin 61s only started coming off the line in 1942.

The XIV used the improved airframe of the VII/VIII. The devlopment of which was delayed by stop-gap measures such as putting the IX into production.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> What the Fw 187 might have done was prompt the British into developing a faster and better performing fighter sooner than what it did and not sticking with just fitting the Merlin 45 to the Spit Mk.I airframe to make the Spit V, which was intended as an interim only.



That may have led to Spitfire IIIs instead of Vs and no Hurricane IIs.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> In looking through the book it helps some and is also confusing at certain points.
> 
> The DB engines used some sort of cooling that allowed the creation of steam, ( so did the Merlin and Allison but to a lesser extent?). Items called "condensers" _were_ used but NO pictures or diagrams of ANY wing surfaces are in the book (unlike the HE 100)
> There are pictures of ""condensers"/radiators _underneath_ the engine that are almost as long as the cylinder blocks, pictures show engine uncowled. Test rigs were built that allowed the tilting of the engine and cooling system to different angles. Cooling system _appears_ to be in unit with the engine.



Thanks SR.

The "condesers" under the cylinder blocks may be heat exhchangers with liquid/vapour on one side and a cooling liquid on the other side. That is, maybe, 2 cooling circuits.


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi DonL,

When you post something about an American plane, say, a P-51 or a P-40, do you use original primary source documents from North American or Curtiss? If so, where did you get them? You probably cannot get original primary source documents from Japan or the former Soviet Union, so you have to rely on secondary sources if you talk about a Lavochkin or MiG.

When we restored our A6M5 model 52 Zero, we had help from Mitsubishi and Nakajima, and they wouldn’t give the information to anyone except to restore an original aircraft, which we did. So, if you write about the Zero, what primary source would you use?

I find it almost impossible to believe that only ONE author in the world knows the full story of the Fw 187. If he can find the information, so can other people. Actually it was made in such small numbers that very few people have written anything on it, and most of them agree with one another.

So ... I am interested enough to have ordered the book you described. I’ll refrain until I get it (and READ it) and then decide whether the author is telling the truth or whether he is another of the same sort you feel all the other authors are.

A surface evaporative cooling system can use steam separators, otherwise known as condensers, and I am not convinced the Fw 187 with the DB engines did not use surface evaporation yet. The information I have says it had issues wuith skin buckling, but does not go into specifics about the locaion of same, so I don't know the location except that it was reported for the DB-powered aircraft. The skin bucking might be connected to the cooling and might not be, the cause of it was not stated where I read about it. When encountered, it can be easy to fix or quite problematic, depending on what the issue is. 

While we may not think the same in the end, I’ll wait until I read this new account and see how it compares with the data I already have. As far as your demads to tell the forum where I got data, I already did, in my posts, and that is as far as it will go at this time. 

The information I have says the Fw 187 was supposed to be very maneuverable, which might change a bit as they added heavier engines, but it makes me wonder why the RLM didn't proceed with it. Perhaps that is covered in the book you suggested. At this time I am under the impression the Fw 187 was killed due internal Third Reich politics, and that smacks of truth though I don't know for sure. Politics is bad regardless of nationality.

Meanwhile, have a nice day.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Never heard that the IX had any major stability problems. The IX's gestation period was not all that long. The first Spitfire to get a 60-series Merlin was the Spitfire III prototype, in September 1941. The first IX, a converted V, was being trialed by April 1942.
> 
> The XIV had some, but they were solved.
> 
> ...



Wuzak, don't waste your time trying to correct him.

Shooter has confused the Mk XIVs minor lateral control instability with the Mk 21s more substantial problems. He's been corrected on this time and time again here and other forums (Warbirds Forum, Strategy PAge, Tony William's forums) both by me and other members.

He simply refuses to accept he is wrong about it.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 22, 2013)

This is a very depressing thread. Ive read the discussiuon, and come to the conclusion that it is not worth getting involved. Most of you guys will be relieved and happy to hear that Im sure. 


Good luck trying to solve thye unsolvable


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Thanks SR.
> 
> The "condesers" under the cylinder blocks may be heat exhchangers with liquid/vapour on one side and a cooling liquid on the other side. That is, maybe, 2 cooling circuits.



The book has one page on the He 100 system. 6 pages on the hot steam system and a 5 page 'chapter' on the 187B which was to use the system. It is not as detailed as it might sound becasue some 'chapters' are padded out with photo's that have no bearing on the subject. Like pictures of oil tank and a hydraulic valve block for landing gear in the cooling system chapter. BUT no mention is made of using ANY surface of the airplane as part of the cooling system. No pictures of such surface and of the few rather sketchy diagrams no 'surface' coolers seem to be involved, one sketch shows the motor, pumpe, dampf-Absch (? hard to read) and Kuhler. 
There is a picture of a Bf 110 used to test the system with a rather large lumpy cowling with a lower intake that makes the Jumo 210 radiator look positively tiny. 

I am convinced (short of photographic evidence to the contrary) that the FW 187 didn't use 'surface cooling" like the He 100.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 22, 2013)

GregP - yes, aouthors could find all this information but they must also be willing to do so. It's far easier to repeat info from older books and sell it as new book.
BTW try to get soem information about the Fw 187 book and you'll find out he's a highly reputable author.

If authors are willing to put a lot of effort into researching manufacturer archives or in the Bundesarchive you'll be surprised what you can dig up there. For example 20+ years of research done by recently deceased Thomas L. Jentz and his books about german afv, ac and ht vehicles, rendering many old publications outdated (and some complete rubbish, always amusing to read books about StuG III claiming a L/33 gun version to exist).


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

> You seem to miss the point that the Mk-IX and the even more extreme Mk-XIV both had very long gestation periods. The single largest problem with both of them was the lack of Directional Stability caused by fitment of the four and later five bladed props which added enough area forward, that the rudder and Horizontal Stab were no longer large enough to have the same sterling flight qualities as the earlier types.



What point is that, Shooter? Jabberwocky; point taken.



> That may have led to Spitfire IIIs instead of Vs and no Hurricane IIs.



Wuzak, yep; Mk.III was, as you state, modified to become the first two-speed, two-stage Merlin Spitfire recipient. The first Merlin 60 was produced in early/mid (don't have an exact date) 1941 for B.23/39 after the high altitude Hercules engines weren't able to meet performance specs at altitude. There is no reason to hypothesise that if a threat evolved sooner that Rolls would not get to work on such a thing sooner. If this engine was fitted to a Spitfire III or even Mk.I airframe, the timeline I specified is not too fantastic for producing a service Spitfire fitted with a 60 Series Merlin.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Wuzak, yep; Mk.III was, as you state, modified to become the first two-speed, two-stage Merlin Spitfire recipient. The first Merlin 60 was produced in early/mid (don't have an exact date) 1941 for B.23/39 after the high altitude Hercules engines weren't able to meet performance specs at altitude. There is no reason to hypothesise that if a threat evolved sooner that Rolls would not get to work on such a thing sooner. If this engine was fitted to a Spitfire III or even Mk.I airframe, the timeline I specified is not too fantastic for producing a service Spitfire fitted with a 60 Series Merlin.



The III would have been more competitive with the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 with the 20-series Merlins, I would have thought. Plus it had some refinements over the I/II/V.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The book has one page on the He 100 system. 6 pages on the hot steam system and a 5 page 'chapter' on the 187B which was to use the system. It is not as detailed as it might sound becasue some 'chapters' are padded out with photo's that have no bearing on the subject. Like pictures of oil tank and a hydraulic valve block for landing gear in the cooling system chapter. BUT no mention is made of using ANY surface of the airplane as part of the cooling system. No pictures of such surface and of the few rather sketchy diagrams no 'surface' coolers seem to be involved, one sketch shows the motor, pumpe, dampf-Absch (? hard to read) and Kuhler.
> There is a picture of a Bf 110 used to test the system with a rather large lumpy cowling with a lower intake that makes the Jumo 210 radiator look positively tiny.
> 
> I am convinced (short of photographic evidence to the contrary) that the FW 187 didn't use 'surface cooling" like the He 100.



I have purchased the book, so I will get to see for myself in a few weeks time.

Curious that the system wasn't developed for other aircraft. One would, therefore, have to assume that it didn't work very well.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

> The III would have been more competitive with the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 with the 20-series Merlins, I would have thought. Plus it had some refinements over the I/II/V.



Yep, seems strange that it wasn't put into service and the V was continued with, particularly with the Bf 109F's superiority over it. Morgan and Shacklady state that the V was such a success that the Air Ministry ordered it into full scale production; the 'Improved Spitfire' was then abandoned, not helped by a bombing raid on Woolston that destroyed wing sets and drawings for the III.


----------



## DonL (Oct 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I have purchased the book, so I will get to see for myself in a few weeks time.
> 
> Curious that the system wasn't developed for other aircraft. One would, therefore, have to assume that it didn't work very well.



Hello wuzak,

it is very difficult to estimate if there were issues with this cooling system or not.
I think there a bunch of reasons why it wasn't developed further and also I think it was one reason, the FW 187 wasn't put in production.

System reasons.

From the description of the system at the book, it was tricky to have always a good water film through the condensator. There was a lot of experimenting with the condensator, they chnanged it several times and built several different condensators, also the radiotors under the engine were rebuilt, because they can't withstand the water pressure at first. All around the book says the whole system was average to poor from agility (steady flow of water film)at performance changes of the engine, which had effects of the agility of the engine. So to my opinion perhaps a promising system at bigger airfileds, with lot of trained mechanics, spare parts and supply, but nothing for field airfields at the nirwana of the UDSSR or the desert at NA.
Also I think the system took to much space for a single engined a/c, except you built a cockpit wide at the back of the a/c.

RLM/Political reasons

What is to me absolute incomprehensible, why Focker Wulf didn't put simply normal DB 601A engines with normal coolings under the wings of the FW 187 and presented auch a "convential" FW 187 B to the RLM?!
They had the base with the FW 187 A0 and the aerodynamic of the FW 187 was outstanding.
Here I think Focker Wulf was under enormous pressure through the politics of the RLM and the preference to Messerschmitt.
Just like Heinkel, Focker Wulf had no big order at this time from the RLM and so I think they wanted to deliverer something very special, just like Heinkel with He 100. From the book the cooling system of the FW 187 functioned "a lot" better then the system of the He 100, but I think both companys should has stand to the simple convential and field-tested cooling solutions. Before or at the beginning of a war, nobody would change horses to unknown territory.

What can be said is, that the cooling system of the FW 187 in cooperation with DB, accelerated high pressure water cooling at german engines and developed the steam seperator for the next generation engines (DB 605, 603 and Jumo 213).


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

> Before or at the beginning of a war, nobody would change horses to unknown territory.



I think you might have answered your own question, DonL. Despite its advances and technology available to it, the RLM was essentially a conservative, single minded beast; it was also hard to predict which ideas would stand up to the rigours of combat and which wouldn't in the late 30s - none of the air ministries of any of the key combatants of WW2 got it exactly right every time prior to - and even during the war; the Spanish Civil War certainly gave the Germans a distinct advantage in terms of testing new technologies in war, but against a determined and organised enemy such as the RAF, things proved very different to what the Germans previously experienced and had prepared for. The Zerstoerer concept is a case in point.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Not really, because one thing that you haven't mentioned with regards to the Mustang and its impact on the war, Viking, was its availability in numbers over the combat arena, as well as its performance. Whilst I believe the Fw 187 might have been an excellent fighter had it been put into production and service and it would have had a definite impact on precedings during the Battle of Britain, there would not have been enough of them to have made the same impact that the P-51 had over Germany in 1944-45.



IIRC the Merlin Mustang was in numerical disadvantage vs. LW in ETO for the 1st several months of service, yet managed to severely dent the LW there. Further, the long range fighter can almost nulify the numerical advantage of the short range defenders - the defenders based in one area of a country are ill able to help out the other defenders based in another area.
Further, the performance disadvantage of the Hurricane would be quite noticeable with LW fielding an almost 390-400 mph fighter.



> What the Fw 187 might have done was prompt the British into developing a faster and better performing fighter sooner than what it did and not sticking with just fitting the Merlin 45 to the Spit Mk.I airframe to make the Spit V, which was intended as an interim only. Had the Germans had access to an aircraft with such superior performance that it would and could outclass anything else in the air at the time, you can guarantee the British would not have sat still. Perhaps instead of producing a two-speed, two-stage Merlin for bombers, as the Merlin 60 was originally intended, it could be argued that Rolls would have been asked to carry out research into this modification sooner to enable it to be fitted to the Spitfire sooner, so the Spit Mk.IX could have been available around mid to late 1941 at a guess.



Stick the Merlin XX in the Spit I/II and you have a 380 mph fighter; introduce retractable tailwheel and wheel well covers and such a fighter does 390 mph? Ie. not going to the fully fledged Spit III, but something more 'producible'. Merlin XX was available during second part of the BoB.



> This would have enabled the Griffon to have been fitted with the same supercharger technology sooner, which might have produed not only a Griffon engined Spitfire sooner, but a two-speed, two-stage Griffon engined Spitfire, the 'XIV sooner. What impact would these decisions have made on the Luftwaffe? Also bearing in mind that if Focke Wulf is putting resources into the Fw 187, what are they _not_ putting resources into that had them in real life? The Fw 190? Surely that might not be the best path to have taken for the Luftwaffe considering how excellent that aircraft was.



The Fw-190 did have problems on it's own, especially due to the problematic BMW-801. With DB-Falke, they have a performer and a heavy hitter in a single package. The fighter can escort supplies in the North Afirca, also escorting the bombers attacking Med conwoys (or hit them on it's own?). RLM can also shelve the Me-210 with such a fighter available. 
One can contemplate the Hawker going for a twin Merlin fighter, instead of Typhoon/Tornado?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

> IIRC the Merlin Mustang was in numerical disadvantage vs. LW in ETO for the 1st several months of service, yet managed to severely dent the LW there. Further, the long range fighter can almost nulify the numerical advantage of the short range defenders - the defenders based in one area of a country are ill able to help out the other defenders based in another area. Further, the performance disadvantage of the Hurricane would be quite noticeable with LW fielding an almost 390-400 mph fighter.



Agreed on the Hurricane's performance, but that fighter would have been able to outmanoeuvre the Fw 187 with ease, as would the Spitfire, so the fight would not be all the German aircraft's way. Despite your point about the P-51, as valid as it might be, you cannot argue that the numerical superiority it held over Europe was not telling in the end. I doubt the Fw 187 could be built in such numbers that its impact would be the same, despite its high performance.




> Stick the Merlin XX in the Spit I/II and you have a 380 mph fighter; introduce retractable tailwheel and wheel well covers and such a fighter does 390 mph? Ie. not going to the fully fledged Spit III, but something more 'producible'. Merlin XX was available during second part of the BoB.



True. Stick a Merlin 60 in a Spit II or III airframe and you up its speed by over 20 mph above the 380 mph fighter and increase its altitude, rate of climb etc. Perhaps that could have been a worthy stop gap until the 60 Series was available?



> The Fw-190 did have problems on it's own, especially due to the problematic BMW-801.



Yep, I remember reading Hans Sander's description of flying the prototype being like sticking his feet in a furnace. Despite its perceived performance, I doubt the Fw 187 would have been able to fulfill all the roles the Fw 190 did with the Luftwaffe as successfully as the Fw 190 did. That aircraft was a winner and led to some potent derivatives that might not have seen the light of day had FW concentrated on the Fw 187. Very few pre-war designs stayed as relevant as the Fw 190 design did to the very end of the war - the Spitfire and Bf 109 being notable exceptions. Would the Fw 187, with its in-line engines and hefty radiators or vulnerable evaporative cooling system have been as effective as a ground attack/close support aircraft as the Fw 190F family? Would it have remained as relevant as the Fw 190? All hypothetical questions we will never know the exact answer to, and you could argue that all night, really.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

The big problem I have with these hypothetical Fw 187s is not really if they could hit the calculated performance figures or not but the timing and performance of the ones being proposed in these threads. 
The Fw 187 book gives a detailed break down and calculated performace figures for the Jumo powered versions and for proposed versions/s with DB 605 engines and some information on BMW 801 poered versions/s. 
NO information is given on a DB 601 powered version using a "normal" DB 601 and only one speed figure for the prototype with the steam cooled engine with a somewhat "iffy" reference to power and no mention if the plane was armed or unarmed. 

As an escort fighter into England in 1940 it would have the same engines as the 109 and 110 of the time. Down _perhaps_ 200-250hp from the engines used in the prototype. It would use the same guns as the 110, 60 round drums on the cannon. Spare drums for the rear seater? or a single seater with limited ammo capacity? 
It would have more range than a 109 E but would it have enough? 
It is 153 miles from Amiens to London. 
239 miles from Amiens to Bristol 
332 miles from Amiens to Liverpool
293 miles from Ghent to Leeds. 
A FW 187 is going to have about 50% more radius than a 109F. And you have the same problem the allies did, The "escorts" cannot cruise over the English country side at 200-225mph. They have to be going at much closer to 300mph so as not to be sitting targets if bounced. Now they have to "weave" if they are not to get too far from the bombers. There is close escort and there is being in a different county than the bombers. 

An early FW 187 could present the British with a lot of problems even so. BUT every FW 187 is TWO 109s not built so the numbers are not going to be there, Granted you can replace the 110 instead but can you replace all of them? are there jobs the 110 is better suited for? There were just under 1100 Bf 110s built in all of 1940. 

In the Med things get a bit easier, there is less threat of multiple fighter attacks from the allies, the MG 151 cannon is available but we are still left with which month/year and which engine is being installed. DB 601 Ns and Es or DB 605s?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

Completely agree, SR; too many variables. The problem with this sort of thing is that what-ifs beget what-ifs, so in theory you could be going off on a tangent in any direction and arrive at a conclusion no one was expecting at all! Despite all the figures, statistics, charts etc that research has produced on this aircraft, regardless of how thorough, it is all circumstantial when it comes to establishing how effective it would have been in service. There is the possibility that decisions could have been made during the aircraft's development that might have had an adverse effect on its service introduction, beyond what can be predicted using available figures produced from prototypes and pre-production aircraft alone. No one really knows and all we can do is make an educated guess.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 22, 2013)

Assuming it enters production in mid-1939, which IIRC it was supposed to if kept as a single seat fighter developed with DB engines from the beginning, so it gets into production pre-war by several months. By this point the A-0 series has been delivered, as the first Geschwader is being formed the Erpröbungsgruppe is already formed and working out tactics and training. So its not ready for Poland, except for the Erpröbungsgruppe. The first Geschwader is ready by April, the second by May 1940. The third should be ready no later than June, as that would have been at least full year of production by this point, which, if we even take the 1100 production figure of the BF110 in 1940 and half it (for the first 6 months), then we have 550 Fw187s produced just in 1940 by June, which is more than enough to form 3 wings and replace losses up to this point. But the Fw187 requires less material than the heavier Bf110 and potentially less time to build, so production might even be higher in 1940, not to mention the 1939 production.

By June of 1940 we then have 3 Geschwader of 90 aircraft each operational in July 1940 and probably with another 1-2 forming, probably with one more ready by August. It looks like several BF110 (our heuristic for the Fw187, which would replace it) were formed in May 1939 (at least three that I've found: Zerstörergeschwaders 2, 76, and 52). 

As to the Bf110, the only thing it really did that the Fw187 couldn't do was operate as a night fighter. 
As to the weaponry, the MG FF is going to be the main cannon throughout the BoB, with the 4th formed Geschwader probably getting it in August/September. The Db601N was available from late 1939, but only in small numbers: KurfÃ¼rst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 601 N
AFAIK it was mainly used in the Bf110, so the 3rd formed Geschwader would likely be the first to get it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

In Jan 1941 there were 153 Bf 110s in service with 601N engines. there were fewer than 500 engines total including 109s, He 111s and Do 215s. Granted this does not include engines/aircraft lost. 

The Bf 110 may have made a better schnell bomber. It's bigger wing, while offering more drag also offered more lift for bombs and fuel. Some DB 601 powered 110s being able to lift two 1100lb bombs plus two 300 liter drop tanks.
Photo recon _may_ be another role depending upon if access to the camera/s is needed in flight.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 22, 2013)

I think that all the figures given in these threads are like a bikini: the things they show are suggestive, but the things they hide are the essential.......


----------



## stona (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> No one really knows and all we can do is make an educated guess.



And some guesses are stretching that condition (educated)!

A decent single seat fighter? Probably. It was doomed when the "zerstorer" conditions were placed on it.

High altitude interceptor?......Possibly with substantial modification.

Night fighter, like the Bf 110/Ju 88?...... No and the RLM said so

Fighter bomber, as the Fw 190 managed?.......No, it was never seriously considered for this role, except by Tank. He was good at coming up with schemes to save failed projects, like the Ta 154 "Mistel".

Fast bomber like the Me 410?........No, again, the option didn't exist.

Bomber destroyer?..........No, a role not anticipated before the axe fell, but it wasn't a suitable air frame for mounting heavy armament.

I don't find it difficult to see, given the situation at the various times the axe fell, why the RLM never developed the project.

The engine issue is a valid one, but the RLM barely mentions the Fw 187 or its engine requirements after the initial decision to use the Jumos on the first version. I don't think that the project ever really had serious consideration or backing. 
Some may blame the failure of the project on incompetence or individuals in the Ministry or government, but I take a more pragmatic view of history. 

The Catholic church rarely burnt witches (but plenty of heretics). Those young ambitious lawyers of the "Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición" would raise tricky questions when told of flying broom sticks and talking cats, like "where's the evidence?" or "can you show me this cat?" 
I only use that example because I happen to be in Madrid at the moment!

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2013)

I was think of Mk108 cannon.

IMO high velocity 3cm Mk103 cannon does not belong on a WWII era fighter aircraft. CAS aircraft are a different matter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

The 3cm MK 103 cannon is a heck of lot better anti-bomber weapon than a lot of the other stuff the Germans tried. 37mm AA guns, 50mm cannon, The 21cm rockets. 

You just need a twin engine aircraft to carry it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2013)

> 3cm MK 103 cannon is a heck of lot better anti-bomber weapon than a lot of the other stuff the Germans tried. 37mm AA guns, 50mm cannon



I think you are wrong about BK 5 cannon. It works great provided BK 5 equipped aircraft have adequate fighter escort.
BK 5 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> According to the account of the engagements against the USAAF by II./ZG 26 from late February through mid-April 1944 mentioned at a German language website,[3] the 53 Me 410 Hornissen of that Zerstörergruppe equipped with the BK 5 - as the Umrüst-Bausätze factory modification designated /U4 for the Me 410 series of aircraft - were said to have to shot down a total of 129 B-17 Flying Fortress and four B-24 Liberator heavy bomber aircraft, distributed over a series of five or six interceptions, all while losing only nine of their own Me 410s



Fw-187 mit BK 5 cannon would be an interesting combination for bomber interception as the aircraft should be capable of over 400mph when powered by DB605 engines. Falke could dive into cannon range, empty the 21 round magazine in about 30 seconds and then dive away before Allied escort fighter aircraft intercede.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

A BK 5 weighs 540KG without ammo
The MK 103 weighs 141, two weigh 281 kg. The NK 103 fires 8 shells for every one fired by the BK 5, two MK 103s fire 16 shells for every one fired by the BK 5. 
One German study figured both guns had the same _effective_ range, 800 meters. 

I do like the 30 second firing run though. Plane covers 3.3 miles from first shot to last. Of course the bomber only flew 1.66 miles if it was doing 200mph in the same period of time so either the BK 5 equipped fighter fighter opened fire at over 1.66 miles (2670 meters or it continued to fire after it passed by the bomber or it isn't even aiming at a single bomber but trying to spray the entire formation.


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2013)

I don't believe it.

Heavier shells tend to retain velocity over a longer range. Hence the reason 3.7cm flak has over twice the effective range as 2cm flak even though both are high velocity weapons. BK 5 should have been accurate to a range of at least 2km. And it's a foregone conclusion that a single 5cm mine shell will seriously damage any aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

I don't care if you don't believe it. Look it up. 

Aiming is major limit on air to air shooting, ie predicting were the target will be when the shell gets there with NO rangefinder and calculating gun sight like many AA guns had. 

Unless you use a two seater Fw 187 with this poor soul sticking his head and shoulders out of the cockpit to range on the B-17s.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> I think you are wrong about BK 5 cannon. It works great provided BK 5 equipped aircraft have adequate fighter escort.
> BK 5 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Fw-187 mit BK 5 cannon would be an interesting combination for bomber interception as the aircraft should be capable of over 400mph when powered by DB605 engines. Falke could dive into cannon range, empty the 21 round magazine in about 30 seconds and then dive away before Allied escort fighter aircraft intercede.



What a load of nonsense that Wikipedia article and the website it cited.


> "Were_ said_ to have shot down 129 B-17s and 4 B-24s"?


 No, far from it: here's what _really_ happened:






pages 32 - 33:










The smaller, faster firing Mk 103s and MG 151/20s were_ infinitely_ more efficient because they could actually hit a target, whereas the BK 5 was very fortunate if it hit anything; it worked maybe once or twice when fired at unescorted bombers by pilots who were "outstanding marksmen". The BK5 was even worse when tried in two converted Me 262s and would have equally been a waste of time in the Fw 187.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2013)

> I only use that example because I happen to be in Madrid at the moment!



Hola! I thought your post had a distinctly continental flavour to it; all that talk about the Spanish Inquisition (cue the Monty Python jokes )...


----------



## davebender (Oct 22, 2013)

> smaller, faster firing Mk 103s and MG 151/20s were infinitely more efficient because they could actually hit a target,



Your article talks about using BK 5 cannon against fighter aircraft. What results were achieved vs an American heavy bomber box (i.e. what they should have been used for)?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

Juha said:


> So you think some 4 months from idea to production is a very long gestation period? What is your definitation for a short gestation period? One can say that Mk VIII suffered from a long gestation period but not Mk IX.
> 
> Juha


I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi DonL,
> 
> When you post something about an American plane, say, a P-51 or a P-40, do you use original primary source documents from North American or Curtiss? If so, where did you get them? You probably cannot get original primary source documents from Japan or the former Soviet Union, so you have to rely on secondary sources if you talk about a Lavochkin or MiG.
> 
> ...



Missed the part with the book recommendation. Could anyone please post it again so I can have a look? Thanks.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Wuzak, don't waste your time trying to correct him.
> 
> Shooter has confused the Mk XIVs minor lateral control instability with the Mk 21s more substantial problems. He's been corrected on this time and time again here and other forums (Warbirds Forum, Strategy PAge, Tony William's forums) both by me and other members.
> 
> He simply refuses to accept he is wrong about it.



It seems the Authors of "Spitfire, the history" do not agree with you. Start on page 307 and keep going until you get to the part where they changed the tail size.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> What point is that, Shooter? Jabberwocky; point taken.
> The point(s) are two fold. The sterling qualities that made the Mks-I to V such delightful planes to fly vanished with the Mk-IX. It took a very long time from first flight to operational service and then longer to demonstrated superiority over the FW-190 and the steady stream of kills that went with it. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Even after entry into squadron service it was, IIRC, over one year to the first kill in combat. These facts by them selves prove that the later Spit was a handful and not a very effective combat weapon.
> 
> 
> Wuzak, yep; Mk.III was, as you state, modified to become the first two-speed, two-stage Merlin Spitfire recipient. The first Merlin 60 was produced in early/mid (don't have an exact date) 1941 for B.23/39 after the high altitude Hercules engines weren't able to meet performance specs at altitude. There is no reason to hypothesise that if a threat evolved sooner that Rolls would not get to work on such a thing sooner. If this engine was fitted to a Spitfire III or even Mk.I airframe, the timeline I specified is not too fantastic for producing a service Spitfire fitted with a 60 Series Merlin.



Well, yes it is. Fitment of a heavier engine reduces static CoG margin and makes the plane vertically unstable. The four blade prop required to put the power into the air added area forward of the CoAP and made the plane "snaky". Those problems took a long time to solve when they were encountered. Those problems were over looked in large part because of the dire need of more performance than the Mk-V could give. So no matter what you do when, it takes a long time to fix each generation of power increase. That is what the problem is.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The III would have been more competitive with the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 with the 20-series Merlins, I would have thought. Plus it had some refinements over the I/II/V.


Including, IIRC, a larger tail.


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2013)

Steam cooling was the darling of the 1930’s, right when the Fw 187 was designed and built. A normal radiator system uses a closed liquid system, typically ethylene glycol, and runs from about 30°C to about 95°C, a difference of 65°C that can be used for cooling.

I don’t know of any steam systems that are not evaporative. Some were surface evaporative but all made use of the heat of vaoporization, and used condensers to turn the steam generated by the engine heat back into liquid. The temperatures were usually measured in the liquid sections, one in the line going back to the accumulator tank from the condenser (the colder one) and one inside the engine before the liquid is turned into steam (the hotter one). The two temperature extremes are usually about 80°C and 110°C and it seems the system is less effective, but when the liquid turns to steam, the temperature is 560°C. So the temperature difference is 580°C, quite effective at generating a temperature swing.

Personally, I don’t know of any gasoline engine cooling system that uses steam other than an evaporative system. I am not even sure if another type exists. If it does, I don’t know about it. If you turn liquid to steam, the system IS evaporative. If you turn it into steam and it never gets back to liquid until you shut the engine off …. maybe it is a closed steam-cooling system, but I don’t know of any engine that could be cooled by steam entering the liquid intake port.

A steam separator is a device used to separate water from steam. That implies the steam remaining is used for something, and there is NO use for steam in cooling any engine that is colder than the steam. ALL engines are colder than steam.

I think the "steam separator" is a German-to-English translation error. To achieve cooling, the steam must be condensed back into a liquid if it is a CLOSED sytem, or else you are flying a LOSS system. Some Reno racers fly a total loss cooling system for the oil, but I cannot conceive of Focke-Wulf trying to palm off a total loss system for the Fw 187. When the water runs out, you go down. If I had fuel left, I'd not want to crash due to running out of water!

When the Fw 187 book arrives, I’ll be interested to see the DB cooling system description and the purported reason why the Fw 187 was not proceeded with. If it WAS politics, then the Third Reich was almost as stupid as we seem to be today. Not surprising in the least except for the fact that Hitler was a dictator and politics should not have been a disabling thing for his government.

Perhaps it was endemic to the procurement arm of the German military? It certainly reared its ugly head in the US procurement system ... both during and after WWII.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2013)

do the math. A bomber traveling at 200mph covers about 400ft in the time it takes between shots from the BK 5, the firing aircraft, if doing 400mph covers 800ft. It takes about a second (or more?) for the shell to travel 800 meters, the bomber covers about 300 ft (four fuselage lengths) in a second. The 400 mph fighter covers around 600 feet in the same time. 

This is like trying to shoot flying ducks with a rifle from a pick up truck driving faster than the ducks. 

Most people figured a pilot was doing good if he could keep a target in the gun sight for 3 seconds. Even if we credit the BK 5 with with being able to fire 3 shots in 3 seconds ( it can, 2.66 seconds from 1st to 3rd) we run into the other statistic that says _on average_ the pilots hit with 2% of rounds fired. To get a hit the pilot with the BK 5 either needs to hit with 33% or rounds fired or needs 16-17 firing passes to score a hit. Or gets one hit every 2 1/2 missions with a 21 round magazine capacity. 

With two MK 103s firing 39-40 shells in 3 seconds the pilot _on average_ will get one hit on 4 out of 5 passes. 

An Me 262 was firing 40 shells a second or 120 in 3 seconds so, if close enough, scored 2.2 hits per 3 second firing pass. 

Now some pilots were much better and made up for the pilots that emptied their ammo tanks/bins without hitting anything but setting up a plane that needs an extraordinary shot to make ANY use of what soever AND degrades the performance of the plane at the same time makes no sense.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

DonL said:


> Hello wuzak,
> 
> it is very difficult to estimate if there were issues with this cooling system or not.
> I think there a bunch of reasons why it wasn't developed further and also I think it was one reason, the FW 187 wasn't put in production.
> ...



Why not just install the big engine with annular radiators like those on the Ju-88 and be done with it? There was no down side to frontal area. Little downside to Form factor and huge increases in power.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Agreed on the Hurricane's performance, but that fighter would have been able to outmanoeuvre the Fw 187 with ease, as would the Spitfire, so the fight would not be all the German aircraft's way. Despite your point about the P-51, as valid as it might be, you cannot argue that the numerical superiority it held over Europe was not telling in the end. I doubt the Fw 187 could be built in such numbers that its impact would be the same, despite its high performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the aerodynamics of the FW-187. It has a higher aspect ratio wing, low form drag and less SA/power as shown by it's quick climb rate and speed on so little power. The very small differences in the weight of the two engines makes consideration of same a moot point.
As I see it, the plane had two big problems, low power for the time and a crummy cooling system. It also had a huge and insurmountable problem with the RLM. Little to nothing maters if you can not solve this last thing.


----------



## Juha (Oct 22, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.



IMHO you should read pp 307-08 again, Mk IX was at first in essence Spit Mk VC locally strengthened with Merlin 61 bolted in its nose. Spit Mks VII/VIII were the propertly developed Merlin 60 series Spits but because their development to production ready took time and air situation was critical, the ad hoc solution was Mk IX. 4 months was an underestimation say 5. But after all this isn't a Spitfire thread, so if you want to discuss on Spit maybe it would be better that you open a new thred.

On handling IIRC Quill wrote that of the Spit fighter versions he liked Mk VIII most .


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Completely agree, SR; too many variables. The problem with this sort of thing is that what-ifs beget what-ifs, so in theory you could be going off on a tangent in any direction and arrive at a conclusion no one was expecting at all! Despite all the figures, statistics, charts etc that research has produced on this aircraft, regardless of how thorough, it is all circumstantial when it comes to establishing how effective it would have been in service. There is the possibility that decisions could have been made during the aircraft's development that might have had an adverse effect on its service introduction, beyond what can be predicted using available figures produced from prototypes and pre-production aircraft alone. No one really knows and all we can do is make an educated guess.


I have been taught over the years that simple engine swaps can be calculated with little difficulty. First, the Square Root of the difference in power changes speed proportionally. Secondly changes in weight do the same, also as a second order function. The big bugaboo is the extra weight of the engine must be offset with ballast, if there is not enough room in the aft fuse to move something heavy back some distance. If you do these things, you get a good idea of the changes in speed. Climb is harder but goes up as a first order fraction. ( More power = more climb.)
In this case there is a third problem in that the original cooling system did not work and the new one creates more drag. Beyond simple math's.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.





> Operational Highlights
> No. 64 Squadron at Hornchurch was *the first squadron to go operational with Spitfire IXs (28-July-1942)*. Deliveries of more powerful Spitfire IXs equipped with Merlin 63, 66, or 70s commenced in early 1943. No 611 Squadron at Biggin Hill was the first to use the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire LF IX on operations (March 1943). Full service approval of +25 lbs boost was granted 10 March 1944, providing considerable improvement in low altitude performance. No. 1 and No. 165 squadrons at Predannack were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost, taking 2 days off from operations in early May 44 to do so.



Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials




> Flying characteristics
> 
> 16......... The Spitfire IX is similar to the Spitfire VC for take-off and landing, although the landing speed is slightly higher. The extra weight and length of the aircraft has made the elevators a little heavier and as a result controls are better harmonised. It was noticed that during dives there was less tendency for the aircraft to yaw and this was thought to be due to the extra radiator fitted on the port wing. Tight turns were made up to 5G and there was no sign of 'tightening up', the aircraft recovering normally when the control column was released.





> Manoeuvrability
> 
> 20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive.
> 
> 21......... Short trials were carried out against a Typhoon I and the Spitfire IX was found to be more manoeuvrable and superior in climb but inferior in dive. During a dog-fight at 18,000 feet the Spitfire out-turned the Typhoon and got on its tail after 1 1/2 turns.



Spitfire IX Tactical Trials




> FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
> 5. In most respects this aircraft is similar to the Spitfire IX, except for some very marked changes in trim with alteration of throttle setting below 0 boost. This applies principally to the rudder, despite the incorporation of the servo-operated trimming tab. This is the one bad characteristic of this aircraft. The elevators also require more frequent trimming than in a Spitfire IX.





> Conclusions
> 23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.





> GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
> 
> 68. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Spitfire IX in all respects.
> 
> ...



Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

To summarise, the IX handled very much like the V. The XIV handled very much like the IX, except for take-off where the stronger torque of the Griffon made life more difficult.

Basically, in 1944/5, when you could get it to the fight, the Spitfire XIV was the aircraft to have for the Allies in air to air battles in the ETO. The problem was getting it to the fight.


----------



## DonL (Oct 22, 2013)

> A steam separator is a device used to separate water from steam. That implies the steam remaining is used for something, and there is NO use for steam in cooling any engine that is colder than the steam. ALL engines are colder than steam.



Hello GregP,

the steam seperator in german called Dampfabschneider, was part of the *engine*, and it's main duty was to hold the water liquid circle of the engine bubble free, so that no steam bubbles could get at the water circle of the engne.
It was also used for normal high pressure water cooling at the DB 605, Jumo 213 and DB 603.
The first german engines as the Jumo 211A-H (Jumo F was the first with high pressure water cooling) and the DB 601A-N (DB 601E as the first with high pressure water cooling)were not high pressure water cooling engines and the part of the glycol was very smal and at the jumo engine only part of the water cycle at winter month. The engine highest temperature of the *non* high pressure water cooling engine was 90 C, for the high pressure water cooling engines 110-120 C. It was higher at the second generation engines with steam seperator.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> I was think of Mk108 cannon.
> 
> IMO high velocity 3cm Mk103 cannon does not belong on a WWII era fighter aircraft. CAS aircraft are a different matter.


My landlord when I was stationed in Heidelberg claimed to have flown and used a Me-109K with the Mk-103 in it. He had pictures of him and the plane. Willy Messerschmitt also made that claim in his book that several were made and some used for test and evaluation.
I think that disputing the head of the factory when interviewed just after the war would not be easy to prove. What higher source would know what they were doing. On the other hand, no one thinks the records from that time are very good, if they exist at all. So that is one best possible source and one not so great source, disputed by record that have be demonstrated to be less than reliable?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> My landlord when I was stationed in Heidelberg claimed to have flown and used a Me-109K with the Mk-103 in it. He had pictures of him and the plane. Willy Messerschmitt also made that claim in his book that several were made and some used for test and evaluation.
> I think that disputing the head of the factory when interviewed just after the war would not be easy to prove. What higher source would know what they were doing. On the other hand, no one thinks the records from that time are very good, if they exist at all. So that is one best possible source and one not so great source, disputed by record that have be demonstrated to be less than reliable?





Jabberwocky said:


> Is this mythical, fictional circle of pilots like your "former landlord who flew a Me-109K with a 30 MM Mk-103 shooting through the prop hub and two Mg-151/15s under the cowling!" ?
> 
> Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?



btw:
Mk 108 - 1057mm long, 58kg.
Mk 103 - 2350mm long, 141kg.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> I don't believe it.
> 
> Heavier shells tend to retain velocity over a longer range. Hence the reason 3.7cm flak has over twice the effective range as 2cm flak even though both are high velocity weapons. BK 5 should have been accurate to a range of at least 2km. And it's a foregone conclusion that a single 5cm mine shell will seriously damage any aircraft.



Effective range is much different in the air than on the ground. In the air the higher MV of the Mk-103 offsets the higher BC of the Bk-5. Secondly, the curvature of the trajectory at those sorts of ranges means that at 2000 M, you might fire off the hole magazine WO hitting anything. If the curvature of the trajectory goes above or below the fuselage, then aim off is required. This is how Point blank and effective range is determined. With the Mk-103, the bullet stream is a very narrow cone, centered on the line of fire. This dispersion helps give it a longer effective range because of the "Shotgun" effect. That is missing from the Bk-5. IIRC, the maximum range, not effective range was listed as 1,200 M for the Bk-5. The effective range for the Mk-103 was listed as 1,000 M. Take it for what it is worth. Also a Google search should find the fighter weapons page with a list of all WW-II guns and ammo. Lots of neat data there.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Steam cooling was the darling of the 1930’s, right when the Fw 187 was designed and built. A normal radiator system uses a closed liquid system, typically ethylene glycol, and runs from about 30°C to about 95°C, a difference of 65°C that can be used for cooling.



In the Mosquito FB.VI manual the operating limits for the Merlins were 125°C for 1 hour (take-off climb), 105°C for maximum continuous and 135°C for 5 minute combat limit.

The reason these can be above the boiling point for water is that the cooling system is pressurised. 

The USAAC's "hyper" engine program called for coolant temperatures of 300°F (149°C), but it was found that the cooling load was transferred to the oil, requiring a larger oil cooler and offsetting the smaller radiator. In the end they settled for 250°F (121°C).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 22, 2013)

wuzak said:


> btw:
> Mk 108 - 1057mm long, 58kg.
> Mk 103 - 2350mm long, 141kg.



The Mk 108 was a rather short barrelled weapon, so let's look at that.

Mk 108 - 580mm.
Mk 103 - 1340mm.

So the length of the cannon, not including the barrel, is:

Mk 108 - 477mm
Mk 103 - 1010mm.

So the Mk 103 was 533mm longer than the Mk 108 behind the barrel. Which means the rear of the gun would have been 533mm further back than the 108 when in a motor-cannon installation. In a Bf 109G the rear of the gun would tickle the pilot's balls!


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2013)

Hi DonL,

Then the Fw 187 DB version did have an evaporative cooling system? And what we need to find out is what sort of evaporator it had?

The engine needs liquid cooling ... and the issue would be the rest of the system, seemingly. It might get interesting. Haven't received my book yet, though, and so will wait to see what it says.

Thanks.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 23, 2013)

davebender said:


> Your article talks about using BK 5 cannon against fighter aircraft. What results were achieved vs an American heavy bomber box (i.e. what they should have been used for)?



If you read page 33 you'll see that the 410s were used against a couple of bomber raids targeting Pilsen and Posen with a handful of aircraft being shot down on the latter raid. Otherwise the Me 410/BK 5 cannon combination was a total failure; the figure of 129 B-17s 4 B-24s shot down, cited by Wikipedia and LuftArchiv is farcical.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi DonL,
> 
> Then the Fw 187 DB version did have an evaporative cooling system? And what we need to find out is what sort of evaporator it had?
> 
> ...



From the pictures, it appears the radiator/condenser was under the engine, in length it goes from the middle of the first exhaust port to the 5th exhaust port, it is roughly the width of the engine (brackets/straps seem to hold it to the valve covers) and it is roughly the thickness of the valve covers although the bottom seems to curve. Picture/s do not show the front so you can see the airflow passages.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> From the pictures, it appears the radiator/condenser was under the engine, in length it goes from the middle of the first exhaust port to the 5th exhaust port, it is roughly the width of the engine (brackets/straps seem to hold it to the valve covers) and it is roughly the thickness of the valve covers although the bottom seems to curve. Picture/s do not show the front so you can see the airflow passages.



Could the curved surface possibly form the bottom of the cowling? Ie, be exposed to the airflow?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2013)

> The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.



Unmitigated disaster? What rubbish. I think you are making way more of this than need be, Shooter. Regardless of any handling issues Spitfires might have suffered, the average RAF pilot certainly did not think the XIV nor the IX was as bad as you make out. Here is an example: 130 Squadron Spitfire XIV pilot Ian Ponsford;

“The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the Fw 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it straight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine.”

Do you think an average service pilot would state that the XIV was "the most marvellous aeroplane at the time" if it was an "unmitigated disaster" as you claim?

Jeffrey Quill claimed that the XIV was; "...something quite outstanding – another quantum jump almost on a par with the jump from the Mk.V to the Mk.IX." If the aircraft was as much of a dog as you make out, then Quill wouldn't have claimed it was outstanding. After all, he flew every mark of Spit there was.

I also don't understand why you think the development of these aircraft was protracted. Nine months elapsed betwen the first flight of the first Mk.VIII, JF316 with a Sixty Series Griffon and the first production 'XIV, RB140. That's not that long to incorporate a research programme and to put a new type into production and service.

Shooter, you need to let go of this, because there is plenty of evdence on these pages alone that your hypothesis is incorrect. Before you mention Spitfire the History, I have a copy right here on my book shelf and I have studied it at length for years. I have spoken to Spitfire pilots, both WW2 veterans and warbird pilots of Spitfire Vs, IXs and XIVs. None have said anything that matches your description of how these aircraft handled. Everyone I have spoken to about flying the Spitfire has said that it is one of the best handling of any aircraft of its era.

Here is a quote from Tom Middleton, a warbird pilot who has flown Spit XVIs and XIVs; he states that "The XIV will always be my favourite aircraft of all time. I adored everything about it." "The Mark XVI is easy to fly [bearing in mind a XVI is a IX with a Packard built Merlin]. It instinctively tells you when it is out of balance." as for the XIV, he calls it; "...a seductive gypsy woman, a wild and sexy thing." "It was heavier on the control, but much more powerful and a good deal faster... ...whilst not difficult, it was quite demanding to fly."


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Could the curved surface possibly form the bottom of the cowling? Ie, be exposed to the airflow?



It doesn't _appear_ to be so from the pictures of the complete plane, or more accurately, pictures of the V5 while the best picture of the engine without cowling is of the partially competed V7. The V5 bottom cowling _looks_ like a longer, somewhat oversized version of the oil cooler cowling/fairing on a normal DB 601/605. It looks too small for a normal radiator but how much air flow was needed for this system I don't know. There is quite a bit of energy transferred when water turns to steam and then back to water. It is this heat of vaporization that makes the steam cooling so attractive in theory.


----------



## davebender (Oct 23, 2013)

42.7kg. MG151/20 750 rpm. Mine shell has 18.6 grams HE filler.
57.5kg. 2cm Flak38. 480 rpm. HE shell has 22 grams HE filler.


> With the Mk-103, the bullet stream is a very narrow cone, centered on the line of fire. This dispersion helps give it a longer effective range because of the "Shotgun" effect. That is missing from the Bk-5. IIRC, the maximum range, not effective range was listed as 1,200 M for the Bk-5. The effective range for the Mk-103 was listed as 1,000 M.



Why not go a step further? 2cm Flak38 has the velocity to reach past 1,000 meters and the weapon isn't much heavier then MG151/20. Not compact enough for use in small fighter aircraft such as Me-109 but putting four on fuselage sides of Fw-187, Me-410 etc. shouldn't be a problem. Need to develop a belt feed but that shouldn't be difficult compared to developing a belt feed for 5cm AT gun (i.e. BK 5 cannon).

Four 2cm Flak38 cannon weigh less then two 3cm Mk103 cannon. In fact they weigh less then the eight .50cal MGs installed in an American P-47. So a Fw-187 armed with four 2cm Flak38 cannon should not suffer a significant performance loss. The Falke should remain fully capable vs enemy fighter aircraft while having the ability to attack heavy bombers outside range of bomber gun turrets.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2013)

Several questions were raised re. 'Daimlerized Falke', ie. the Fw-187 with DB-6 series of engines and the abilities of such an aircraft, had it ever entered the service. 
-How big a bomb would it be able to carry how far? The DB-601A was good for 1100 HP for take off, add another 50 HP if the engine is of Aa variety. That would give 2200-2300 HP to power an airplane with a 300 sq ft wing and of modest weight - plenty enough for a decent bomb load. 
-How good a bomber destroyer? Stick 4 x MG151/20 and you're set. 
-How to circumwent the 60 rds drum limitation? Install 2 LMGs for every MG/FF, so one can unleash 8 centrally mounted LMGs into opposition, until belt-fed cannons are available. 
-How good a high altitude fighter? The DB was just fine engine for higher altitudes, unlike the BMW-801. 
-It would not make a good night fighter, bar substantial redesign? Okay, pump out the Ju-88s for the Nachtjagd. 
-It would cost too much? Less, actually, since the Bf-110 production can be substantially reduced, and Me-210 saga never to occur. 
-But, Fw-190 was such a great fighter? Okay, the LW has a great fighter already in 1939-41, and it does not have to endure the engine-related issues for 15 months, like the 190 had. 
-The derivatives of the Fw-190 were exceptional fighters? Neither derivative past BMW-engined planes ever made enything worthwhile for the Axis war effort.


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 23, 2013)

Could 8 7.92mm LMGs have downed a fighter in 1940?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2013)

Sure enough - and quite a number of bombers. The 8 LMG battery was a standard outfit of Spitfires and Hurricanes of BoB vintage.


----------



## davebender (Oct 23, 2013)

What do you think 1940 RAF fighter aircraft were armed with?


----------



## silence (Oct 23, 2013)

wuzak said:


> In a Bf 109G the rear of the gun would tickle the pilot's balls!



So...um... where can I get one of these??


----------



## silence (Oct 23, 2013)

deleted


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Sure enough - and quite a number of bombers. The 8 LMG battery was a standard outfit of Spitfires and Hurricanes of BoB vintage.



There was a reason they added the cannons though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Several questions were raised re. 'Daimlerized Falke', ie. the Fw-187 with DB-6 series of engines and the abilities of such an aircraft, had it ever entered the service.
> -How big a bomb would it be able to carry how far? The DB-601A was good for 1100 HP for take off, add another 50 HP if the engine is of Aa variety. That would give 2200-2300 HP to power an airplane with a 300 sq ft wing and of modest weight - plenty enough for a decent bomb load.
> 
> -How good a high altitude fighter? The DB was just fine engine for higher altitudes, unlike the BMW-801.
> ...



We have a problem with the "modest" weight. The Jumo powered versions went 4900-5000kg clean. No argument there. We have no weight figures for a BD 601 powered version. The data for the proposed DB 605 powered version has a weight of 7200KG clean and a proposed high altitude variant with single seat and two 20mm MG 151s and two MG 131s was 6000kg. The next question is what kind of fields are being used. Using a P-38L as an example (because I could get the chart easy) which is both heavier and has more power the take off distance changes by 300 ft on a hard runway with an increase of 2000lbs but changes by 500 ft on a soft runway. That is at 32 degrees F, add 10% for every 20 degrees F above freezing. take off on soft runway at 60 degrees F at 19,400lbs (middle line on the chart) is almost 2400ft. take off on hard runway at 17,400lbs is 1300ft at same temp. 

The early DB engines are no more a high altitude engine than a 1940-41 Allison was. Was gives the early DB engine the _reputation_ of a high altitude engine was that it was installed in a 2700-3000 KG fighter instead of a 3400-3600kg fighter. _IF_ the DB 601N powered fighter weighs 5600 kg it will have the same power to weight ratio as a 109F-2 with a slightly higher wing loading. Using DB 601A type engines even if the plane is several hundred KG lighter doesn't improve things. 

_SAVING_ money buy building "lighter" Fw 187s (There is only about 1600lbs difference in empty weight between a Jumo powered FW 187 and a Bf 110C wigh DB 601s) kind of goes out the window when you replace the 11,220lb empty weight Bf 110G night fighter with a 19,973lb empty Ju 88C night fighter. While cost to build is not directly linked to airframe weight is was close enough that it was used for many 'quick' comparisons.


----------



## DonL (Oct 23, 2013)

You can estimate the weight increase of several FW 187 from Jumo 210 to DB 601 A,DB 601aa DB 601N and DB 601E very specific, because you have exact data's of the weight increase of the Bf 110 from Jumo 210 to several DB 601 engines. This not very difficult to estimate to + - 50kg.

Also with this weight increase and comperative data's of the Bf 110, you can very exact calculate the range of different versions of the FW 187 and more important the speed increase. The numbers of the Bf 109 with several DB 601 are also a good indication for the speed increase.

To my opinion only a two seater destroyer version makes sense from 1939 to 1942, with the problems of the Bf 109G and the high altitude problematic, beginning with the Spitfire IX and P-47, single seater fighter versions would come to focus.

The FW 187 can only be put in production instead of the Bf 110 and the Me 210.

Also I'm not convinced that the FW 187 couldn't be an adequate nightfighter 1941, 142, 1943, I have written enough in this Forum to this issue.
The claim from stona is obviously wrong, that the FW 187 couldn't be a nightfighter, in his book Dietmar Hermann provide enough sources to prove the opposite.

Edit:

An other point is, that the FW 187C was very heayily armoured, much more then the early Bf 110 C,D or F destroyers and much more then any P 38


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2013)

Why do you want to build a two seat zerstorer version? I think the potential strength of the Fw 187 lay in a role as a single seat fighter, something like the Westland Whirlwind, but better. Adding extra seat(s) and rearward facing armament and all the other bits in the zerstorer specification(s) simply detracted from this.
The only problem is manoeuvrability when faced with nimble single engine types, but properly used it might have worked.

The Fw 187 would not make a night fighter because it was too small and that was also the conclusion of the RLM. We don't have any reliable data about the potential performance of such a version anyway.
For the same reason I don't believe it would have made a better bomber destroyer than other twin engine types tried in that role. Bolting on a battery of heavy weapons would again compromise the best qualities of the aeroplane, just as it did with every other type on which this was tried.

My point about the Fw 190 is that it made a very good fighter bomber, something comparable to the Typhoon or Thunderbolt. I can't see the Fw 187 in that role, armoured or not.

Unfortunately since the type was never tried and tested in any of these roles we can never know one way or the other. Any argument is entirely theoretical and the Fw 187 might have proved adept in some unexpected role and hopeless in one where it might be expected to excel. It wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> We have a problem with the "modest" weight. The Jumo powered versions went 4900-5000kg clean. No argument there. We have no weight figures for a BD 601 powered version. The data for the proposed DB 605 powered version has a weight of 7200KG clean and a proposed high altitude variant with single seat and two 20mm MG 151s and two MG 131s was 6000kg.
> The next question is what kind of fields are being used. Using a P-38L as an example (because I could get the chart easy) which is both heavier and has more power the take off distance changes by 300 ft on a hard runway with an increase of 2000lbs but changes by 500 ft on a soft runway. That is at 32 degrees F, add 10% for every 20 degrees F above freezing. take off on soft runway at 60 degrees F at 19,400lbs (middle line on the chart) is almost 2400ft. take off on hard runway at 17,400lbs is 1300ft at same temp.


I do agree that we should have better data available, re. weight of the DB-Falke, in order to do some estimates. The P-38J weighted 17000 lbs (~7720 kg )with full ammo and internal fuel, no drop tanks. The Falke was slightly smaller and was not carrying turbos, so it would be reasonable to estimate the weight of the DB-601 version at 6000 kg, loaded, clean?
FWIW, the P-38F was able to take off with two dummy torpedoes - 3500 lbs worth? 



> The early DB engines are no more a high altitude engine than a 1940-41 Allison was. Was gives the early DB engine the _reputation_ of a high altitude engine was that it was installed in a 2700-3000 KG fighter instead of a 3400-3600kg fighter. _IF_ the DB 601N powered fighter weighs 5600 kg it will have the same power to weight ratio as a 109F-2 with a slightly higher wing loading. Using DB 601A type engines even if the plane is several hundred KG lighter doesn't improve things.



I was not referring to the 601A as a high altitude engine, and certainly don't agree with such reputation if it exists. I was referring to Steve's estimate: "High altitude interceptor?......Possibly with substantial modification." - installation of newer versions of the DB-601/605 engines as they become available does not require substantial modifications of the basic airframe stressed for the DB-601A. 



> _SAVING_ money buy building "lighter" Fw 187s (There is only about 1600lbs difference in empty weight between a Jumo powered FW 187 and a Bf 110C wigh DB 601s) kind of goes out the window when you replace the 11,220lb empty weight Bf 110G night fighter with a 19,973lb empty Ju 88C night fighter. While cost to build is not directly linked to airframe weight is was close enough that it was used for many 'quick' comparisons.



You can see in the post you've quoted that Me-210 saga is very unlikely to happen, that means also the Me-410 is deleted. Further savings are due to the less losses of the better performer (DB Falke vs. Bf-110), LW and RA loses less bombers when attacking Malta and Med convoys, LW looses less (far less?) Ju-52s while trying to reinforce Afica Corps due to the escort provided. Less LW bombers lost means the losses in crews are smaller, while the damage inflicted to the Allies is greater. During Op Pedestal, RN loses two CVs (instead of one); tanker Ohio does not make it to Malta?
The number of engines for Ju-88 instead of Me-210 night fighters remains the same, as well as number of electronics sets required, so the price per night fighter produced should be just a tad greater.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 24, 2013)

Not sure if this is valid but the equally slim DH.103 Hornet could successfully be made into a nightfighter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2013)

It depends on how much rearranging you want to do and what the RLM felt was necessary for room. They didn't think the cockpit in the He 219 was big enough. Slim is a relative term. even 6in in width can mean a difference.

FW 187 cockpit. 






5-6 engine gauges were mounted on each nacelle because there is no room in the cockpit. Radio on two seaters was mounted on the rear wall of the cockpit. space between pilot and radio operator was filled with ammo bins for the machineguns. 






The Hornet night fighter didn't show up until 1948/49, the radar operator was positioned at the trailing edge of the wing and the radar unit was a development of a war time unit. Space and weight may have been lower than a German mid war unit?


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2013)

The engine instruments were moved to the nacelles when the side consoles became necessary. These were installed to reduce the height at the top of the instrument panel in order to allow what passed in WW2 for acceptable visibility forwards. It was impossible to lower the entire panel and fit in the pilot's legs.
It's not me that thinks arbitrarily that there is not enough room for night fighter equipment, it was the reason given for not developing the Fw 187 as such at the time.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## spicmart (Oct 24, 2013)

Lengthening the cockpit might give room for all engine gauges?


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Lengthening the cockpit might give room for all engine gauges?



The engine gauges on the nacelles was not a solution unique to the Fw 187. 
The lack of room was more in the rear cockpit. This had been squeezed into what was originally a single seater at the behest of the RLM. The rear cockpit was so small that the defensive armament, a specification of zerstorer aircraft, proved very difficult to fit (I can't check which if any versions actually got it at the moment), let alone all the equipment needed to outfit a night fighter.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> I do agree that we should have better data available, re. weight of the DB-Falke, in order to do some estimates. The P-38J weighted 17000 lbs (~7720 kg )with full ammo and internal fuel, no drop tanks. The Falke was slightly smaller and was not carrying turbos, so it would be reasonable to estimate the weight of the DB-601 version at 6000 kg, loaded, clean?
> FWIW, the P-38F was able to take off with two dummy torpedoes - 3500 lbs worth?



The question is what was the Luftwaffe field requirement? not if plane XX can get of the ground with load YY given an unlimited runway. Can the Bf 110 operate from a shorter air strip carrying the same load? As an extreme example some might say the US wasted money building B-25 (or other twin engine bombers) because the P-38 could carry 3200lbs of bombs (or more?). It over looks the facts that the P-38 could carry only _two_ bombs. It overlooks the fact that the 3200lb load was the 1600lb armor piercing bombs that carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb and it over looks the fact that even with a pair of 1600lbs a late model P-38 was credited with a combat radius of 250 miles at 10,000ft.
SO there were quite a number of medium bomber missions the P-38 could NOT do. 

Perhaps the lower drag of the Fw 187 does permit the same radius of action with the same bomb-load as the Bf 110 using the same engines, perhaps it doesn't? 






> I was not referring to the 601A as a high altitude engine, and certainly don't agree with such reputation if it exists. I was referring to Steve's estimate: "High altitude interceptor?......Possibly with substantial modification." - installation of newer versions of the DB-601/605 engines as they become available does not require substantial modifications of the basic airframe stressed for the DB-601A.



The Fw 187 due to it's smaller size would make a better high altitude fighter than the Bf 110 using the same engines but to be a truly high altitude fighter requires the big supercharger DB 605 engines at the very least. High altitude performance is going to be marginally better than a 109 with the same engine once you get passed "E" series. FW 187 was a lot cleaner than the Jumo 210 powered 109s and 'E's but once the 'F's show up the performance difference becomes a lot smaller. The Proposed "high altitude" Fw 187 had around 1000-1200kg of second crewman, armament and other stuff taken out. I would say cutting 16% from weight of a clean fighter is a substantial modification (cut 1500lbs from a clean Mustang D?)





tomo pauk said:


> You can see in the post you've quoted that Me-210 saga is very unlikely to happen, that means also the Me-410 is deleted. Further savings are due to the less losses of the better performer (DB Falke vs. Bf-110), LW and RA loses less bombers when attacking Malta and Med convoys, LW looses less (far less?) Ju-52s while trying to reinforce Afica Corps due to the escort provided. Less LW bombers lost means the losses in crews are smaller, while the damage inflicted to the Allies is greater. During Op Pedestal, RN loses two CVs (instead of one); tanker Ohio does not make it to Malta?
> The number of engines for Ju-88 instead of Me-210 night fighters remains the same, as well as number of electronics sets required, so the price per night fighter produced should be just a tad greater.



The Me 210/410 saga also shows what can happen. Do they want a fast bomber with enclosed bomb-bay or a fighter? The fighter can lift the same amount of bombs from the same runway but the higher drag of external bombs cuts into range. But the weight/volume of the bomb bay cut into performance as a fighter. The adaptation of the rearward firing 13mm mgs didn't do much for it either.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The question is what was the Luftwaffe field requirement? not if plane XX can get of the ground with load YY given an unlimited runway. Can the Bf 110 operate from a shorter air strip carrying the same load? As an extreme example some might say the US wasted money building B-25 (or other twin engine bombers) because the P-38 could carry 3200lbs of bombs (or more?). It over looks the facts that the P-38 could carry only _two_ bombs. It overlooks the fact that the 3200lb load was the 1600lb armor piercing bombs that carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb and it over looks the fact that even with a pair of 1600lbs a late model P-38 was credited with a combat radius of 250 miles at 10,000ft.
> SO there were quite a number of medium bomber missions the P-38 could NOT do.
> Perhaps the lower drag of the Fw 187 does permit the same radius of action with the same bomb-load as the Bf 110 using the same engines, perhaps it doesn't?


 
Nowhere in this thread the Fw-187 "DB"was suggested as a replacement for a fully fledged bomber, rather it was compared with bomb-carrying Fw-190 and Bf-110. Both of them were erstwhile fighters that were modified into bomb-carriers. 



> The Fw 187 due to it's smaller size would make a better high altitude fighter than the Bf 110 using the same engines but to be a truly high altitude fighter requires the big supercharger DB 605 engines at the very least. High altitude performance is going to be marginally better than a 109 with the same engine once you get passed "E" series. FW 187 was a lot cleaner than the Jumo 210 powered 109s and 'E's but once the 'F's show up the performance difference becomes a lot smaller.



A role of high-altitude fighter have had a lot to do with intended target - the B-17/24. So our high altitude fighter need a good punch, and there both 109 and 190 have their set of problems. A Fw-190 carrying 4 cannons is a bad performer above 20-25000 ft; a Bf-109 with 3 cannons is a worse performer than one with 1 cannon. If the outer pair of cannons is not carried, the bomb-killing ability is much reduced.
The DB Falke can lug around 4 cannons and still perform above 20-25000 ft.



> The Proposed "high altitude" Fw 187 had around 1000-1200kg of second crewman, armament and other stuff taken out. I would say cutting 16% from weight of a clean fighter is a substantial modification (cut 1500lbs from a clean Mustang D?).



The Falke have had something to cut from those 16%, unlike the Mustang (assuming both planes are left with fuel untouched). A substantial modification of P-51D was P-51H, and there was maybe 10% of common parts within the two, like radio, guns and instruments.




> The Me 210/410 saga also shows what can happen. Do they want a fast bomber with enclosed bomb-bay or a fighter? The fighter can lift the same amount of bombs from the same runway but the higher drag of external bombs cuts into range. But the weight/volume of the bomb bay cut into performance as a fighter. The adaptation of the rearward firing 13mm mgs didn't do much for it either.



Agreed completely. The RLM should've went for a world-beater single seat fighter, in case of the Fw-187.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

stona said:


> Why do you want to build a two seat zerstorer version? I think the potential strength of the Fw 187 lay in a role as a single seat fighter, something like the Westland Whirlwind, but better. Adding extra seat(s) and rearward facing armament and all the other bits in the zerstorer specification(s) simply detracted from this.
> The only problem is manoeuvrability when faced with nimble single engine types, but properly used it might have worked.
> 
> The Fw 187 would not make a night fighter because it was too small and that was also the conclusion of the RLM. We don't have any reliable data about the potential performance of such a version anyway.
> ...



Simply the FW 187 could only go in production instead of the Bf 110/210/410.
I agree that the advantages of the FW 187 were at fighting and not so much as a heavy destroyer, but Germany was in need of an all or bad weather fighter, which requires a second seat. Also the FW 187 have to do the same dutys as the Bf 110, especially at Norway, Bay of Biscaya and the Mediterranean , which also requires a second seat. Rearward facing armament wasn't at any time necessary, with the speed of the Fw 187, same as the Mossie.

The advantage of the FW 187 was it's multi role character, it has the possibility to be developed as heavy fighter/destroyer (two seater) and also as a single seater high performance fighter with the same basic a/c. It offers much more variability then any Messerschmitt counterpart, because she had much more payload then the single seater Bf 109 and Fw 190 and could carry 4 x 151 guns as high performance single seater fighter.

The equippment of the FW 187 V4 was absolutely the same then the Bf 110 C4, as you can see this at the rear cockpit at page 60!
Also till summer autum 1942, as the first german nightfighters were euipped with onboard radar, a FW 187 could do by all means the nightfighter role.


----------



## davebender (Oct 24, 2013)

I don't have much use for Me-110. However the Daimler-Benz engine shortage was created by RLM mismanagement. Just as RLM created the Fw-187 shortage which cost Germany dearly during the Battle of Britain.

Late 1930s Germany had the option to build DB601 engines on same scale as Jumo 211 engine. Then any European aircraft manufacturer (including Hungary, Sweden, Italy etc.) could acquire DB601 engines simply by writing a check to Daimler-Benz.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2013)

davebender said:


> Late 1930s Germany had the option to build DB601 engines on same scale as Jumo 211 engine. Then any European aircraft manufacturer (including Hungary, Sweden, Italy etc.) could acquire DB601 engines simply by writing a check to Daimler-Benz.



Not this tired, and at this point, crumbly chestnut again. The Germans were NOT trying to export the DB 601 series of engines to just anybody. It was a military secret. The engine displayed at the Paris airshow in Dec 1938 was the DB 600 with carburetor while the Jumo 211 had fuel injection. 

Did BD not get funding because they weren't delivering on the promises on time or were they not delivering because they weren't getting funding? The Early DB 600 engines don't seem to be a rousing success. Throwing large scale funding at a troubled engine may result in success or it may be money down a rat hole. We know that DB pulled it out but what was know at the time?


----------



## stona (Oct 25, 2013)

DonL said:


> Also till summer autum 1942, as the first german nightfighters were euipped with onboard radar, a FW 187 could do by all means the nightfighter role.



From the minutes of an RLM Developmental Meeting, 8th August 1942.

"Topic: heavy fighter/high speed bomber/night fighter using one standard type.

......the Fw 187 does not have sufficient range and payload and, due to its cockpit design,_ is ruled out as a night fighter_."

My italics. 

The men, most importantly Milch who was present, who needed convincing were in that meeting. It was here that the axe effectively fell on any further development of the Fw 187. Whether they were right or wrong is another debate entirely. They gave their reasons. They definitely did not see the Fw 187 as capable of being a multi role aircraft (in modern terms).

As I said before, it is not me but the RLM/Luftwaffe who considered the Fw 187 to be unable to undertake the role of night fighter.

At the same meeting the Me 210 was preferred in other roles which due to the reasons above the RLM didn't think that the Fw187 could fulfil. The He 219 was the preferred night fighter, so in the end they settled on two types, not one anyway. Unfortunately for the Fw 187 it wasn't preferred in any of those roles.

Milch was the only one who preferred the Ju 188 over the He 219 on practical grounds as it could be built at existing facilities.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2013)

They used 109s and 190s as nightfighters, doesn't mean they were very good even if they did occasionally shoot down something. By summer of 1942 they were looking for planes they could put radar in.


----------



## stona (Oct 25, 2013)

And prior to that meeting I can find no evidence that the Fw 187 was ever considered as a night fighter. I can't find any evidence that Focke-Wulf promoted it in that role. Focke-Wulf tended to react to the RLM's ever changing requirements. Tank was a master of re-pitching his various designs in attempts to keep projects alive and secure government funding.

Once Udet replaced von Richthofen (Wolfram) the single seat version was effectively dead in the water. This was in 1936 if my memory serves me well.

I honestly believe that this is when the Fw187's best chance of being developed, _as a single seat, high performance fighter (in early war terms)_ was lost. In that role I think it would have been a good aeroplane. A game changer? I don't think so, but it would have caused some serious head aches for the RAF in 1940/41.

In 1942 it was once again rejected as a heavy fighter (successor of the zerstorer concept), fast bomber and night fighter. There was nothing left.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 25, 2013)

stona said:


> And prior to that meeting I can find no evidence that the Fw 187 was ever considered as a night fighter. I can't find any evidence that Focke-Wulf promoted it in that role. Focke-Wulf tended to react to the RLM's ever changing requirements. Tank was a master of re-pitching his various designs in attempts to keep projects alive and secure government funding.
> 
> Once Udet replaced von Richthofen (Wolfram) the single seat version was effectively dead in the water. This was in 1936 if my memory serves me well.
> 
> ...


So we come back to the classic Luftwaffe what if: Wever lives, so Udet doesn't replace Wimmer in the technical branch and Richthofen stays on in the Development office.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 25, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> So we come back to the classic Luftwaffe what if: Wever lives, so Udet doesn't replace Wimmer in the technical branch and Richthofen stays on in the Development office.



And it is a "what if". We can only go with the real decisions taken by the men and committees at the time. It was Udet who saw the Fw 187 as a potential replacement for the Bf 110 and that effectively killed any chance the Fw 187 had to show what a good aeroplane it might have been. Instead they got the Me 210! The only reason that the Fw 187 even features in discussions at the RLM in 1942 is because the Me 210 was such a disaster. Had the Me 210 worked we would never have heard of the Fw 187 after the beginning of the war, it would have gone the way of dozens of other failed or rejected projects.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Nov 10, 2013)

OK, I looked at the Fw 187 book by Dietmar Hermann and Peter Petrick. The authors make some outlandish claims without specific reference to Focke-Wulf documents. For instance, they quote some Fw documents and then say the V5 was always the plane slated for the DB engines, but never says that came from Fw documents. I think he makes some assumptions the same as the other authors, claims to have genuine Focke-Wulf documents to back him up … but we don’t get to see them, just translations. They say in the chapter on the Fw 187 B that the specification remains missing, yet produced a specification a few pages later for the DB-powered Kampfzerstorer without any references to Fw documents, and then proceeds to produce specifications for a DB 605-powered version when the specs for the DB 601 units remain missing! They show a supposed Fw document on page 125, but there is no document marking. I could have drawn it, as far as the reproduction shows.

I like the book, but hardly think it should be taken as seriously as indicated in here by some. There’s just too much speculation with not a shred of evidence traceable to anything.

Back in the 1930’s many aviation manufacturers experimented with evaporative cooling systems. One such was the surface evaporative type that used the surface of the plane’s fuselage, wings, and pontoons to mount a thin, streamlined condenser or radiator. It’s purpose was to turn the vapor back into liquid and to cool the liquid after doing so. The experiments with evaporative cooling ended about 1940 and EVERYONE decided the system was too complex, not tolerant of any battle damage, and was never perfected. It was tough to keep it working even without hard service, much less combat and field conditions.

The Fw 187 also used an evaporative cooling system, but it wasn’t a surface evaporative system. Instead they developed a complex and finicky set of evaporators that were below the cylinder banks and also wrapped around the nose case. The condenser was not the surface type, but was a normal condenser coupled with what they called a steam separator. The steam separator used a spinning setup to hurl the water outward and vent the setan toward a central pipe, but it was still part of an evaporative cooling system. There is NO system which employs steam that is NOT evaporative. The evaporation comes in when the steam is produced and the condensing happens when the water is condensed from and separated from the steam.

There was NO further effort expended on the system after 1940. And we are left to our own conclusions. Mine are as follows:

The system was too complex for field employment, too delicate for combat, didn’t quite work as described, or was simply out of favor with the RLM. It really doesn’t matter which it was, one of them is true. They made at least one Messerschmitt Bf 110 with the Fw 187’s evaporative cooling system and had its performance to compare with the normal liquid-only radiator system employed in the same aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. Either the Bf 110 trial evaporative system wasn’t quite right, wasn’t considered rugged enough, or worked OK but couldn’t handle any battle damage. Other wised they would have adopted it if it proved superior to existing technology. This was, after all, war and results are what mattered … assuming the politics could be overcome. Perhaps it WAS politics, said above as “out of favor with the RLM.” In any case, evaporative cooling was not pursued in many further Luftwaffe aircraft, and there was SOME REASON for that.

So I stand by what I said earlier on the cooling system except for the “surface” part.

It was evaporative. As for the speed, I really don’t care if the speeds were 10 – 12 mph different, top speed isn’t really relevant in combat except in a dive anyway. Top speed is largely reserved for emergencies, like when you will probably die if you don’t escape. This is not just MY opinion, but is the opinion shared by MANY WWII combat pilots including some from Germany, the UK, and Japan. So I have some very good company in that opinion, including modern fighter pilots as well. Granted there were a few who DID employ top speed … but it was almost universally employed to escape, not to attack.

The documents shown for the V2 show a top speed of 311 mph (page 28_). The comparison between the Fw 187 V1 and the Westland Whirlwind also show a max speed of 311 mph (501 km/h) and do not represent official documents of any sort … they are typed in. The chapter on the Fw 187 V4 / A-0 show a maximum speed of 545 km/h (339 mph) at 4,000 m, and are slower at both lower and higher altitudes. No surprise there as all aircraft have an optimum altitude. There are a couple of pages where the author says Fw tried to make the Fw 187 inot a dive bomber, but no DB-powered drawing survives, The only surviving drawing shows a radial-powered machine and there are some specifications given with no reference to any surviving documentation. The speed shown is higher than the fighter version at 605 km/h (376 mph) at 6,000 m, but there is no indication if these data refer to the radial-powered unit or the DB-powered unit and no reference to Fw data at all.

There is a whole chapter on a comparison among the new DB 605-powered Fw 187, the Me 2110C-4, and the Bf 110 despite the fact that no DB 605-powered Fw 187 ever flew. This is speculation. The next few pages detail the performance of the DB 605-powered Fw 187 despite the fact that none were ever built and flown. There is ONE Fw drawing in this area that shows the proposed location of bombs, but nothing on performance.

From my perspective, this book is more speculative than the internet text I have read about the aircraft, but has some wonderful pics of the machine. I would not consider this book to be an authoritative source for information on the Fw 187. It is more of a collection if really good pics coupled with SOME data and a lot of speculation.

In my earlier posts, I expressed surprise this neat aircraft was not proceeded with and I remain surprised by that fact. On the surface, it looks as if the Fw 187 had better potential than the Bf 110 / Me 210 / 410 to me. Whether or not this would have been true is speculation that I would not care to get into.

Good library addition, but hardly a "reference." Your opinion may vary, and that is OK. I won't disagree with you but also won't believe or concur with any conclusions based on this book until and unless the primary source data surfaces.

VERY neat pics!


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

You should look at page 158 and 159 there is an exact list of references and all this references are *primary german sources*.

If this documents are for you only speculations and no reference, it shows much of your biases.
Be aware I will challenge you if you are doing unsubstained claims, only why you are thinking an author is doing speculation, because the provided document are for *you* no references, instead they are german primary sources from FW, Daimler Benz and the RLM.

Also at the book is explicit mentioned, that the original specification of the FW 187 A (with Jumo 210) and the original specification of the FW 187 C (DB 605) are at the the FW archive and base of the book, only the original specification of tHe FW 187 B (DB 601) is missing. 

Your post is to me incomprehensible and nothing more then bias!
In your world are obviously only counting your personal opinion and allied documents.


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

DonL said:


> Also at the book is explicit mentioned, that the original specification of the FW 187 A (with Jumo 210) and the original specification of the FW 187 C (DB 605) are at the the FW archive and base of the book.



So what?
Here's a document from Messerschmitt.






The Li P 10 has a surviving specification. With two DB 603 engines it had a maximum speed of 682 kph, a ceiling of 12,100 m and a range of 2,480 km. It's about as relevant as a DB 605 powered Fw 187 because it never existed either!

Steve

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

Live in your own world stona!

The FW 187 existed, the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 was flying and the DB 605 engine, which was the calculated base of the FW 187 C was a *production* engine.
Your arguments are nothing more then biases and excuses and I'm realy tired to show you, your false technical argumentaion, which are obviously bisased .
A paper project with paper projected engines, is fundemental different to real flying a/c's and production engines, where you have hard proved datas from testflights.


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

A DB 605 powered Fw 187 did not exist.

A DB 603 powered Li P 10 did not exist either.

Anybody can write specifications, as Messerschmitt did for their fictional adaptation of the Me 210 by Lippisch. It's just as relevant or official as anything Focke-Wulf wrote for their fictional version of the Fw 187.

PERIOD

Steve

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

Thanks stona for this post,

because it shows obviously your motivation and the ignoring of facts.

1. The FW 187 C was *officially ordered* from the RLM
2. The reconstruction of the FW 187 V5 was on the way
3. Dummy was built
4. 26.400 engineer hours were invested in the project
5. The FW 187 C specifications was *official* and send to the RLM not any company intern project.
6. All the datas of the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 engines was there for comparison (center of gravity, weights, spaces etc.)

At every german engineer school or university, they would realy laugh about you to compare these two projects and come to the same conclusion.
I'm realy thankful for your post, because it shows so obvious your biases.

Edit:

By the way.

Did the Bf 109 *G*, Bf 110 *G* and the Ju 88 *G6* existed, before their official specification were promoted to the RLM?
No not any of this a/c's existed before the official specification, but the official specification were basing on real a/c's, just as the FW 187 and not some Paper design as the A DB 603 powered Li P 10.

Your argumentations are ridiculous.


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

whether the RLM ordered an aircraft is not relevant. 

We are talking about a projected performance of an aircraft that never flew in both cases. 

Messerschmitt would have used data from the Me 210 and calculations from Lippisch to ESTIMATE the performance of the Li P 10.

Focke Wulf would have used data from earlier Fw 187 prototypes and data frm Daimler Benz to ESTIMATE the performance of the DB 605 powered version.

Both sets of data are preserved in your beloved "primary sources", whether you like it or not.

You cannot take estimated data as proven performance for any aircraft at any time. That really is ridiculous.

I have one question which simply needs a yes or no answer.

Did a DB 605 powered Fw 187 ever exist?

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

We are here on technical board and not in your privat court room!

Development of aircrafts isn't a simple yes or no answer, the technical aspects or much more complex and you are not able to argument with technical facts at the issue FW 187, because you have not any counter technical arguments on hand. Only your ridiculous yes and no questions and not comparable paper projects.

And yes a DB 605 powered FW 187 existed, the FW 187 V8, which was the reconstructed FW 187 V5, but it wasn't finished.



> We are talking about a projected performance of an aircraft that never flew in both cases.
> 
> Messerschmitt would have used data from the Me 210 and calculations from Lippisch to ESTIMATE the performance of the Li P 10.
> 
> ...



Ah and the DB 603 high altitude engine was a production engine? With proved several test flights and proved performance?
Also there was ever an equal a/c of the Li P 10, that had many test flights, as the FW 187 V5 (with DB engines) to the FW 187 C?
To compare this two projects is rediculous!


----------



## davebender (Nov 11, 2013)

Jumo 210 production ended during 1938. Jumo 211 replaced it on Junkers production lines. So Fw-187 prototype powered by Jumo 210 is nothing more then a historical footnote. It had zero chance for mass production.

Jumo 211 powered Fw-187 was possible as plenty of engines were available. Not my first choice but there were three Jumo 211 engine plants vs one DB601 engine plant. Path of least resistance.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 11, 2013)

If you have an aircraft flying and properly tested/measured it's very much possible to recalculate the gained data for a different engine and/or weight increases.
Calculated data for paper projects is more guessing based on some given theoretical parameters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

Denniss said:


> If you have an aircraft flying and properly tested/measured it's very much possible to recalculate the gained data for a different engine and/or weight increases.
> Calculated data for paper projects is more guessing based on some given theoretical parameters.



Yes , but extrapolating prototype data to a production aircraft is fraught with problems.

K 5054 managed 349 mph at about 18,000ft in the hands of Supermarine pilots before being sent of for official trials. This was close enough for Mitchell's hoped for 350 mph, but less than some calculations. After initial level tests in March 1936 Mitchell said that he was "very disappointed with the results, which are a lot slower than I had hoped for." I am sure that Mitchell based those hopes on calculations done by the Supermarine team. 

The results certainly do not represent the performance of a fully armed and armoured Spitfire with the same engine, propeller and fuel.

Mitchell's words should be a caveat for anyone transferring estimated data based on data obtained from a specialist prototype. Suggesting that it is representative of an aircraft configured as a service version is not credible. 

How many DB 603 engines were built? I don't believe anyone knows for sure, but it powered a lot of different aircraft.

Anyway we are going over the same argument again and again. DonL is entitled to his view that the Fw 187 was a potential world beating aeroplane based on theoretical and extrapolated data. 

I am entitled to be a little more sceptical given that only a few were ever built, none flew with DB 605s and only one or two specialised prototypes flew with DB 601s (can't be arsed to check) and because, despite repeated efforts, it was rejected time and again by the RLM for a variety of reasons. Those reasons must have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

> Anyway we are going over the same argument again and again. DonL is entitled to his view that the Fw 187 was a potential world beating aeroplane based on theoretical and extrapolated data.



I'm entitled to my view that the Fw 187 was a potential very advanced aeroplane, which was much much better then the Bf 110 andf 210, based on *hard proved datas* of pre production aircrafts which were fully armed and armoured and flew for four years and the FW 187 V5 prototype and extrapolated datas.




> it was rejected time and again by the RLM for a variety of reasons. Those reasons must have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.



For example the Bofors 40mm was also rejected from 1936-1944 for the 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30, those reasons must also have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2013)

Hi DonL,

The pages you referenced are a bibliography, not references included in the text. I can't find any of them online and have no access via library, etc. All written in the book might be substantiated and might not be, I can't tell. That's why I said what I said. If you choose to believe each and every word, that's OK.

They still built only a few and had zero impact on the war. Had they been built in numbers, that might have changed, but the evaporative cooling system might also have been the Achilles heel of the aircraft in the field. I tend to believe that to be a viable combat aircraft, it would have had to employ a conventional radiator, making it fast for a twin but not quite as fast as the unit with the evaporative cooling system.

Still, it might have been a good addition to the Luftwaffe's stable and almost certainly better than the Me 210 / 410. I have no problem with the Bf 110, it was a good plane if not quite an able fighter compared with the single engine units.

The DB 605 version of the Fw 187 was under construction when it was ordered halted according to the book you set such store by. It was never finished, never tested, and it's fate was to be scrapped in December 1942. Hardly a rousing statement for the potential qualities of the aircraft, but I acknowledge that it could have been a good one if things had worked out. The real-world events are hardly indicative of a world-beating thoroughbred but some unrealized potential is clearly there.

I can't say what might have been, but know what happened regarding this aircraft. It was ignored by the German military as was the He 100, another "might have been." Why is a question for posterity. Both might have simply not been the plane of choice of the people making the decisions ... killed by the politics of personal choice. Whatever the real reason, it makes for an interesting study of an obscure aircraft, and obscure aircraft are a hobby of mine.

And what the heck does a Bofors 40 mm have to do with the Fw 187?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 11, 2013)

DonL said:


> 1. The FW 187 C was *officially ordered* from the RLM



Covered by Stona. Ordered and then cancelled/




DonL said:


> 2. The reconstruction of the FW 187 V5 was on the way



Yes, being undertaken but not complete.




DonL said:


> 3. Dummy was built



A mock-up of the Supermarine Type 327 was built. Should its projected performance be compared to teh Fw 187C's?




DonL said:


> 5. The FW 187 C specifications was *official* and send to the RLM not any company intern project.



Right - so including estimated weights, performance and armament, but no test data.




DonL said:


> 6. All the datas of the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 engines was there for comparison (center of gravity, weights, spaces etc.)



The Fw 187C was to use a different cooling system with radiators similar to the Me 210. This alone has the potential to throw off the estimates.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 11, 2013)

stona said:


> The engine gauges on the nacelles was not a solution unique to the Fw 187.
> The lack of room was more in the rear cockpit. This had been squeezed into what was originally a single seater at the behest of the RLM. The rear cockpit was so small that the defensive armament, a specification of zerstorer aircraft, proved very difficult to fit (I can't check which if any versions actually got it at the moment), let alone all the equipment needed to outfit a night fighter.
> Cheers
> Steve



I've often wondered about the wisdom of placing the engine instruments on the engine cowlings: for one thing they're out of the pilot's direct line of sight and have to be scanned by moving the head through a large arc; secondly adverse visibility ( eg; fogged up canopy) or low light conditions must have made it next to impossible to scan the instruments - how would it have fared as a nightfighter had the engine instruments stayed on the cowlings?


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

The FW 187 A0 had the approval as bad weather fighter and the approval to blind flight.


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2013)

Might not be a good idea to shine a flashlight on the cowling at night to see the instruments, but what other choice would the pilot have except to ignore them? 
Remote mounting of engine instruments is surely an idea worth ignoring! That alone makes me wonder less why the aircraft was cancelled. Knowing the state of your engines is second only to staying alive in a WWII combat aircraft. Well, maybe knowing the fuel state is ALSO right up there, too, huh?

If the front fuselage had been made bigger to accommodate all the instruments, how would performance have been affected? Coupled with the evaporative cooling system, it is yet another oddity on this aircraft that maybe could have been overcome but never got the chance.

I like the looks and the potential performance, but it was cancelled for a reason or reasons. Perhaps it was just a case of yet another potentially good aircraft that was simply not ordered into production. It happened to a lot of potentially very good aircraft. We never bought the F-20 Tigershark either and probably SHOULD have. Maybe the Germans SHOULD have built the Fw 187, and simply just didn't do so.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 11, 2013)

I would think those outside instruments would have their own lights, just like any other aircraft . But I wonder just how well you'd be able to see them at night as they seem to be right over the exhaust stacks .

The only blind flying I've ever done was in a link trainer. It would surely make blind flying a great deal more difficult having to keep those engine instruments in your scan.

I was told by a instructor that rapid, large head movements could induce vertigo.


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

double post


----------



## DonL (Nov 11, 2013)

> And what the heck does a Bofors 40 mm have to do with the Fw 187?



That the best approved (from all historians and experts) midrange and middle caliber Flak of the whole WWII was rejected from german decision-makers for the average to worst 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30.


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2013)

We stuck with the 50-caliber machine gun for the entire war despite better 20 mm cannons being available, so you weren't the only ones to make bad gun decisions!

We also didn't buy the Republic XP-72 when it was clearly superior to much in the world at the time, so the Fw 187 is not alone in being rejected when it probably would have been a good acquisition. Of course, we probably don't have all the information the people during WWII had with which to make their decisions.

I find second guessing the decisions is fraught with arguments that can never be truly answered since we have no opportunuity to go back and try again, but some decisions ARE hard to understand.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2013)

It may be a good thing that the Army didn't buy the XP-72. The P W R-4360 may have offered good performance and may have been reliable in service (from the no major break downs, in flight fires, catastrophic failures stand point) but it was a maintenance hog of the first order, at least for a number of years in the early versions. Perhaps durable is a better word than reliable. It was a primary reason for the development of engine analyzers. It was hard to actually break the thing but there were a vast number of small things that could go wrong. Find the bad spark-plug out of 56


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2013)

Funny you should mention that. I know a couple of old R-4360 crew chiefs and thay say it can be a nightmare or it can be easy, and there is no way to tell which type of problem you are dealing with until you are well into it.

Perhaps it IS just as well we didn't acquire the XP-72 ... wish we had a gaggle of Skyraiders about 1945, though.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2013)

DonL said:


> Thanks stona for this post,
> 
> because it shows obviously your motivation and the ignoring of facts.
> 
> ...


Show me your data sources.


----------



## DonL (Nov 13, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Show me your data sources.



What do you want from me?

I have told in this forum more then a hundred times that my source of the FW 187 is:

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History: Amazon.de: Dietmar Harmann: Englische Bücher

Dietmar Harmann is a very well known and expected author in Germany, who is known for his very good connections to Focker Wulf and it's historical Archive, also he is expected for his very sophisticated research and the providing of primary sources.

He has written countless very expected books about FW a/c's


----------



## GregP (Nov 14, 2013)

The book I have lists a bibliography only, but shows no primary source data, and I can't FIND it when I search for it anywhere as yet. So, he might be entirely correct or he might be telling it his way.

I can't say and, from the book I have, nobody CAN.

You say he is respected and I don't doubt it, DonL, but will reserve my own final judgement until I can see some data that have Focke-Wulf period-correct notation and numbers that corroborate his text. Meanwhile, I am entertained by the text which is pretty good, if not shown to be correct by illustrated primary source data. If his primary source data are locatable and able to be viewed and prove his text, then maybe he is correct. Until then, I like the style and the pics, but am not convinced without some proof other than a bibliography with no illustrations with performance numbers and original doc scans.

If he has original Focke-Wulf data that cannot be shown publically, it is no good at all to me and not believable in the slightest.

Again, great pics of an obscure aircraft and that alone is worth the price of the book. I appreciate the tip on it and like the text, especially if I can find the reference material.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2013)

I assume you prefer a book with one thousand pages used to reprint all the Focke-Wulf<->RLM letters, calculations and data pages?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 14, 2013)

Denniss said:


> I assume you prefer a book with one thousand pages used to reprint all the Focke-Wulf<->RLM letters, calculations and data pages?



And the $1000 plus price for the book.

Dietmar Harmann is more respected and knowledgeable that the W Greens and H Nowarras you use Greg. 

You could contact the Bund. Archives and ask for the documents listed in the book.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 14, 2013)

In all honesty, knowledge doesn't come without a price.

I would much prefer to pay $100 (or more) for a comprehensive book full of factual information than spend $20 or so, on a book that fills in gaps of information with assumptions and conjecture.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2013)

Then I hope you did not buy a single book from Nowarra or Spielberger


----------



## Aozora (Nov 14, 2013)

Denniss said:


> Then I hope you did not buy a single book from Nowarra or Spielberger



If you're talking about Walter J Spielberger, what's the problem?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2013)

Nice books but too many "assumptions and conjecture" there, especially for production numbers and production series designations (Panzer III never exceeded 8./ZW while Spielberger had them at 11 or 12./ZW). III L was not a separate series but renamed III J with long gun, etc etc.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

man, this is a great discussion, but do we really need to go down the way of "my books better than your book"

We have a difference of opinion....thats where it is. End. So what that we dont agree


----------



## GregP (Nov 14, 2013)

The entire point of accurate history is accurate data. I think this IS a relevant discussion as far as the Focke-Wulf data go.

I have absolutely nothing against the Fw 187 book by Hermann and Petrick except inability to confirm sources in the bibliography. By all means, if DonL or Denniss know where these may be found, it would be interesting to acquire copies. While I don't read German, I have friends who DO, and the charts will still have the numbers in them.

These Focke-Wulf primary data ARE interesting to me amnd gistorically significant, but arguing about the relativer merits of two or more books on the same subject isn't, I agree. Once you can find some of the supposed reference data and find things to be wrong, you can make up your own mind about the books. Primary sources that corroborate are very nice to find.

I try to follow the scientific method. That is, I read about it from relaible sources if I can identify them, form a hypothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. If I can't after a reasonable effort, then maybe it is true. I might find things later that disprove it and might not, but finding real primary data is tough ... at least for me to date. Any I can get are good acquisitions.

Hearing things like "Nowarra is an unreliable author" does nothing for me unless the person making the statement has primary source data that show their contention to be true. Otherwise it could easily be simple personal bias. Not saying it IS in any particular case, even this one, but it could be until the primary source data confirming or refuting the statements are accessed.

Just my take on it ... but I'd not pass up a chance to get some real German primary source data from Focke-Wulf!


----------



## Kryten (Nov 15, 2013)

Bit of a weird discussion this, the FW187 was cancelled before it was accepted for service so spouting test results and calculations of development aircraft is pretty worthless, there is no way of knowing what would have been changed for the service aircraft once full armament/communications/testing/structural issues etc were incorporated, if the aircraft had insurmountable problems or if it would be re designed (thinking me 210), It was cancelled, that says it all really, if FW came in with a world beater be sure it would have been put into production, as it was it was obviously a flawed design!


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2013)

Kryten said:


> Bit of a weird discussion this, the FW187 was cancelled before it was accepted for service so spouting test results and calculations of development aircraft is pretty worthless, there is no way of knowing what would have been changed for the service aircraft once full armament/communications/testing/structural issues etc were incorporated, if the aircraft had insurmountable problems or if it would be re designed (thinking me 210), *It was cancelled, that says it all really, if FW came in with a world beater be sure it would have been put into production, as it was it was obviously a flawed design!*



The acceptance into series production does not really prove your point. Many aircraft experienced a whole bunch of significant problems when introduced, and it took plenty of time and resources to iron out the issues. Sometimes that was not even possible, talk Bread Ba.88 or Blackburn Botha. The somewhat less problematic examples were B-29, Typhoon (and it's engine), Fw-190 (much due to it's engine), Soviets have hard time to bring much of their crates to perform as respective prototypes, LaGG-3 was almost cancelled because the factory producing it was not up to the task. Early Me-210 (unstable due to to short a fuselage), He 177 (again mostly due to the engine - bad layout of exhausts). Japanese have had their own set of problems, again mostly due to the engines, and some of planes were unable to accept self sealing tanks without problems, once that was recognized as a need (Zero as prime example).

Of course, if you have proof that Fw-187 was a flawed design, then please post that.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 15, 2013)

you pretty much made my point for me, once all those issues are sorted there is no way of knowing what the performance of the aircraft will be, all aircraft gain weight complexity as they are developed, that's why I don't believe quoting prototype performance figures is a reliable source for a service aircraft!


As to it being flawed, the fact it was cancelled is pretty much all the evidence you need, if it was such a wonder plane they there's little doubt the people testing and evaluating it would have pushed for its production, the RM obviously considered there no cost/benefit to produce it, the evaporative cooling system is a seriously bad idea in a combat aircraft to start!


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

Whilst I agree absolutely with the first part of Kryten's post, it's more or less what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure that this means that the design was basically flawed.
I agree that the evaporative cooling system was problematic and may well not have been used on a final service aircraft (think Spitfire) and that this is just one of many, many factors, some unknown, which would have had an effect on the performance of a service type.
If the aircraft had a fatal flaw, in the eyes of the RLM, it was just too small to fulfil the multiple roles they were looking for in designs by 1941/2.
It's best chance, as an out and out twin engine fighter, was lost by a combination of the RLM's destroyer fixation and Udet. The Luftwaffe's experience with twins against the more agile single engine types of the RAF in 1939/40 may have influenced this.
_As a night fighter or fast bomber the Fw 187 was rightly rejected by the RLM_. There were good grounds for these decisions, they were not illogical or even idiotic as I have seen argued.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2013)

I did not proved your point, that being that Fw-187 was a flawed design. 
Germans themselves pushed forward many aircraft that belong to the category 'what were they thinking??', that easily implies that people that make decisions are not always right. The Mosquito was delayed couple of years, people at the Air Ministry thinkered some time that Spitfire is just a temporary solution, that turret fighter was a good idea, that Botha ought to be a fine torpedo bomber - and we now know that they were wrong at these particular issues (they were right most of the time). In the USA, it took time for the people to even fight test the Mustang, P-75 almost got produced, USAF almost failed to support V-1710 with resources, while many supposedly 'hi-per' engines were supported etc. It took time for the Soviets to really decide about series production of their finest war-time bomber (Tu-2), many air forces believed that biplane and/or highly maneuverable monoplane are the future, the French were sure (in 1939) that 100 of new fighters coming to them monthly is too much - again, the top brass made mistakes. 

The Fw-187 was not married to the evaporative cooling, combat-worthy airplanes carried conventional cooling system.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 15, 2013)

The RLM cancelled the project, they obviously felt the aircraft offered little benefit to them compared to it's cost/development time, there was obviously better alternatives available to fit their requirements!

Therein lies the flaw, it does not fit the requirements, the advocates of this aircraft are arguing it would have been some kind of super plane, RLM did not agree and saw little potential, and they knew far more about it than anyone here!


----------



## wuzak (Nov 15, 2013)

stona said:


> I agree that the evaporative cooling system was problematic and may well not have been used on a final service aircraft (think Spitfire) and that this is just one of many, many factors, some unknown, which would have had an effect on the performance of a service type.



Certainly the DB 605 version (the Fw 187C) would have ditched the evaporative cooling for conventional radiators. These would have been mounted between the nacelles and the fuselage, inside and beneath the inner wing - replacing a pair of wing tanks.


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

Kryten said:


> The RLM cancelled the project, they obviously felt the aircraft offered little benefit to them compared to it's cost/development time, there was obviously better alternatives available to fit their requirements!
> 
> Therein lies the flaw, it does not fit the requirements, the advocates of this aircraft are arguing it would have been some kind of super plane, RLM did not agree and saw little potential, and they knew far more about it than anyone here!



Again I agree but you are conflating two different arguments.

As a single seat twin engine day fighter the Fw 187 did have considerable potential. As soon as the RLM made it clear that it wanted an aircraft to a "zerstorer" specification Focke-Wulf, in an effort to win a lucrative contract, compromised their own design, adding the extra seat, rearward armament etc. 
The Fw 187 then became an inadvertent victim of the Me 210 debacle. The Me 210 was the preferred "zerstorer" and _should_ have been in service at about the same time the Fw187 _would_ have been had it won out.
_The only reason the Fw 187 is ever mentioned at the RLM as a contender in various roles after 1940 is because of the failure of the Me 210 _ This seems to give the aircraft's advocates completely unrealistic hopes for its adoption into service. On each occasion it was very firmly rejected.

After this you are again correct. The Fw 187 simply did not fit the RLM's requirements. The RLM itself gave perfectly good reasons why it was not suitable as a night fighter, fast bomber or heavy fighter (not as in the original Zerstorer, but aircraft carrying large calibre weapons). It was disqualified from a reconnaissance role by its inability to be adapted to the other roles as the RLM tried to rationalise production.

It was never going to be some kind of war winning wonder weapon, any more than the V-1 or V-2.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

THe FW 187 V4, which was flying and tested autumn 1938, challenged the Me 110 (*before* the Me 110 was put in mass production).
And from hard fact datas, test flights at Rechlin and comparations at Denmark, the FW 187 with Jumo 210 engines was even better then the Me 110 C1-4 with DB 601 engines.

The FW 187 concept (as twin seater) was a long range fighter and a "light" destroyer, always with the focus on *fighting* and the *direct opponent* was the Me 110, which was introduced at 1939 *mainly* as long range escort fighter.
The Me 210 and also the Ar 240 were both completely other aircraft concepts, with the focus on bombing, their fighter abilities were more or less nonexistent compare to the single seat fighters at 1941/42.

The philosophy of the FW 187 was always fighting with the possibility to do destroyer and reconnaissance missions and it was much better as the Me 110, which was exactly intoduced for that missions.

To call an a/c flawed which was flying for 4 years in compat missions and was at a training school and proved at it's service with underpowered engines, that it was as fast, much more agile and a better turner then the direct opponent Me 110 with the DB 601 engine is ridiculous.


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> The FW 187 concept (as twin seater) was a long range fighter and a "light" destroyer, always with the focus on *fighting* and the *direct opponent* was the Me 110, which was introduced at 1939 *mainly* as long range escort fighter.



Exactly. The difference is that the Me 110 proved itself a capable night fighter, decent ground attack aircraft (both in the BoB and later on the Eastern Front) and even day fighter (at least in the East) and adopted various other roles. It was one of the most versatile and successful aircraft of the war _on all sides_. It was still being produced in 1945, nearly four years after production had been scheduled to finish.

The Fw 187 may or may not have _proved_ a better twin engine fighter than the Bf 110, we will never know. I think it would have, but the Bf 110 is often under estimated due to its showing in the BoB as an escort fighter. 
What it could never have done was perform all the other roles that the Bf 110 undertook with considerable success. Lack of size and space (a criticism also levelled at the larger Bf 110) precluded its development in other roles.

By 1942 the RLM did not want a "light destroyer". It wanted heavily armed aircraft, initially as tank destroyers and then as bomber destroyers. This is when we increasingly seem the term "heavy fighter" used. It is also when the "fast bomber" concept is being tied to the same type as the heavy fighter. These were roles that the Fw 187, already ignored in a role where it had potential, could not perform.

By 1944 the Do 335 was being promoted as a multi role combat aircraft in a very modern sense. It was a solution that the RLM had been edging towards since at least 1942.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

stona said:


> Exactly. The difference is that the Me 110 proved itself a capable night fighter, decent ground attack aircraft (both in the BoB and later on the Eastern Front) and even day fighter (at least in the East) and adopted various other roles. It was one of the most versatile and successful aircraft of the war _on all sides_. It was still being produced in 1945, nearly four years after production had been scheduled to finish.
> 
> The Fw 187 may or may not have _proved_ a better twin engine fighter than the Bf 110, we will never know. I think it would have, but the Bf 110 is often under estimated due to its showing in the BoB as an escort fighter.
> *What it could never have done was perform all the other roles that the Bf 110 undertook with considerable success. Lack of size and space (a criticism also levelled at the larger Bf 110) precluded its development in other roles.*
> ...




From where comes your claims? Do you have proves? Was the FW 187 ever tested in this roles?
Your answer is nothing more then a claim!
The FW 187 A0 proved to be the better fighter as the Bf 110 and also proved to be a decent ground attack aircraft at Denmark.
We didn't know if it would be a successfull nightfighter!
FW engineers claimed that the FW 187 could fill the nightfighter role, so we didn't know.

The Bf 110 was produced until 1945, because the LW had after the rejection of the FW 187 1938/39 and 1942 no other possibilitys through the lack of engines, or the a/c's weren't production ready.
The success of the Bf 110 was average until 1942/43 after that she was clearly inferior in all roles.
Even the Ju 88 with BMW 801/Jumo 213 engines was better in *all* roles!


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> From where comes your claims? Do you have proves? Was the FW 187 ever tested in this roles?



I've already posted relevant sections of the minutes held at the offices of Generalluftzeugmeister, the RLM, Karinhall, Goering's train, Messerschmitt and I think Gothaer Waggonfabrik in this and other threads. I don't intend to justify myself again here.

The Fw 187 was not tested in those other roles because it never got that far. It was considered unsuitable for the roles and rejected. Now, you may think it would have made a good night fighter or what ever but the men at the RLM and from the Luftwaffe did not agree with your assessment for various reasons. 

These decisions were not taken by any one individual (Udet, Milch, Goering or anybody else) They were the results of discussions held over some time with access to data from both the manufacturers and the Luftwaffe and in the presence of representatives of the manufacturers (both airframes and engines), the various arms of the Luftwaffe, officers from the RLM and sometimes other Ministries involved in armaments production.

At no point have I seen any evidence that anyone apart from Focke-Wulf mounted a forceful argument in support of the Fw 187 and they didn't really bother after 1940. They had other contracts to fulfil and were doing rather nicely out of the on going war. The Fw 187 just didn't feature in strategic thinking or planning after it's initial rejection. As I said before it only gets a mention in the context of the on going Me 210 debacle.

It is possible that they were all wrong and that you are correct, but that's not something I can help you with.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

> The Fw 187 was not tested in those other roles because it never got that far. It was considered unsuitable for the roles and rejected. Now, you may think it would have made a good night fighter or what ever but the men at the RLM and from the Luftwaffe did not agree with your assessment for various reasons.



Funnily enough the FW 187 V4/A0 was also developed and ordered from the RLM with intention to be the *first* LW nightfighter, which can you read at Dietmar Hermanns book in the capitel about the V4. Also I have never seen a document were she was considered unsuitable. Perhaps you can provide one?



> These decisions were not taken by any one individual (Udet, Milch, Goering or anybody else) They were the results of discussions held over some time with access to data from both the manufacturers and the Luftwaffe and in the presence of representatives of the manufacturers (both airframes and engines), the various arms of the Luftwaffe, officers from the RLM and sometimes other Ministries involved in armaments production.



Again, you have never provided documents for such a claim, where are the documents to prove this claim?
I have never seen a document, where the FW 187 was rejected for technical (performance, space, loaded weight etc.) reasons.
Till now there only existing political statements of the decision makers, mainly Göring. So prove your claims with proves!


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> Funnily enough the FW 187 V4/A0 was also developed and ordered from the RLM with intention to be the *first* LW nightfighter, which can you read at Dietmar Hermanns book in the capitel about the V4. Also I have never seen a document were she was considered unsuitable. Perhaps you can provide one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if you go back and read this and other threads you will find the quotes I provided and references for them. I am not trawling back over all my references, translations and notes again to humour you.

The steno minutes of meetings at the RLM with the participation of Milch from 1941 to 1944 are available from the Federal Archives at Freiburg. You have the advantage of not having to pay someone to translate them for you! Good luck.

The minutes of a meeting will often show that the chairman summarises the views expounded and the decisions taken. That does not mean that he made the decision in isolation, though ultimately it is he that takes it. That's how business works, that's how committees work.

Every decision taken has a political aspect to it. That does not mean that the decision was made on political grounds.

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

You have provided RLM requirements of an fictional destroyer aircraft at 1934 nothing more.
And the conclusion was the Bf 110, which was in no terms fitting this fictional requirements. You have never ever provided a single explicit document about the FW 187


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> You have never ever provided a single explicit document about the FW 187



I have provided sections of minutes from RLM meetings pertinent to the Fw187 on the rare occasions it was even considered. If you want to see the originals I've told you where to look.

That's more than I can say for your (or Hermann's) Fw 187 originals.

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> Funnily enough the FW 187 V4/A0 was also developed and ordered from the RLM with intention to be the *first* LW nightfighter, which can you read at Dietmar Hermanns book in the capitel about the V4. Also I have never seen a document were she was considered unsuitable. Perhaps you can provide one?


Well, perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. The Fw187's fuselage was too small for the FuG radar equipment from all accounts I have read.

Perhaps you can provide here a photo of a production NachtJager? It would be interesting to know which FuG equipment was fitted, was it the same as fitted to the Ta154? How many of these were produced and saw frontline service and how did they do against the DH Mosquito from 1942/43 onwards?



DonL said:


> Again, you have never provided documents for such a claim, where are the documents to prove this claim?
> I have never seen a document, where the FW 187 was rejected for technical (performance, space, loaded weight etc.) reasons.
> Till now there only existing political statements of the decision makers, mainly Göring. So prove your claims with proves!


Since the Fw187 was clearly superior to any other production model, what units operated them and what was their kill ratio during front line service? I seem to have missed statistics regarding thier performance.

Were these the single-seat or the two seat version? And what engines did they finally settle on, as I've only seen a few examples of the DB series, though I heard one was fitted with BMW801 engines. When the Allied long-range escorts appeared over the Reich, how did they fare in battle?

I seem to have over-looked thier combat statistics in this regard. As it stands, I only have information about 9 airframes produced, so I'd like to see how the C version (and all the later versions) performed and perhaps compare statistics against other JG or NJ units operating twin-engined airframes.

Looking forward to seeing your hard-data on this, so it'll once and for all settle a 60+ year old mystery.

Thanks!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm here to discuss technical issues, I have no time to discuss sarcasm.
Read a sophisticated book about the FW 187, then we can perhaps discuss again.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2013)

That wasn't sarcasm, I was looking for substantial documentation.

You insist that the RLM ordered it into production, fine...so where's the production statistics?

As it stands, only 9 were produced... So what happened to the others?

Again, no sarcasm, simply a request for clarification.

If you cannot produce this, then your argument is invalid.


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

The FW 187 A0 was *a pre production series*!

3 were built as pre-production series and were flying from 1939-1944 combat missions at Bremen, Denmark and Norway.
This is confirmed from primary/official sources.
There are no official combat documents, but pilots, which flew the FW 187 got the EK I and other statements from pilots at Denmark.

The FW 187 V4/A0 was official tested at Rechlin against the Bf 110 and Bf 109 at 1938 and has beaten both of them.
Also there were comparation flights at Denmark against the Bf 110.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2013)

Yes, yes...we all know about those three...


----------



## Kryten (Nov 15, 2013)

Beat them at what? rather vague statement?

So 3 were operational in Denmark but there are no operational reports?

How did they manage for spares, three aircraft wont warrant a stock of parts being held, how many hours did they fly?


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, yes...we all know about those three...



So it was sarcasm!


> Beat them at what? rather vague statement?



The FW 187 was much much faster (about 80-90 km/h) then Bf 110B (also with Jumo 210 engines), turned tighter, rolled better and was much more agile, with better endurande.
The FW 187 was faster (about 50 km/h) then Bf 109 (also with Jumo engines) and equal in roll and turn.



> How did they manage for spares, three aircraft wont warrant a stock of parts being held, how many hours did they fly?



For the Jumo 210 were enough spare parts existing, for parts for the a/c's were built new or fed from the other prototypes mainly the V7 and V6


----------



## GregP (Nov 15, 2013)

Do you know where any copies of the Focke Wulf documents mentioned in Hermann's book bibliography can be found?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 16, 2013)

Either Bundesarchive Freiburg or Airbus.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2013)

I do have the book and my opinion lies somewhat between the two camps. 

The Book has answered a few questions about the FW 187s that _did_ exist. It has cleared up questions about the cooling 'systems'. 

It has opened up or failed to answer ( at least in the English version) the question of _exactly_ which DB 601 was fitted and what power level was used for the 390-1mph flight.
From the wording in the book it _may_ have been a 1350hp version. The plane _may_ also have been fitted for two machine guns instead of four and the MG 17 installation on the FW 187 was not exactly low drag.







As for the later "paper" versions. I see no real reason to doubt the author that such documents exist. I am fairly certain that somebody could find all manner of "paper" airplanes in allied archives with absolutely wonderful performance. We sure built enough real ones with performance that didn't come up to expectations. And a few that exceeded expectations. 

I am sure FW was trying to pitch the FW 187 design (or offshoots) when ever they could. Many allied companies did the same thing.






Grumman Avenger as a single seat attack plane. Just because a company pitches an idea doesn't _mean_ it was a _good_ one. And this was actually built/converted. 

FW was pitching one of the later "C" version as a night fighter and said it was possible, (they weren't going to try to sell it and claim it was impossible were they? ) but in the book there are only a few references to this. there is NO drawing of a "night fighter nose" there may be a drawing of an armament lay out but NOT one of a radar layout or installation, there is no photo (or mention) of a wooden night fighter cockpit mock-up(much better for seeing if things _fit_ than flat drawings), so one has to wonder how serious they really were. 

BTW pre war or early war "night fighters" simply meant how suitable the plane was for taking off and landing at night, it actually had nothing to do with _finding_ the enemy aircraft at night. Shielding pilot from exhaust glare, how tricky to land ( landing speed, _THE_ reason the Gladiator was fitted with flaps, I mean, how slow does a biplane have to land in the day time?) and fitting a few night _aids_ like a couple of flares to help illuminate the landing field or 'emergency' landing field when the night fighter can't find it's own field. 
The book doesn't seem to make a lot of 'claims' ( or at least more than many other books about single aircraft that tend to view their subjects as war winners all on their own) aside from presenting some of this information. 

2nd BTW. The book doesn't present the FW engineers as infallible, and judging by the FW 190 program and the FW 154 one has to rather careful just what is being compared. FW 154 prototype may have hit predicted numbers but when fitted with guns and radar aerials speed fell by over 10%. Production FW 190s changed from the FW 190v1 and V2 in how many ways? Curtiss hit a similar problem with the XP-46. First prototype completed (w/o operational equipment) hit predicted performance numbers. 2nd machine with full armament/equipment failed by around 50mph.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2013)

The real question remains. If it was so good? If it was a world beater? If it performed so well in "Denmark", then why not full production?


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The real question remains. If it was so good? If it was a world beater? If it performed so well in "Denmark", then why not full production?



Paper aeroplanes get soggy when it rains

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Nov 16, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> .............
> The Fw187's fuselage was too small for the FuG radar equipment from all accounts I have read.
> ....................



No problem: just some slight modifications.....






_From Price A. Bombers of WWII - Italian edition_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 17, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The real question remains. If it was so good? If it was a world beater? If it performed so well in "Denmark", then why not full production?



Why wasn't the He 177 built with a four gondula? With four engines? Why was this aircraft built to dive bomb?
Look at the fulsage, the general layout and the payload and you ask why the FW 187 was not built?
Because after the death of Wever and the replacement of Wimmer, *a junkie lead the LW, without any plan or any knowledge to technical issues! That's the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2013)

Agree, DonL ... when idiots lead the force, you can expect strange results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 17, 2013)

Thank you that you can follow my way of thinking!

And this statement is without any sarcasm!


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2013)

Hi DonL.

We may or may not agree on many things, but I think the Fw 187 had very good potential. Not sure of the actual facts since I haven't seen the references, but would not disagree at this time. I believe the Nazis were led by an idiot who would not believe the very professional German generals, didn't follow the lead of Prince Von Metternich for a positive march toward peace, fostered competition among his force leaders, and put the Luftwaffe in the hands of a person who was both a poor leader later in life as well as a drug addict.

It was a recipe for disaster and resulted in same.

If he had followed the advice of the professional leadership and had instead simply rebuilt the German economy despite the treaty of Versaille and put Germany into a position of international leadership, which was certainly possible given the money and resources spent on war materiel and WWII in general, it would have resulted in a much better Germany and better world. I have no idea if the Fw 187 would have ever been a success in this world or would even have been needed, but I like the plane and the potential shown. Too bad Hitler didn't stick to art ... who knows, he might have done well at it. I have no idea who else might have been the German leader but, whoever it was would have been preferrable to reality, given the facts.

Luckily, it is all 65-70 years ago or so and we can look back and wonder, but really have no factual idea of the reality of the times until we talk with people who were there and lived it. I have and sympathize with the average German who was trying to live at the time amid poverty and food shortages. One of my friends was an older woman who was a Luftwaffe aircaft spotter when the war ended. At the close of the war she was 16 years old and recalls the times quite well from the perspective of a young teenager. She was Johanna Melin (married and American soldier and wound up here in Arizona). We also have a volunteer at the Planes of Fame museum who was a teenager in the Netherlands when the war happened and recalls hearing the launches of V-1's as well as seeing dogfights. He later flew for the Dutch Air Force in Meteors, Hunters, and the F-104. When he left the Air Force, he emigrated here and worked for JPL in California dn participated in the Space Shuttle program. Yuri Van der Voode.

The stories they tell were heart wrenching. Sorry anyone had to live through it.

From the point of view of a US citizen born in 1950, the Fw 187 is hard to credit with anything other than being an interesting prototype since they built 9 and cancelled the plane. From the point of view of potential, I can believe it was better than the Bf 110 or the Me 210 / 410, but have no way to decide if it is better than, say, a Tempest ... I doubt it, but could be wrong. There are not any OTHER twins better than a Tempest as far as I know.

So, the potential could be great or merely better than the Bf 110, which it surely was.

I hope you can understand that point of view ... I'm not trashing things German, I am stating that no other twins were as good as the late-war single engine fighters, except maybe the Mosquito due to simple speed and the difficulty of seeing it coming on radar. It wasn't faster or better ... it was AS FAST hard to intercept because of short notice, irregular routes to targets, and the difficulty of seeing it on radar due to wood construction.

So the Fw 187 seems interesting, but not a world-beater to me, based only on the population of twins it would have competed with. The Mosquito and Lightning, late models, were near the top and we have no evidence the Fw 187 would have been as good or better except conjecture. The combat record won't prove anything with only 9 machines built and flown, but may give an idication. The data simply isn't there for a meaningful comparison.

I fully understand it being a favorite of yours just as I like some of the not-proceeded-with American and British aircraft. We can think they were great (think Martin-Baker MB-5 and XP-72) ... but ithey were not to be.

I'd rather get togther and share some beer and Sauerbraten than fight about things that happened 70 years ago!

Cheers to you.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 17, 2013)

> a Tempest ... I doubt it, but could be wrong. There are not any OTHER twins better than a Tempest as far as I know.



The Hawker Tempest was *NOT* a twin Greg.

The deHavilland Hornet was.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> From the point of view of potential, I can believe it was better than the Bf 110 or the Me 210 / 410, but have no way to decide if it is better than, say, a Tempest ... I doubt it, but could be wrong. There are not any OTHER twins better than a Tempest as far as I know.


You may be perhaps overlooking the F-82 Twin Mustang.

Besides it's speed of 482mph (740kmh), range of 2,350 miles (3,605km) and a ceiling of 38,900 feet (11,855m), it set a time/distance record in 1947 that has never been broken. A P-82B (44-65168) flew non-stop from Hawaii to New York, covering 5,051 miles (8,129km) in 14 hours and 32 minutes.

(As far the Tempest, I'm sure you meant a different aircraft)


----------



## Milosh (Nov 17, 2013)

would still take a Hornet.

Maximum speed: 472 mph at 22,000 ft (760 km/h at 6,706 m)
Range: 3,000 mi (4,828 km)
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,058 m)
Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min (20.3 m/s)


----------



## Denniss (Nov 17, 2013)

Without redisign the Fw 187 was only capable for early-style night fighters with small radars, even the Bf 110 had serious space limitations for installing all the electronics stuff and a third crew member. A miracle how they found sufficient space to install SM guns.
Focke-Wulf used some experience gained with the Fw 187 to design the Ta 154 although with an own set of problems which led to the cancellation.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2013)

The Shraege Musik was possible without 3rd crew member (rear gunner) - taking it's place?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The Shraege Musik was possible without 3rd crew member (rear gunner) - taking it's place?


No, with him. He had the Mg 81Z in front of him and the MG FF left and right.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Me_110_SM.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2013)

Talk about 'hot seat'


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2013)

Didn't say the Tempest was a twin, Milosh, and you know that. "Other" meant "other than the Fw 187."

I said there were no twins other than the Fw 187 that were as good a single engine late model fighter such as the Tempest. So it is hard to believe that the Fw 187 twin, which was cancelled, would have done any better. If it were clearly superior, surely the Germans would have produced it. right?

The F-82 , while it did fly in WWII, didn't reach squadron service until well after the war. I didn't mention it because it wasn't a consideration for me as a combat aircraft in WWII. Had it been available during the war, it would have been a very difficult customer for an enemy, but the same can be said for other "might have been" planes, too, on both sides. At least the Fw 187 was built and flew early on, so it deserves inclusion in a discussion of the air war becasuse it could easily have been placed into quantity production, while the P-82 could not have been pressed into service under any circumstances that are reasonable to consider before the war in Germany ended. That is, the Fw 187 was plausible as a combat aircraft in WWII whiole the P-82 was really not.

I can see using the P-82 as a WWII aerial benchmark since it first flew during the war, but not as a combat participant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

Well, sure, given the timeline, the XP-82 was a late-comer to the scene, though it drew blood against adversaries in the skies of Korea.

As far as contenders for the dominant twin that could have been, in the skies over Europe, the Grumman XP-50 would have been a formidable aircraft to deal with after 1941 with it's top speed of 424mph (680kph), a ceiling of 40,000 feet (12,190m) and a range of 1,250 miles (2,010km). I think it's armament of 2 x .50 MG and 2 x 20mm cannon could have been better, though.

I suppose an honorable mention could go to the Grumman XF5F-1, too...but it's performance wasn't as good as the XP-50 and suffered several problems (though not as drastic as an exploding supercharger like the XP-50)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2013)

GG, the performance figures you quote for for the XP-50 are not of any better credibility than what Focke-Wulf was expecting for the 'Daimlerized' Fw-187.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2013)

DonL said:


> *a junkie lead the LW, without any plan or any knowledge to technical issues! That's the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



At least he could and had flown in combat. They didn't exactly hand out "Pour le Merite" like candy. If he was such an incompetent I doubt that he would have assumed command of JG 1 before his 25th birthday. Many senior Luftwaffe officers and RLM officials (including Milch) couldn't even fly.
Goering (along with Speer) was considered to be one of the most intelligent, even impressive, of the Nazi leadership on trial at Nuremberg. Shawcross said as much. Such simplistic platitudes are neither historically accurate, nor helpful to a realistic assessment of German production and the Luftwaffe in particular.

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

Off topic, i know, but so much that was wrong with the LW has been blamed on Goring when in fact it was the Luftwaffe itself that was at fault. Goring was not nearly perfect, but he was also not the buffoon modern apologists for the LW would have you believe either. He was a Nazi, which had a certain in built blindness to senior leadership but he was no fool either


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

One huge problem within German leadership was the in-fighting and political posturing.

This caused a serious amount of delays and/or failed programs that could have held great benefit to their effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 17, 2013)

You are both wrong with your analyse!

I have a university work to get the german doctor grade by Ernst Stilla, I have linked it here in the Forum, but the Link is dead now.

Ernst Stilla work was named:

The Air Force in the battle for air supremacy.

Major influences on the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the defensive at the west and
over Germany in World War II with special reference to factors
"Air defense", "Research and development" and "human resources".

He did a very good research and described very detailed, how Göring established his power again after the death of Wever to every small decision of the LW.
Also how he established his power to play the other decision makers off against each other. Stilla described his lead as very destructive and only on the focus to hold his own power, without major interest to the real problems/interests of the LW.

Albert Kesselring was interviewed after the war and has described Göring very good after the death of Wever and his stile to lead.
He described him as lazy, don't like to work (espicially document work) not interested in details and no knowledge about technic and not interested to learn about technic A typical report with Göring was 30 min on the issue and 2 hours WWI anecdotes.

Also we have in germany the health documents about Göring and how his Morphine addiction expanded after 1935, he was two times 1936 und 1938 in Italy for withdrawal treatments. This Treatments lasted several month, but nobody was allowed to do decissions at this time for the LW, the senior officiers must fly to Italy for report.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

Do not tell me for a single moment that there was no infighting and power-struggle in the German high command.

Kesselring did not get along with Milch, Milch did not get along with Udet and this is just a small example.

It existed throughout the high command to a high degree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 17, 2013)

Under Wevers lead the RLM worked much more efficient and technical knowledge, also Wever organized the work *without* infighting.
Göring stimulated the infighting to hold his power and didn't get a contender.

The death of Wever and the replacement of Wimmer was the first very big Battle the Allies won against the LW without knowing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2013)

Wever was in favor of strategic bombing, the day of his death, the Bomber A program was announced. Also, the day of his death unleashed political posturing that created a madhouse for the Luftwaffe that didn't end until the last days of the war. There is no way in hell you're going to be able to conduct and operate an efficient program with such chaos, suspicion and out-right fighting like what was going on in the OKW/RLM. It's distracting, divisive, creates an air of confusion and a waste of effort and time.

The same can be said for the Wehrmacht and the General staff. With the political infighting and back-stabbing going on, it's a wonder they were able to even mount an offensive, let alone fight a war at all. And this wasn't just isolated to the military, the political figures that lapped at Der Fuhrer's feet were much worse.

Gone were the days of Prussian dislipline and order...the heirarchy of the high command between 1940 and 1945 was a disaster.

The greatest weapon the Allies had in their arsenal was the German leadership, and it worked quite well.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

Men like Von Seeckt may have kept a spark of "military" aviation alive in the interwar period and before the Nazis came to power but without Goering there would have been no Luftwaffe to sent to Spain in 1936 or Poland in 1939.

There may have been Nazis in senior positions in all three arms of the Wermacht, but the Luftwaffe was a Nazi service which is something different.

Like Parsifal I'm no apologist for Nazism or Goering, but an unbalanced view based on populist caricatures of the Nazi leadership is not helpful. 

I actually agree with DonL that Goering exerted a baleful and destructive influence over the Luftwaffe but to lay the blame for all its failures and shortcomings at his feet is far to simplistic.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Nov 18, 2013)

stona said:


> ------------------
> I actually agree with DonL that Goering exerted a baleful and destructive influence over the Luftwaffe but to lay the blame for all its failures and shortcomings at his feet is far to simplistic.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



I agree but the _"baleful and destructive influence over the Luftwaffe"_ was from Goering or from the CinC, Adolf HItler?

Far from me any simpaty for Goering, of course.......

Goering, in six years!, did a good job to raise a Luftwaffe practically from scratch, to train air and ground crews to a level of efficency that in 1939 was the best in the world, to develop machines and a doctrine of cooperation Army-Air Force that destroyed Poland and France and nearly defeated Russia.
It was completely unbelievable, in 1939, even among the most optimistic filo-Nazis, that German Panzerdivisionen could open France like a hot knife in the butter so that Hitler could spot Dover from Calais. At this point war turned from tactic into strategic, a war that Third Reich was not prepared to fight, much less could afford....

I've always read that silly things like "Baedeker Blitz" were Hitler's, and not Goering's, ideas, not to speak of the delays of the use Me 262 as interceptor. Certainly Goering, with his boast to supply by air Paulus Sixth Army at Stalingrad, did one of the fatal errors of the war, but the main fault was his or of his Chief that ordered to resist at any cost?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2013)

Elmas said:


> Certainly Goering, with his boast to supply by air Paulus Sixth Army at Stalingrad, did one of the fatal errors of the war, but the main fault was his or of his Chief that ordered to resist at any cost?



I essentially agree with you. Goering's destructive influence was often as a result of political factors, but to separate Goering's politics from Hitler's would be a tricky project 

The Stalingrad airlift is another example where Goering is often cited as having been entirely to blame whereas the historical record would not show that to be quite correct. The popular narrative is informed by other senior German officers with their own agendas, writing post war about men who for rather obvious reasons could not defend themselves. For example Manstein wrote:

"I am unsure whether Goering's frivolous assurances to Hitler were due to a false appreciation of existing capabilities, or to a desperate need for admiration. Whatever the cause, Goering was to blame."

We should establish a timeline.

On 19th November Hitler, who was relaxing at the Berghof, received a telephone call from Zeitzler who informed him (some say Zeitzler was shouting down the line) that the Soviets had smashed the Rumanian front and that the Rumanians were in full flight. The situation, whilst serious was not regarded as critical.

On 20th November the Axis flank south of Stalingrad was also breached. Hitler realised at once that the Fourth Panzer and Sixth Armies were in danger of encirclement. It is now that he ordered Manstein to stop his planned offensive operations and take command of "Army Group Don" which didn't amount to much in reality.

Jeschonnek arrived at the Berghof on this day. Goering was chairing an oil conference at Karinhall and could not attend. Hitler explained that 6th Army would probably be cut off within days. He had organised a new army group under Manstein and this would launch a relief effort as soon as possible. He hoped not only to free the 6th Army but to regain lost territory and rebuild a defensive line.
Jeschonnek, _understanding the 6th Army's encirclement to be temporary _ assured Hitler that if adequate airfields were maintained both inside and outside the pocket and bomber and transport aircraft were used hen the Luftwaffe could air lift sufficient supplies to the army.

With this assurance Hitler, who only two weeks earlier had announced that his forces had taken "that vitally important city....with Stalin's name" more or less committed to hold Stalingrad.
On the afternoon of 21st November he signalled Paulus, ordering him to stand firm:

"..despite the threat of temporary encirclement" As for the air lift "orders will follow".

So far Goering is not involved in this decision making process.

On 21st November it became clear to Luftwaffe commanders ( Richthofen, Fiebig and Pickert) that the 6th Army did not plan an immediate break out but was expecting to be supplied by air. Fiebig had spoken to Generalmajor Schmidt, the 6th Army's Chief of Staff and realised that both he and Paulus had embraced Hitler's idea of aerial re-supply.
Richthofen wrote in his diary on this day.

"Sixth Army believes it will be supplied by the air fleet in its hedgehog positions.... I make every effort to convince it that this cannot be accomplished..."

He made phone calls to anyone who he thought would listen. Zeitzler, Weichs (at HQ Army Group B), Jeschonnek and now certainly Goering in Berlin. He convinced some.

On 22nd November Weichs sent a message to the OKW. The prompt withdrawal of the 6th Army was essential because.

"The supply by air of the twenty divisions that constitute the army is not possible. With the air transport available and in favourable weather conditions, it is possible to carry in only one tenth of their essential daily requirements."

Within the pocket several Corps commanders took the same view. At a meeting without Paulus' knowledge Seydlich (51st Army Corps), Jaenicke (4th AC), Heitz (8th AC), Strecker (11th AC) and Hube (14th Panzer Corps) all agreed that a rapid break out was their only chance and even started regrouping for the operation.

Paulus, like Schmidt, was not persuaded by Richthofen and Fiebig. He vacillated throughout 22nd and 23rd November as the chances of a successful break out faded with every hour.

On the evening of the 23rd, in response to an order from Hitler to maintain defensive positions, Paulus finally responded by teletype that "timely and adequate supply has been ruled out" and he requested "freedom of decision".

On 24th Hitler, now back in East Prussia, told Paulus to stay where he was. The die was cast.

Why did Hitler make such a decision? The idea that "Fortress Stalingrad" could be resupplied by air was quite different to that which Jeschonnek had rashly assured the Fuhrer was possible. Jeschonnek had foreseen only a temporary operation to keep the encircled forces going until they were relieved. On the 23rd as Hitler travelled_ by train _from Berchtesgarten to East Prussia he had been unable to speak to men like Richthofen, Fiebig or Pickert whose air forces were expected to carry out the operation. During this critical period he was unable to speak to Weichs who shared their view. He was informed by an "overanxious" Zeitzler, second hand.
Hitler accused Zeitzler of being too pessimistic and listening to "defeatist commanders".
The Army commanders who accompanied Hitler (Keitel and Jodl) were in no position to make informed assessments. Keitel was typically sycophantic and Jodl optimistic, if qualified.

Jeschonnek now notified Hitler that he might have been too hasty in his assurances. He must surely have spoken with Richthofen by now. His volte-face carried no weight because Hitler replied that now not only did Keitel and Jodl agree that the 6th Army should stay but that his own superior _Reichsmarschall Goering had given his personal assurance that the Luftwaffe could meet the army's needs._
When did Goering give this crucial assurance?

Irving (in Goring) believes that Hitler first spoke to Goering about this on 21st November, a full day _after_ Jeschonnek made his rash promise and shortly _after_ Hitler had mentioned the air lift to Paulus.
This is supported by a recollection of a conversation between Hitler and Richthofen at the Wolf's Lair, noted in the latters diary on 11th February 1943. Hitler told Richthofen that he himself had promised the 6th Army that it would be supplied by air....

"without the Reichsmarschall's knowledge."

Goering later told Richthofen that still believing the 6th Army's encirclement to be temporary "he had played the optimist and supported the Fuhrer in his decision to stand fast there."

The decision making process descended into Nazi farce on the 22nd. Hitler asked Goering if he still supported the air lift and Goering assured him that it could be done. He later explained to Paul Korner (under secretary of state for the four year plan) that.

"Hitler already had Jeschonnek's papers before I set eyes on them. I could only say 'Mein Fuhrer, you have all the figures. If they are correct, then I place myself at your disposal."

The figures were wrong. The standard 25oKg and 1000Kg air supply containers did not carry that weight. They carried about 60% of that amount. The names were derived from the size of bomb that they replaced on the racks. Jeschonnek had compounded his earlier mistake and when he asked Goering to inform Hitler that their calculations were based on the wrong data he was told that it was too late.

On the 27th (not the 23rd as some believe), after the start of the airlift, the farce continued. We only have Zeitzler's version. He claimed to have spent some time attempting to convince Hitler that the air lift was impossible. Hitler sent for Goering and asked him directly if the 6th Army could be supplied by air. Goering said that it could be. Zeitzler asked Goering if he even knew what tonnage had to be flown in each day. Goering replied that he did not but that his staff officers did. Zeitler then gave his figures. The army needed a minimum of 300 tons each day. This equated to a minimum of 500 tons on every flying day. 

"I can do that" Goering said

"Mein Fuhrer, that is a lie" Zeitzler replied.

It was all too late.

Who was to blame for the debacle of the Stalingrad air lift? First and foremost Hitler. He was supported in the decision by many including Jeschonnek, Paulus, Schmidt, Keitel and Jodl. Of course Goering must shoulder a significant responsibility too, but the blame is not entirely or exclusively his.

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Nov 18, 2013)

Excellent Steve
I’d like to add that Paulus and Schmidt played also one other critical part in the Stalingrad fiasco, they did next to nothing to improve airfields and landing strips inside the cauldron which would have been very important for increasing the amount of stuff the LW could be able to fly in.

And generally, infights are part of life in very large organizations, look e.g. the FC in late 1940.


----------



## GregP (Nov 18, 2013)

As one who digresses frequently, I can't throw stones, but this is related to the Fw 187 how? Sounds like good fodder for a dedicated thread.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> As one who digresses frequently, I can't throw stones, but this is related to the Fw 187 how? Sounds like good fodder for a dedicated thread.


It's actually connected to the Fw187 and a good many other promising aircraft that the leadership looked over for various reasons.

Animosity between manufacturers fueled by favoritism at the top doomed many projects to the back-burner or obscurity when they could have taken center stage and produced results that the Luftwaffe desperately needed.


----------



## GregP (Nov 18, 2013)

I can see that. If they had proceeded with the Fw 187 and reduced Bf 110 production, then the result might have been beneficial to the Luftwaffe.

Never mind the post above!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2013)

In retrospect, Greg, there were quite a few aircraft that the Luftwaffe would have benefitted by, had the leadershiptaken a pro-active hand in.

The long-range strategic bomber program would have certainly altered the timeline (Bomber A aka Ural Bomber program).

Not demanding that all medium bombers having dive-bombing capabilities would have been a real boost in potential aircraft types that were hindered otherwise by the dive-bombing requirement.

Recognizing the potential for jet engined aircraft (and appreciating that the He280 would use kerosene, not gasoline) and immediately funding the engine research and production for the Jumo, Hirth and BMW engine programs when first introduced.

Recognizing the potential in the Fw187, the Ar240, the He280, the He100, the Ta154 and He219 to name just a few.

These are some examples, there were many other situations like this throughout the other branches of their service, hindering their military's ability to operate efficiently.


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Recognizing the potential in the Fw187, the Ar240, the He280, the He100, the Ta154 and He219 to name just a few.
> 
> These are some examples, there were many other situations like this throughout the other branches of their service, hindering their military's ability to operate efficiently.



Some of those were recognised, certainly the He 219 and the Ar 240 keep appearing in RLM discussions. The problem was that the Germans had limited and ever diminishing resources, both skilled labour and materiel, in the latter half of the war. It would have been wonderful for them if they could have tried to develop several of the aircraft which they were unable to do. They would have liked to enjoy the luxury of some failures, without dire consequences. They simply did not have the wherewithal to do it. It's one of the reasons that they lost the war.
The US squandered billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of man hours and tons of materiel on aircraft projects, some of which never flew. They could afford to do it. The Germans could not and that puts a lot more pressure on the decision makers. It tends to lead to conservative or seemingly safe options being taken. It's surprising that the Germans did develop such remarkable aircraft at all.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## N4521U (Nov 19, 2013)

Sure................


if it had been built by North American!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The long-range strategic bomber program would have certainly altered the timeline (Bomber A aka Ural Bomber program).



Not really. 400 Ural bombers or 800 He 111s? 

And Ural bombers without long range escorts and long range navigation systems ( the beam systems were limited in range) are going to do what the RAF did in the early part of the war. Swan about the country side and bomb the wrong cities, assuming they can find a city. 



> Not demanding that all medium bombers having dive-bombing capabilities would have been a real boost in potential aircraft types that were hindered otherwise by the dive-bombing requirement.



This one is spot on. A major blunder. 



> Recognizing the potential for jet engined aircraft (and appreciating that the He280 would use kerosene, not gasoline) and immediately funding the engine research and production for the Jumo, Hirth and BMW engine programs when first introduced.



This has possibilities but is not a sure thing. 



> Recognizing the potential in the Fw187, the Ar240, the He280, the He100, the Ta154 and He219 to name just a few.



The He 100 was a dead end. It had very little potential. It's potential would have to wait until mid 1941 because of the armament situation. And it's ability to mount more armament is limited. A single cannon + 2-4 mg fighter was NOT what the Luftwaffe needed in 1943 either.


----------



## GregP (Nov 20, 2013)

I like the He 100, assuming a normal radiator and not an evaporative cooling system.

I'd mount 2 or 3 cannons and no machine guns. But, that doesn't mean it would have been a success.

It probably should have had the chance for at least a small production run, though, from the German viewpoint.


----------



## DonL (Nov 20, 2013)

Apropos Wever himself canceld the Ural Bomber before his death and worked out the Bomber A program, but without dive bombing.
Imagine a He 177 production ready at 1940/1941 with four gondulas and four seperate engines.

I agree totaly to the issue dive-bombing.
Perhaps at the Ju 88 it would make sense to devide the production, for a fast medium bomber aka night fighter and the ability to dive bomb for a heavy destroyer and Navy support a/c (torpedo bomber and Stuka). THis was also happened in real live with the Ju 88 G1.
For the Do 217 no dive bombing ability.

I agree with SR6 to the He 100 and also the Arado 240 had difficult issues through her very tricky/bad flight characteristics. Also I didn't see the Arado as a long range escort fighter, she was a total other concept as the FW 187, which I see as the only LW long range escort fighter till the Ta 152H-10, which wasn't a paper design.

The He 219 and Ta 154 were both only night fighter developments, but with a fast Ju 88 level medium bomber (without dive bombing abilitys) at 1939/40, I think there would be a very good base for a nightfighter from the beginning.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 20, 2013)

There were a number of Luft 4 engine bomber projects that could have been a successful alternative to the He 177, but for one reason or another, they didn't materialise. They simply didn't figure into the Nazi strategy of the late 1930's, and were given no priority, much like the the Jet fighter programme. An alternative fighter to the Bf 109 was not considered seriously either in 1939, as the Spanish civil war had proved their superiority to the opposition. The war in Europe was never intended to last as long as it did, and the Third Reich was convinced that no more advanced aircraft would be necessary to achieve their goals. Like most of Heinkels designs, the He 187 never progressed past the waste of resources stage. The FW190, in all its forms, was always the best piston engine aircraft the Germans had, and would have always been a superior all rounder compared to the He 187 ( or He 100 etc). As far as claiming the P51 was responsible for clearing the Luftwaffe from the skies in 1944, it was the lack of effectively trained pilots, resources, and bad management that killed the Luftwaffe. What ever superiority the P51 had came far behind its superiority in numbers, and pilots with many hundreds of training hours, under far more conducive conditions. They were also were not sabotaged by forced labour. The P47 and Tempest were considered a more deadly enemy than the P51 by a number of German pilots accounts.


----------



## Juha (Nov 20, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> ... An alternative fighter to the Bf 109 was not considered seriously either in 1939, as the Spanish civil war had proved their superiority to the opposition. The war in Europe was never intended to last as long as it did, and the Third Reich was convinced that no more advanced aircraft would be necessary to achieve their goals...



Eh, the RLM asked designs for a new fighter in 1937 and the Fw 190 V1 flew its maiden flight during summer 1939. And Messerschmitt AG got a development contract for a jet fighter in late 1938.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 21, 2013)

Juha said:


> Eh, the RLM asked designs for a new fighter in 1937 and the Fw 190 V1 flew its maiden flight during summer 1939. And Messerschmitt AG got a development contract for a jet fighter in late 1938.


 I'm happy to be wrong, but I thought it was for a supplementary fighter, and not a replacement for the Bf 109. The Fw 190 had its fair share of teething troubles, and was not made reliable enough to be operational until 1941. As for the Me 262, it was not given priority, and as far as I know only an order for 3 were to be built as experimentals. The disinterest in Jets shown by the powers that be in the Third Reich parallels that of the British. It was only as things dragged out and deteriorated that the Jet fighter programme got really underway


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 21, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> There were a number of Luft 4 engine bomber projects that could have been a successful alternative to the He 177, but for one reason or another, they didn't materialise. They simply didn't figure into the Nazi strategy of the late 1930's, and were given no priority, much like the the Jet fighter programme. An alternative fighter to the Bf 109 was not considered seriously either in 1939, as the Spanish civil war had proved their superiority to the opposition. The war in Europe was never intended to last as long as it did, and the Third Reich was convinced that no more advanced aircraft would be necessary to achieve their goals. Like most of Heinkels designs, the He 187 never progressed past the waste of resources stage. The FW190, in all its forms, was always the best piston engine aircraft the Germans had, and would have always been a superior all rounder compared to the He 187 ( or He 100 etc). As far as claiming the P51 was responsible for clearing the Luftwaffe from the skies in 1944, it was the lack of effectively trained pilots, resources, and bad management that killed the Luftwaffe. What ever superiority the P51 had came far behind its superiority in numbers, and pilots with many hundreds of training hours, under far more conducive conditions. They were also were not sabotaged by forced labour. The P47 and Tempest were considered a more deadly enemy than the P51 by a number of German pilots accounts.



Good points overall, but don't be too hard on the P-51. It delivered the _coup de gras_ to the Luftwaffe. The hard worked and suffering P-38s, plus the ;ater longer ranged P-47s carried the 'heavy load' of the first part of the destruction of the Luftwaffe in late '43 through early 44. The Germans Twins (mostly 110s, though some 88s and 410s) were cleared form the skies by them, which were critical for the Luftwaffe's tactics in winning the 2 air wars over Germany in late 43 (against the USAAF and the RAF). Once they were gone they were left with the 109, insufficient guns against the US bombers (and if they were added terrible performance) and the 190As, which had the guns, but had insufficient high altitude performance. The Germans paid a terrible price for their poor high altitude engine development.

Where the Mustang was critical was that the Luftwaffe had pulled back, yes leaving areas like most of the Ruhr vulnerable, but many things, especially the oil refineries and coal to oil plants were still out of range of the escorts. and the Germans could inflict terrible losses on those bombers who tried. 

The Mustang had that range and it's performance was superior, at those altitudes, to anything the Germans had at the time. Plus, it's range was so good that they could (and did) chase the Luftwaffe right back to their bases, giving no respite at all.There was no, up and hit the escorts/bombers, then disengage and get back refuel/reload and then do the same. It was up and hit the escorts/bombers, then get chased all the way back... Then, if you got back at all, you had to face getting through a gauntlet after that refuel/reload, even before you got close to the bombers (though German tactics in that mid-late 44 period were woeful which aided the escorts job immensely).

The Mustang was not an 'uber plane', just very, very good and had terrific range (aided by good planning and tactics of course thanks to Doolittle who, after Park, I put as the finest air tactician of the western air forces).


----------



## stona (Nov 21, 2013)

coup de grace .........'gras' is something rather different, as in 'foie gras', which I quite like.

And yes, the P-51 was a very good aeroplane and it had exceptional range which certainly dealt a decisive blow to Luftwaffe morale, if not the Luftwaffe itself. The crucial points are that it could get to where it needed to be and compete.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Nov 21, 2013)

> There were a number of Luft 4 engine bomber projects that could have been a successful alternative to the He 177, but for one reason or another, they didn't materialise. They simply didn't figure into the Nazi strategy of the late 1930's, and were given no priority, much like the the Jet fighter programme. An alternative fighter to the Bf 109 was not considered seriously either in 1939, as the Spanish civil war had proved their superiority to the opposition.



Please can you name other then the He 177, Do 19 and Ju 89 and both the Ju 89 and Do 19 were Ural Bomber requirements and compare to the layout of the He 177 old fashioned.
Also do you realy think, that a significant better single engine fighter was possible with the DB 601,605 and Jumo 211 engines as the Bf 109?
Does it make sense to develop an other single engine fighter a/c with the same engine?
I have written this several times in this forum, the major mistake was 1937/38 with the advertisement of the Bomber B and a 2000PS engine.
There was no natural development from 1938-1941 of the normal DB 601/Jumo 211 engines to the next upgrade DB 603/Jumo 213, instead the LW supported the Jumo 222 and DB 604X. 
The Bomber B program and the engine requirements costs 3-4 years development time for the DB 603 and Jumo 213.



> Like most of Heinkels designs, the He 187 never progressed past the waste of resources stage. The FW190, in all its forms, was always the best piston engine aircraft the Germans had, and would have always been a superior all rounder compared to the He 187 ( or He 100 etc). As far as claiming the P51 was responsible for clearing the Luftwaffe from the skies in 1944, it was the lack of effectively trained pilots, resources, and bad management that killed the Luftwaffe. What ever superiority the P51 had came far behind its superiority in numbers, and pilots with many hundreds of training hours, under far more conducive conditions. They were also were not sabotaged by forced labour. The P47 and Tempest were considered a more deadly enemy than the P51 by a number of German pilots accounts.



With He 187 and think you mean the FW 187 from Focker Wulf?

If so I disagree with your opinion. The FW 187 was a twin engine fighter/light destroyer which had a formidable aerodynamic and promised much more speed then the FW 190 and Bf 109 and much more agility then the FW 190, equal to the Bf 109. 
From the data sheets the Fw 187 was *to my opinion* much more promising then the P 38.
To my opinion she would be lighter, much faster and would had much less wing loading, with ordinary DB 605 engines and the punch of 4 x 151 canons.

I agree about your analyse about the training of the LW pilots, but also here the Bf 109 was not a good a/c for rookies.
The Bf 109 was a bitch to fly, especially at high speeds and since 1943 lacked a lot of level speed against her enemys.
The Bf 109 was a pure energy fighter, but since 1943 with no advantage to escape through speed.
At the hands of experts, she was a deadly weapon, if the pilot had the advantage of the position and could dictate the fight through dive and climb, once the Bf 109 was sqeezed in a fast vertical fight she was dead mead!
Here I see the big advantage of the FW 187 for rookies, through the promised speed, if the position of the fight is bad, she would have had the advantage through a very high level speed to escape against a P 51 and P 47


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I'm happy to be wrong, but I thought it was for a supplementary fighter, and not a replacement for the Bf 109. The Fw 190 had its fair share of teething troubles, and was not made reliable enough to be operational until 1941. As for the Me 262, it was not given priority, and as far as I know only an order for 3 were to be built as experimentals. The disinterest in Jets shown by the powers that be in the Third Reich parallels that of the British. It was only as things dragged out and deteriorated that the Jet fighter programme got really underway



Yes, 190 were to be used alongside 109, butwhat was wrong with that, and 1941 wasn’t a problem, in 1941 109F was the best short range SE fighter in the world. The order for 20 future Me 262s was given on 31 Jan 40. The numbers fluctuated it was 20 protos and 15 pre-production in late 40, dropped to 5 protos and 20 pre-production in summer 41. Only after the fiasco of the first jet flight, when the both BMW jet-engines failed and the 262 V1 was only saved by the earlier decision to keep the Jumo 210G in the nose the order dropped to 5 protos until a successful jet flight was made. Then the orders went up again and the Me 262 got the highest priority in Dec 42.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2013)

One problem we have the Fw 187 is that we don't _KNOW_ how it would actually perform at high speeds. It is a contemporary of the P-38 in timing. In fact first prototype flew over two years before the P-38. Newer does not _always_ mean better but if both the P-38 and P-47 had problems with compressablity (among other planes) and the Spitfire escaped pretty much by chance instead of design then why are to believe the the FW 187 wouldn't run into trouble?

The Fw 187 _might_ have been a formidable warplane but it also required much more resources than the 109 and 190.

As far as "Also do you realy think, that a significant better single engine fighter was possible with the DB 601,605 and Jumo 211 engines as the Bf 109?"

Just think a P-51 with a DB 605 instead of the Allison.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 21, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Good points overall, but don't be too hard on the P-51. It delivered the _coup de gras_ to the Luftwaffe. The hard worked and suffering P-38s, plus the ;ater longer ranged P-47s carried the 'heavy load' of the first part of the destruction of the Luftwaffe in late '43 through early 44. The Germans Twins (mostly 110s, though some 88s and 410s) were cleared form the skies by them, which were critical for the Luftwaffe's tactics in winning the 2 air wars over Germany in late 43 (against the USAAF and the RAF). Once they were gone they were left with the 109, insufficient guns against the US bombers (and if they were added terrible performance) and the 190As, which had the guns, but had insufficient high altitude performance. The Germans paid a terrible price for their poor high altitude engine development.
> 
> Where the Mustang was critical was that the Luftwaffe had pulled back, yes leaving areas like most of the Ruhr vulnerable, but many things, especially the oil refineries and coal to oil plants were still out of range of the escorts. and the Germans could inflict terrible losses on those bombers who tried.
> 
> ...


 No intention to belittle the P51, it's just that I have always considered them to be given more credit as a fighter plane and less as a tactical weapon. That's not really an opinion, but more of an observation. It would be interesting to see how they would have fared, if the roles had been reversed. i.e, THEY were on the back foot, totally outnumbered with inadequately trained pilots and resources. While thousands of FW190-D's piloted by freshly rotated, well trained crew, were breathing down their necks day in day out. It's just that I have seen and read so much over the years how the P51 was this and that, but it never really told the whole picture.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 21, 2013)

DonL said:


> Please can you name other then the He 177, Do 19 and Ju 89 and both the Ju 89 and Do 19 were Ural Bomber requirements and compare to the layout of the He 177 old fashioned.
> Also do you realy think, that a significant better single engine fighter was possible with the DB 601,605 and Jumo 211 engines as the Bf 109?
> Does it make sense to develop an other single engine fighter a/c with the same engine?
> I have written this several times in this forum, the major mistake was 1937/38 with the advertisement of the Bomber B and a 2000PS engine.
> ...


 Got my Heinkels and Focke- wulfs mixed up again...sorry about the mistake!! As for the Ural bomber thing and the He 177, the He 277 was a far superior aircraft, with none of the inherent flaws of the 177 . In the same league as the B29, it got canned in 1943, along with most other bomber projects.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> No intention to belittle the P51, it's just that I have always considered them to be given more credit as a fighter plane and less as a tactical weapon. That's not really an opinion, but more of an observation. It would be interesting to see how they would have fared, if the roles had been reversed. i.e, THEY were on the back foot, totally outnumbered with inadequately trained pilots and resources. While thousands of FW190-D's piloted by freshly rotated, well trained crew, were breathing down their necks day in day out. It's just that I have seen and read so much over the years how the P51 was this and that, but it never really told the whole picture.



British had two squadrons of the Allison powered version still in service in May of 1945, down from six squadrons on D-Day, they were running out of spare parts but they must have liked it for some reason given all the late model Spitfires they had. 

The Mustang may not have _best_ at any one thing or even several somethings BUT it was close enough that the difference was very small ( a few percent wins a bar bet but may not win an actual combat). If the Mustang had been grossly inferior in some attributes then it wouldn't have mattered that it showed up over Berlin, it would have been a target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 21, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> No intention to belittle the P51, it's just that I have always considered them to be given more credit as a fighter plane and less as a tactical weapon. That's not really an opinion, but more of an observation. It would be interesting to see how they would have fared, if the roles had been reversed. i.e, THEY were on the back foot, totally outnumbered with inadequately trained pilots and resources. While thousands of FW190-D's piloted by freshly rotated, well trained crew, were breathing down their necks day in day out. It's just that I have seen and read so much over the years how the P51 was this and that, but it never really told the whole picture.



Quite true, in fact the Mustang wouldn't have been ideal for that situation because of climb speed, except as a combination team with Spits. With the Spits taking on the escorts and the Mustangs (suitably upgunned) going for the bombers (ie the FW-190 role). Its fast speed and long loiter time would have helped greatly of course, being able to disengage , loiter around and attack at most tactically favourable times. As always, good tactics, planning and training would have been the key to success. Even with heavy cannons or even rockets the Mustang should have had the speed to stay clear (or disengage) against the escorts and pick the best times to attack, ideally when they are being disrupted by Spit attacks.

Think of it as a superior 109/190 combination. BoB round 2 in essence, with the Mustangs in the Hurricane role, doing the heavy lifting of the bomber attacks.

Naturally numbers count, if they are outnumbered 10:1, then it doesn't matter what the performance is like.

Reversing it around wouldn't work so well, the Spit's (except the XIV) don't have the 'spare' performance to really load them up, what they do have is the climb speed and altitude performance to get up (even over) the escorts to disrupt and break them up ('peeling them off' in Park's terminology, creating openings for the heavily armed Mustangs to get in and hammer them.

Good tactics would be to use squadron sized Spit attacks as early as possible to get the escorts to drop their tanks and ideally get them to lose altitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> No intention to belittle the P51, it's just that I have always considered them to be given more credit as a fighter plane and less as a tactical weapon. That's not really an opinion, but more of an observation. It would be interesting to see how they would have fared, if the roles had been reversed. i.e, THEY were on the back foot, totally outnumbered with inadequately trained pilots and resources. While thousands of FW190-D's piloted by freshly rotated, well trained crew, were breathing down their necks day in day out. It's just that I have seen and read so much over the years how the P51 was this and that, but it never really told the whole picture.



Think you have it another way around - in the time Merlin Mustang started to seriously hurt LW (Feb-May 1944) it did have the considerable performance advantage where it mattered (20-35000 ft), and it did not have the numerical advantage. Thousands of Merlin Mustangs were never flying against Germany, more like hundreds, from second half of 1944 on.
As for the Fw-190D - fine aircraft, but almost a full year late to matter. It needed several thigs to 'get into Mustang's shoes' - performance advantage vs. perspective adversaries (from April 1945? when two-stage engines were installed in D-11/12/13) and combat radius (the wing tanks were never installed in a production D-12/D-13?). The D-9 as-is cannot do anything like it, in addition of being too late for 1944.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 22, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Think you have it another way around - in the time Merlin Mustang started to seriously hurt LW (Feb-May 1944) it did have the considerable performance advantage where it mattered (20-35000 ft), and it did not have the numerical advantage. Thousands of Merlin Mustangs were never flying against Germany, more like hundreds, from second half of 1944 on.
> As for the Fw-190D - fine aircraft, but almost a full year late to matter. It needed several thigs to 'get into Mustang's shoes' - performance advantage vs. perspective adversaries (from April 1945? when two-stage engines were installed in D-11/12/13) and combat radius (the wing tanks were never installed in a production D-12/D-13?). The D-9 as-is cannot do anything like it, in addition of being too late for 1944.


 It was only a hypothetical suggestion of role reversal. How could I have it the other way around?? The Luftwaffe was seriously numerically disadvantaged by late 44, and the allies had total air superiority. The Luftwaffe in conception was never meant to be anything more than advanced ground support ( as in Blitzkreig ) with all objectives met by 1941. Goering himself decreed in 1940 that there was to be only one fighter ( the bf 109), and only existing types were to be developed. It was the aircraft manufacturers that wanted their planes produced, and given lip service by those in charge at the time. In short, the Luftwaffe had to persevere with ever increasing obsolete planes. The total change in circumstances had them on the back foot from then on, with no effective pilot rotation system, and resources squandered on rivalries and too many projects in the pipeline at one time. The Luftwaffe was a total failure in the long term.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2013)

The situation in winter of 1944/45 was very different than in winter of 1943/44. For example: on Feb 19th 1944, the 8th AF (ie. main USAF air force tasked for strategic campaign against Germany proper) has only 2 groups of P-51Bs, 2 groups of P-38, and 10 groups of P-47. A fighter group of the 1944 USAF was under 50 aircraft.
You can read more about the Big Week (started on Feb 20th 1944)here, for example. Any kills beyond Ruhr were due to either to P-38 or P-51, since the P-47 of the era has smaller range than P-38 or P-51. The LW in the ETO lost, between Jan and May 1944 (5 months) some 4800 fighters, compared with 2100 lost from Sept to Dec 1943 (4 moths). That is despite relocating of plenty of fighters from MTO and Eastern front into Reich defense.
Bill (drgondog) should know much more about the strengths, kills and losses of the P-51 in 1944-45.

In second half of 1944 the P-47 was both rangier, and USAF was able to base it in France, plus there was far more P-51s available, so really USAF was able to provide more escorts at greater deep of Germany proper.

edit: doh, I was replying to your original post


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> The Luftwaffe in conception was never meant to be anything more than advanced ground support ( as in Blitzkreig ) with all objectives met by 1941.



This is a common misconception. He 111s are lousy "advanced ground support" aircraft, but they were among the better strategic bombers of the day ( the day being 1939/40/41, nobody having 4 engine bombers in any quantity).


----------



## DonL (Nov 22, 2013)

That is what most people simply didn't understand!

The difference between Wever and Wimmer and Göring and Udet, and they also didn't understand the meaning of Wever's death and the return of Göring to do decissions, but he had not a single clue what he decided, from any technical issue!


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> This is a common misconception. He 111s are lousy "advanced ground support" aircraft, but they were among the better strategic bombers of the day ( the day being 1939/40/41, nobody having 4 engine bombers in any quantity).


 I don't think it was or is a misconception. Everything that I have ever read about the objectives of the third reich places the Luftwaffe as part of the Blitzkreig strategy. That does not mean it could not have a strategic bombing arm as well, apart from the fighters neccesary to protect them. A long range bombing capability basically died with Wever.


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Everything that I have ever read about the objectives of the third reich places the Luftwaffe as part of the Blitzkreig strategy. That does not mean it could not have a strategic bombing arm as well, apart from the fighters neccesary to protect them.



Assuming unlimited resources and facilities. Building a strategic bomber force is a very expensive undertaking and diverts vast resources from other projects. No nation, particularly Germany in the mid/late 1930s could afford to build a complete suite of ideal weapons for every conceivable future scenario. The planners have to make decisions, sometimes we, with seventy years of hindsight might think they got it wrong, _but you can't have everything_.

It is well known that towards the end of the war Germany's single engine fighter production increased dramatically, but this was at the expense of just about everything else. There was, in 1944/5, just as in 1935/8, only so much pie to go around.

The expense (cost effectiveness if you like) of the western allies strategic bombing campaign, particularly the RAF's, is something which still provokes debate today.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 23, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I don't think it was or is a misconception. Everything that I have ever read about the objectives of the third reich places the Luftwaffe as part of the Blitzkreig strategy. That does not mean it could not have a strategic bombing arm as well, apart from the fighters neccesary to protect them. A long range bombing capability basically died with Wever.



This is with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Who else really had "long range bombing capability" in 1939-40? 
The aircraft were just not up to it. It was no more possible to build a "Ural" bomber in 1939-40 than it was to build an "Amerika" bomber in 1944. 
It is about 1000 miles from Berlin to Moscow and around 1500 miles from Eastern Poland to the Urals. For comparison it is about 900 miles from London to Warsaw. 

You can't build bombers with that kind of range with four 900-1100hp engines. The Americans cheated, their 1200hp engines used in the B-17 and B-24 used turbochargers and acted like other peoples 1400-1600 take-off power engines at cruising altitudes. And they didn't come into service in any numbers until late 1941. 
The best "strategic" bomber in the world in the fall of 1939 was the British Whitley and it would have had trouble surviving in daylight against He 51 Biplanes. 
Another example of the Luftwaffe "tactical" thinking (not) was the beam navigation/bombing systems that came into service in the summer of 1940. They did NOT spring into being in a few weeks. They are hardly the type of thing a "tactical" air force would use. 

A part of the He 177 fiasco was the desire for speed/range and payload using the 'existing' low powered engines. the coupled engines offered less drag than 4 separate engines. Less drag = more speed/range for the same power. 

As Stona has said, there was only so much "pie" to go around. Building 4 (or 6) engine bombers in 1939/40/41 with 1000-1500 mile _radius_ would have meant _small_ numbers of such bombers and less of everything else to boot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 23, 2013)

Also what sort of bomb load is this UralBomber going to be able to carry to say Chelyabinsk (Tankograd). 4 x 250kg bombs isnt going to do much damage, the RAF was dropping 5,000kg of bombs and incendaries and still struggling to knock out factories in 1945.


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2013)

The Germans seem to have emphasised range over bomb load from the outset. In the original specification for the "Fernbomber" issued to five aircraft manufacturers in June 1936, including Heinkel, and which was the origin of the He 177 a range of 5,000 Km but a bomb load of a mere 500 Kg is stipulated.

Interestingly Ernst Heinkel gave an account of a conversation he had with Udet in 1937 which goes a long way to explaining why a strategic bomber was not developed for the Luftwaffe. Heinkel didn't want to continue development of a four engine bomber if it was going to be of no interest to the Luftwaffe. According to Heinkel, Udet replied.

"Jeschonnek and the General Staff cannot see a way in which we can use it. Nobody is thinking about a war against England. Goering has had full discussions with the Fuhrer before taking the decision to concentrate all our resources on the twin engine dive bomber............If anything happens it will be a war with Czechoslovakia or Poland. For the conflicts in which we are likely to be involved we only need a medium bomber with a small range and bomb load. We'll go on developing the He 177 for research purposes."

That is self explanatory. Resources were to be used for developing the medium bombers and nobody saw any need for a strategic bomber fleet. Whether they were right or wrong is a moot point. Even with seventy years of hindsight it is difficult to argue that resources should have been diverted to developing a four engine bomber at this time, at a cost to the medium bombers and other aircraft that were produced and which enjoyed considerable success.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 24, 2013)

i agree the original preception for planning did not include a war with the uk or the us....i dont think they were bargaining for a war with france at that time either. hitler was thinking more eastward and everything he had probably would have worked in a war against the ussr at that stage of the game. once the game changed and the western allies became foes...the die was pretty much cast as to the direction of the LW. they did not have the ability to revamp the whole works nor do i think they fully comprehended what was about to come at them in either scope or material. I dont know if it even mattered if they did with hitler being so stubborn.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2015)

Stumbled on this thread when looking for a few things related to some off-topic tangents in recent discussions including the Fw 187 among other designs. And, political issues aside, there's a few technical points that no one seemed to touch on in this discussion, or at least manage to gloss over to the point it missed actual discussion.



stona said:


> Look at the cooler intake on V5.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The image of the V5 nacelles looks very much like a retractable radiator in the fully retracted position. Several of the Fw 187 prototypes (including the V1) used similar arrangements on the Jumo 210. (and somewhat reminiscent of Heinkel retractable radiators)

The A0 preproduction aircraft switched to bulkier fixed chin radiators as also shown in the above pictures. (I'm not sure why the change was made, but I suspect at least partially to save on weight and to simplify the design of those aircraft -it was also done on the prototypes targeting the later 2-seater 'destroyer' modifications that led to the A0)

There may be some other oddities with the V5's cooling system, but that does at least look like a retractable radiator.

Additionally it was the V6 prototype that (at least according to Wiki's sources) employed an evaporative surface cooling system (described in a manner akin to the surface cooled He 100), not the V5. It also used a DB-600 opposed to the 601 apparently employed on the V5. 

The V5, from what I can gather from all the resources already pooled into this thread, seems to be the closest to a speculative single-seat 'proper' DB-601 powered aircraft, albeit not operationally equipped. And even if it did use an exotic radiator design there's still one other area that hadn't been even suggested in this thread: adapting low-drag embedded radiators in the wings. (more like the Mosquito, Bf 109, Spitfire, and I believe Bf 110) That's something that was never tested on the aircraft and could have significantly reduced drag. (the retractable radiator arrangement may have worked well too if developed to operational status, and that was, after all, the practical solution the He 100 finally settled on)





DonL said:


> the steam seperator in german called Dampfabschneider, was part of the *engine*, and it's main duty was to hold the water liquid circle of the engine bubble free, so that no steam bubbles could get at the water circle of the engne.
> It was also used for normal high pressure water cooling at the DB 605, Jumo 213 and DB 603.
> The first german engines as the Jumo 211A-H (Jumo F was the first with high pressure water cooling) and the DB 601A-N (DB 601E as the first with high pressure water cooling)were not high pressure water cooling engines and the part of the glycol was very smal and at the jumo engine only part of the water cycle at winter month. The engine highest temperature of the *non* high pressure water cooling engine was 90 C, for the high pressure water cooling engines 110-120 C. It was higher at the second generation engines with steam seperator.



This seems to point to the V5 not using the surface cooling of the likes of the He 100 and Fw 187 V6, but an adaptation of the existing open-loop unpressurized water cooling system of the DB 600 to allow for temperatures exceeding the boiling point of water without having steam bubbles appearing in the cooling jacket. Technically this would be a form of evaporative cooling, but only as a side effect (main intent was increased water temperature) so SOME sort of condenser would be needed but only a small one (to return the collected steam to the main water circuit or reservoir). DB made this mechanism obsolete by adopting a pressurized cooling system with the DB 601E, so it's no wonder further development was abandoned. (admittedly, I'd been under the impression the 601A had already introduced this feature)

However, it appears Jumo 211 (and apparently early 601 models) did indeed adopt such a system to allow some improvement in cooling area efficiency over conventional unpressurized systems. (this too became obsolete with the introduction of pressurized cooling on the 211-F and later models)




And on the Fw 187 in general: yes the really useful/exciting potential of the airframe is mostly hypothetical since those variants were never built or at least not configured in a combat ready manner, and the entire high performance single seat twin engine fighter concept was continually at conflict with RLM doctrine and other politics as well. That said, I still think there's a reasonable indication that it could have developed in a similar manner to the P-38, perhaps with fewer problems (no turbo issues, better roll rate, no obvious compressibility issues) and similarly adaptable as a long range fighter, interceptor, and fighter-bomber/attack aircraft. (and possibly limited use as a late-war night fighter once more compact AI radar becomes available, similar to the P-38M)

I also find it odd that the Jumo 211 was never tested on the aircraft and rarely if ever comes up in literature relating to it. It's not as good as the 601, but still a reasonably capable design that should have fit well enough (and far better than the 210).


Edit: additionally, while the 2 (let alone 3) seater configurations were cramped and left little room for further expansion, a single seat version should have been more flexible. This could include moving the cockpit back to make room for more guns in the nose. (and adjust for COG with the added guns making things more nose-heavy -especially for the likes of MK-108; 2x 108s in the nose and 4 151/20s in the cheeks seems realistic)


----------

