# Who was the better designer of German Aircraft?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 1, 2008)

There are some famous names here, vote for the designer you like best.


----------



## seesul (Dec 1, 2008)

Kurt Tank for me...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2008)

Willy for me. I like two of Tank's designs but Willy developed a broader range of excellent aircraft..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2008)

I am going to go with Willy as well, for the same reasons as Bill stated.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm going with Heinkel. His designteam came up with some exelent designs, He112, He100, He111, He177 (apart from the engines) etc. Willy made some brilliant designs, Bf109 and Me262, but that was about it. Too bad Heinkel didn't get a chance with his fighter designs, could have been at least as good as the bf109.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 1, 2008)

Excellent polling idea.


----------



## bigZ (Dec 1, 2008)

Kurt Tank for me. A very impressive CV with the transatlantic Condor, FW 189, FW 58, Biplanes, Trainers, Flying boats, Jets and Fighters.

Test pilot and designer.

Half the poll is manufactures rather than designers. So is it which firm designed(and/or manufactured) the best planes or who was the best chief designer?


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

A couple of days ago I saw a photo that expressed my thoughts about Willy Messerschmitt perfectly...







Need to say more? Like Bill said, Messerschmitt's company was responsible for a wide variety of very advanced and successfull aircraft designs, even though Messerschmitt himself was less and less engaged in the actual design work, his philosophy was still there. Also I can't really ignore his skyrocketing career and the heritage he left behind (the Messerschmitt foundation and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm).


----------



## ccheese (Dec 1, 2008)

Kurt Tank for me. Excellent range of aircraft.....

Willy had some good aircraft, [4 or 5] but lots of failures...... 

Failures: me155, bf161, bf162, bf163, me209, me209-II, me261, [3 built]
me264, [2 built] me265, me309, me310 [1 built], me321, me328, me334,
me409, me509, me510, me600, me609. Was the Komet and Gigant 
successful ? I think they were both death-traps....

Charles


----------



## Chocks away! (Dec 1, 2008)

Kurfust do you have any more photos of that airshow? I've been longing to see those two guys gracing the skies together since for ever!


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

Nope I found them on a discussion board a while ago, they are not mine.. :/ 
Try googling the file name, perhaps it gives something.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm with Marcel on this one, Heinkel had some notable designs that were world firsts...if politics and circumstances hadn't have intervened in a few cases (mainly being on Udet's bad side), there's no telling how things would have turned out...

I think my favorite Heinkel would be the He280


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

Guys remember that just because an a/c bears the name of the company owner doesn't mean he was the designer of the aircraft


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Dec 2, 2008)

While I do prefer the 109 as an aircraft, and Messerschmitt as a designer, Kurt Tank does deserve some considerable credit. I think it's interesting that 190 aces amassed a huge number of kills in a relatively short time. Granted, there were masters of the 109, but perhaps the 190 was more "inexperienced pilot" friendly and I think Tank deserves almost as much credit. His Fw-200 must also be credited as being possibly one of the best maritime patrol aircraft of the war. So, in other words, while I love Messerschmitt, Tank deserves a darn close honorable mention. 

Another interesting note: Kurt Tank helped test-fly his own designs.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Guys remember that just because an a/c bears the name of the company owner doesn't mean he was the designer of the aircraft



unquestionably true. that being said, 'owner/CEOs' like Willy and Northrup and Rutan reviewed all of them and didn't depend on a Board of Directors to make a decision - and neither one were accountant/financial types like so many current heads of design and manufacturing groups


----------



## Timppa (Dec 2, 2008)

Hugo Junkers.

-Patented a flying wing air transport concept in 1910. Conceived futuristic flying wings for up to 1,000 passengers; the nearest this came to realization was in the 1931 Junkers G-38 34-seater Grossflugzeug airliner which featured a large thick-chord wing providing space for fuel, engines and two passenger cabins.

- In 1915, he developed the world's first practical all metal aircraft design, the Junkers J 1 "Blechesel". Junkers was also the first fully cantilevered monoplane ? (at least one of metal construction)

-1919 First civilian all-metal aircraft F13 flies 







Second choice would have been Kurt Tank. AFAIK the only combat aircraft designer who actually actively flew his designs.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Dec 2, 2008)

Well, I have to say Kurt Tank for this poll. I know the Focke-Wulf wasn't the best fighter in the war, but it did deliver a painful headache to the Allied High Command when it initially came out. Though personally, I would probably chose a P-51D over a Focke-Wulf anyday (maybe a later version of the Spitfire too, but I'm not sure in that regard).


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 2, 2008)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Well, I have to say Kurt Tank for this poll. I know the Focke-Wulf wasn't the best fighter in the war, but it did deliver a painful headache to the Allied High Command when it initially came out. Though personally, I would probably chose a P-51D over a Focke-Wulf anyday (maybe a later version of the Spitfire too, but I'm not sure in that regard).



That may be true, but don't forget the 190 had a lot more firepower then the P-51. 

I voted for Willy, because I'm partial to the 109.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 2, 2008)

I voted for the Horten Bros.; their designs were way ahead of their time, even for Germany. I don't know how practical their designs were (we never had a chance to find out), but they were definitely extremely advanced; unfortunately, they ran into a lot of beauracratic headwinds. A good example of this is the hassle they ran into when submitting their approved design for an all-wing "Amerikabomber" in early 1945 (the Ho XVIII); Goering approved the initial proposal, but then turned the design over to a consortium of the other a/c designers, who proceeded to ruin the Horten's original clean design by sticking extra vertical stabilizers on top of the craft (the original design had no vertical surfaces), and hanging the engines on the bottom of the a/c, instead of having them buried in the wing where they would produce much less drag. Go here for the Luft '46 online article on the Ho XVIII.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2008)

drgondog said:


> unquestionably true. that being said, 'owner/CEOs' like Willy and Northrup and Rutan reviewed all of them and didn't depend on a Board of Directors to make a decision - and neither one were accountant/financial types like so many current heads of design and manufacturing groups



Fully agreed, just wanted to point out that little fact


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 3, 2008)

I had to vote for Heinkel. It would have been interesting if politics hadn't blocked his fighter in favor of the 109. But Kurt Tank would be in a very close 2nd.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2008)

I voted for Dr. Kurt Tank, designer of the finest prop job of the War...


----------



## Njaco (Dec 3, 2008)

It was close between Willy and Kurt. From a design standpoint I went with Messerschmitt only because I believe a lot of his designs were progressive.



> ...Dr. Kurt Tank, designer of the finest prop job of the War...



True, wouldn't argue that, but it was at a time when jets were the future - thats why I went with the professor, because of the Me 163, Me 262, etc.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 4, 2008)

Jets were the future in 1945/46 and beyond... While the 262 was a nice aircraft, it was pushed into servicability waaaayyy too early, as Kommando Nowotny proved.... The technical shortcomings of the Schwable werent corrected even at the end of the War...

The only technical shortcoming of the Ta 152H was that there werent enough of them...

And please, lets not forget the "stopgap" that Dr. Tank came up with, the Dora9... Both aircraft were, IMO, better aircraft than the 109 series..


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Dec 4, 2008)

Kurt Tank for he designed the excellent Fw-190, and this one proved to be better than Me-109.

Cheers


----------



## bigZ (Dec 4, 2008)

If you want progressive. Kurt Tank for a bet designed, built and flew the Condor in 12months 11 days(Tank carried out the maiden). This was Focke's first all metal 4 engined passenger plane made entirely of metal. Previously they had only built wood and metal trainers and the Weihe.

This plane broke several world records including Berlin to New York return. In Kurt Tanks opinion this was the highlight of his creativity.

Pity the Hindustan Aeronautics HF-24 Marut never had the RB 199 to power it. Otherwise India might have had a home grown fighter on par with airplanes from both the West and East.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 4, 2008)

Les, the Ta 152-H was a great machine, but I think you'll agree that it would have been better to put more focus on the Fw 190D 11/12/13 (With Jumo 213E or DB 603) and in place of the short winged Ta 152's as well. (a simpler, more direct development of the Dora being more practical)

The larger wing and extreme high altitude performance of the H model was much more than was necessary, and the speed with the shorter wing was considerably better (rivaling the P-51H) while turning ability was competitive/superior to the P-51. (of course roll rate was excellent) And, again the Dora could have been developed faster.


The problems with the Me 262 come from many sources, some political, some material, and some operational. A major problem (particularly in the case of Kommando Nowotny) was adequate training, general familiarity of pilots with the aircraft's qualities, and use of proper tactics.



Getting back to the main topic, I'm not sure which I'd pick, though I tend to like Heinkel. The interest in high speed flight, radical design ideas, and his eccentricity as well as his anti-Nazi views. (the latter being more to do with him as a person than a designer)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Ex-cavalryman of World War I Kurt Tank's design philosophy was, to me, so pithy and to the point that I would like to quote it here (I'm doing this from memory, so if any of my elders and betters have a more correct version, feel free to correct me!)

"A plane should not be a racehorse, that can turn in a wonderful performance on the track only for certain times and in just the right conditions: a plane should be a cavalry horse, that can run and fight in all conditions, good or bad, and that does not need to be pampered or spoilt"

The 109 was a tremendous plane - FOR THE EXPERTEN. For the Average Arnies of the Luftwaffe it was difficult to fly, with its weak armament you needed to be a better than average flyer and shooter to make a kill, and if a single bullet hit the radiators you would be on the ground - dead or alive under a parachute - in two minutes or less. 

The 190 could be flown brilliantly by an EXPERTE and more than adequately by even Arnold der Average. It could take much more punishment than a 109 and still continue flying. In weight of metal thrown at the enemy it was 200 to 300% more effective (except for the 109s armed with the Mk 108) and it was far less likely to kill you on takeoff and landings, particularly in bad weather...

Tank made many fine designs, but his 190 is the reason for my vote!


----------



## Amsel (Dec 5, 2008)

Great post, Burmese Bandit. Welcome.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Thank you! I'm flattered *salutes*


----------



## Boss Calamari (Dec 5, 2008)

I voted for Kurt Tank, he made awesome planes. I love his fw-200 and the fw-187. I also like Hugo Junkers, i love the JU-88 and JU-90 series and the ju-52 is still around!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Yep - and I can't imagine why you left out the TA 152!


----------



## Timppa (Dec 6, 2008)

The following quotes of the two designers illustrate their quite different design philosophies.

A quote from a letter from Willy Messerschmitt to Udet, after Udet had criticized the defects of the Bf109 and the Me210 (from Ishoven's bio of Willy M., my free translation):
_
" I could make my life easier and build aircraft that will stay within the known limits. Then less incidents would happen, but the word "known" would also tell that these aircraft would not be especially superior to others. Nor can I, as is perhaps common in engineering, wait until all the means of research are utilized, and only then start building a new aircraft. Then I would have to wait until the the new windtunnels are in use and the the combat pilots have made all their tests in the current planes. You would agree with me that this responsibility cannot be taken because there is no time to waste. We have to dare and make aircraft that go into uncharted territory, and therefore we shall learn our lessons by bitter human and material losses."_


A quote from Dr. Alfred Price's article in Air International magazine:

Dipl. -Ing. Kurt Tank, then Technical Director of Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau, saw that that there was a place for 'racehorse' fighter designs like the Bf109 and the Spitfire, in which almost everything was subordinated to the interests of achieving the highest possible performance. But he saw that in war there was there would also be need for a rather different kind of air fighter, as he explained during a conversation with the author:
_
"During the First World War I had served in the cavalry and in the infantry and I had seen the harsh conditions under which military equipment has to work in wartime. I felt sure that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place in any future conflict: One that could operate from ill-prepared frontline airfields; one that could be flown and maintained by men who had received only a short training; and one that could absorb a reasonable amount of battle damage and still get back. This was the backround thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was to be not a 'racehorce' but a Dienstpferd, a cavalry horse."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 6, 2008)

that's pretty neat to see their perspectives.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

_Excellent_ quote Timmpa! Your transalation was better than mine!!!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2008)

> We have to dare and make aircraft that go into uncharted territory, and therefore we shall learn our lessons by bitter human and material losses."



Now there is a quote for the ages!


----------



## Timppa (Dec 10, 2008)

The whole Kurt Tank interview (from Flightjournal):

In 1975, I interviewed Kurt Tank, who led the team that designed the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Tank also took part in the aircraft’s flight test program. The quotations that follow are from the transcript of that interview. 

In the spring of 1938, the Focke-Wulf company received a Luftwaffe request for design proposals for a new fighter type to supplement the Messerschmitt Bf 109 in service. The company’s project office submitted a number of alternatives all based on the notion of a fighter somewhat more rugged than the Bf 109. The Luftwaffe accepted one these and ordered three prototypes of the new fighter that was given the official designation of Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Kurt Tank outlined the concept behind the new fighter: 

“The Messerschmitt 109 and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in the world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe. These designs, both of which admittedly proved successful, could be likened to racehorses: given the right amount of pampering and an easy course, they could outrun almost anything; but the moment the going became tough, they were liable to falter. 

“During World War I, I served in the cavalry and in the infantry. I had seen the harsh conditions under which military equipment has to work in wartime. I felt sure that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place in any future conflict: one that could operate from ill-prepared front line airfields, one that could be flown and maintained by men who had received only a short training and one that could absorb a reasonable amount of battle damage and still get back. This was the background thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was to be not a ‘racehorse’ but a Dienstpferd, a cavalry horse. 

“Obviously, if it was fitted with an engine that developed the same power, a racehorse fighter with a lighter structure would always be able to out-run and outclimb the sort of fighter we had in mind; yet we could not allow this difference to become too great. The design problem centered around building a stronger airframe and one able to carry heavier weapons without sacrificing too much in the way of flying performance.”

The Focke-Wulf 190’s layout, a low-wing monoplane with a nose-mounted engine driving a tractor airscrew, was entirely conventional for that time. 

“From my own flying experience, I knew how important it was for a fighter pilot to have the best possible all-around view, and we decided to fit a large frameless bubble canopy to the new fighter. Later, these became very fashionable, but in 1938 the idea was something of an innovation.

“We chose an air-cooled radial engine for the new fighter for two reasons. First, because such engines were far more rugged and could survive more punishment than the liquid-cooled types and, secondly, because the BMW Co. was bench-running prototypes of a new engine, the 1,550hp BMW 139, which developed somewhat more power than any liquid-cooled engine we had been offered. If our Dienstpferd were to come close in performance to other peoples’ racehorses, we needed all the engine power we could get.” 

Kurt Tank never had reason to regret the decision to fit an air-cooled radial engine to the Fw 190. In action, the resilience of this type of powerplant would be proven again and again. There were numerous occasions when this fighter returned from an operation and made a normal landing despite having had a cylinder shot away. With a liquid-cooled engine, in contrast, if its cooling system was damaged and the liquid leaked away, the engine’s subsequent running life could be measured in minutes.

Tank went on to stress that although he headed the design team for the Fw 190, the fighter’s design was very much a team effort. 

“I dare say, a really good designer could have produced such a fighter all by himself. But it would have taken about eight years, and at the end of that time, nobody would have been the least bit interested in it! A design for a fighting aircraft was of value only if it could be brought out quickly. So the closest collaboration between the members of the design team was essential. My assistant, Willi Kaether, co-coordinated the work. Rudi Blaser with the help of the people in the drawing office designed the structure; he was a very clever practical engineer and usually seemed able to meet the strength requirement for a particular component for the lowest possible structural weight. Ludwig Mittelhueber headed the team at the project office responsible for the Fw 190. Hans Sander and Kurt Melhorn, the men who were to carry out the initial flying test program, were brought in early. They had a great deal of say, especially about the layout of the cockpit, the positioning of the instruments and the design of the controls. Altogether, the team that prepared the design was comprised of about twelve men.”

The new fighter needed to be rugged to withstand the rigors of the Dienstpferd concept, but it also needed to handle well in the air. Tank said the secret was to make the control surfaces—the ailerons, elevators and rudder—large enough and to balance them with great care, both statically and dynamically. If they were underbalanced, they would be too heavy and lost their effectiveness, if they were overbalanced, that caused other problems. To produce the “crisp” controls Tank wanted, the design team decided to forego the more usual wires and pulleys. In service, the wires were liable to stretch, introducing “play” in the controls. Instead, the fighter had rigid rods that connected the control column to the flying control surfaces.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 10, 2008)

During the Fw 190’s design, Tank believed that through the fighter’s service life, it would get progressively heavier. So the team had to allow for this. He took the landing gear as an example. 

“For the design weight and estimated landing speed of the prototype aircraft, we calculated that the undercarriage should withstand a sinking speed of 2.5 meters/second [8.5 ft./sec.] to be sufficient. But if the aircraft was developed [over time], its maximum speed, weight and landing speed would all increase. That would result in considerably higher forces on the undercarriage during landing. So in the original stress calculations, we allowed for a sinking speed not of 2.5 m/sec. but of 4.5 m/sec. [15 ft./sec.]. And then we designed the undercarriage to be strong enough to take that. The move paid off. During its life, the maximum loaded weight of the Fw 190 rose from 2.75 tons to more than twice that figure, but with few changes, the undercarriage remained adequate. I have used the undercarriage as an example, but in fact several parts of the original structure were a great deal stronger than the minimum necessary.”

When the Fw 190 began flight tests in the late spring of 1939, the test pilots began to establish its performance envelope. Tank, a qualified pilot, took part in the tests.

“Hans Sander did the initial testing, and then I flew the aircraft and found that it handled beautifully in the air. The work we had put into the flying controls had produced the results we wanted. I have always believed that a pilot should not have to use a great deal of muscle power to get an airplane to do what he wants. If the controls were properly designed, he should be able to conduct most maneuvers with only a finger and thumb on the stick. In combat, a high rate of roll is essential for a fighter so that the pilot can make rapid changes in his direction of flight. The aileron stick forces, however, had to be kept below a maximum of about 3.5 kilos [eight pounds] because a man’s wrist cannot exert a force much greater than that. We succeeded in getting the stick forces down and, finally, I had the aileron controls as I wanted them. The aircraft followed the movement of the stick immediately and precisely with no initial tendency to yaw. Compared with the ailerons, the other flying controls were relatively easy to design; the stick forces were not so critical for the elevators, and the highest forces of all could be taken on the rudder pedals because a man’s legs are far stronger than his arms.”

Once the controls had been correctly balanced, it was important that they stayed that way over a wide range of speeds. Tank did not want a fighter pilot to have to re-trim the aircraft each time he moved the throttle. The team was so successful in this that movable trim tabs were considered unnecessary on the Fw 190. Small fixed trim tabs were fitted to the ailerons, the elevators and the rudder. These were adjusted on the ground after a fighter’s initial test flight to compensate for the manufacturing variations inevitable with a mass-produced aircraft. The only system for re-trimming the aircraft in flight was in the elevator sense, and that was achieved by using an all-moving horizontal stabilizer. 

To reduce the drag from the radial engine, the prototype was fitted with an unusual ducted spinner. The air was compressed as it entered the duct and then heated and expanded as it passed over the cylinders, before being ejected rearwards under pressure. Thus the system resembled a low-powered ram jet and provided a little thrust to cancel out some of the engine cooling drag. Flight tests soon revealed, however, that the ducted spinner produced very little thrust. The benefits of the installation were not worth the extra complication, and early in the test program the airplane was fitted with a regular radial engine cowl.

Although the prototype Fw 190 flew well enough, there were problems with its BMW 139 engine: the rear cylinders of the two-row radial often overheated. By then, BMW had its new BMW 801 engine undergoing bench testing. Quite apart from an extra 50hp, rising later to 200hp, the new engine was more reliable and less prone to overheating than its predecessor. Shortly after the first fight, Focke-Wulf received a Luftwaffe contract to modify the fighter to take the BMW 801. The resultant aircraft, the Fw 190 V5, flew for the first time early in the spring of 1940.

“Although the extra 50hp was useful, we found that the extra 160 kg [350 lb.] of engine weight plus the additional structure necessary to carry it, and the weight of armor and the additional equipment the Luftwaffe now wanted, had increased [the fighter’s] all-up weight by about a quarter. The wing loading rose from the 1.6 kg/m2 [38 lb./sq. ft.] of the first prototype to 1.9 kg/m2 [46 lb./sq. ft.], and the turning performance deteriorated accordingly. To restore the aircraft’s previously pleasant handling characteristics, we enlarged the wing by extending each tip by just over 50 centimeters [20 inches] and reducing the amount of taper so that the outer sections were somewhat wider. In this way, we increased the wing area by just over 3.25 m2 [35 sq. ft.] and lowered the wing loading to a more reasonable 1.5 kg/m2 [35.8 lb./sq. ft.]. Later, to maintain the correct relationship between the wing and the tail plane, we made a proportional increase in the area of the latter. The wing and the tail plane of the low- and medium-altitude versions of the Fw 190 then remained unchanged throughout the remainder of the development life of the aircraft.”

The BMW 801 engine suffered from some cooling problems, though these were not as serious as those with BMW 139. And with modification, the difficulties were reduced to within acceptable limits. More serious were the troubles with the automatic engine control system, the Kommandogerät, fitted to the new engine. Tank explained:

“This was a rather clever device intended to save the pilot from having to worry about the optimum relationship between altitude and fuel flow, fuel mixture, propeller pitch setting, ignition timing, engine revolutions and the selection of the correct supercharger gear. The pilot had simply to move one control—his throttle—and in theory the Kommandogerät did the rest. I say in theory because at first, the device did not work well at all. All sorts of things went wrong with it. One of the more disconcerting was the rather violent automatic switching in of the high gear of the supercharger as the aircraft climbed through 2,650 meters [8,700 ft.]. 

“Once I was carrying out a test with an early version of the Fw 190 that involved a loop at medium altitude. Just as I was nearing the top of the loop, on my back with little airspeed, I passed through 2,650 meters, and the high gear of the supercharger cut in with a jerk. The change in torque hurled the aircraft into a spin with such suddenness that I became completely disorientated. And, as there was a ground haze and an overcast and my artificial horizon had toppled, I had no way of knowing which way was up. Indeed, I never did find out whether it was an upright or an inverted spin. After considerable loss in altitude, I managed to recover from the spin. But the incident had given me a lot to think about. As soon as I landed, I was on the telephone to the BMW. I told them that if they did not sort out their engine and its terrible Kommandogerät, I would do all in my power to see that somebody else’s engine went into the Fw 190! The Kommandogerät was made to work, and it worked very well, but it took quite a battle on our part.” 

When it went into action in the summer of 1941, the Fw 190 demonstrated a clear margin of superiority over the Spitfire Mark V, the fastest fighter in RAF service. With its powerful radial engine, the Focke-Wulf Dienstpferd had the edge over the opposing racehorse. This situation lasted for nearly a year, until the Spitfire Mark IX became operational in quantity, powered by the Merlin 61 engine with a two-stage supercharger. In terms of performance, the Spitfire IX and the Fw 190A-3 were almost neck and neck. 

Altogether, about 19,500 Fw 190s were built, of all versions, and the type remained in full production until the very end of the War.


----------



## OldAardvarkCrewChief (Dec 13, 2008)

I gotta go with Herr Messerschmidt. Germany had some phenominal designers, but Messerschmidt (for me at least) was the leader of the pack.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 13, 2008)

Messerschmitt for me too. Kind of like a great basketball player. Isn't afraind to make a shot and fail, he knows he will make more than he misses. Not all of his planes were good, but many were.

To me only the 190 was successful for Tank. Very successful!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 13, 2008)

Whoa Whoa...what about the 189, BRILLIANT design - yes, it did the unglamorous job of artillery spotting communication and reconnaissance - but it did it with reliability, and an amazing amount of battle damage tolerance!

And the 200 - the only thing that was against this superb design was its weak structural strength...that wasn't Tank's fault as the Lufwaffe had never responded to his proposal for a purpose built military variant until it was too late!

And the Ta 152? 

Mike...really!


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 14, 2008)

Messerschmitt for me

its also the most well known German WW11 Aircraft manufacturer-what does that tell ya


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2008)

My vote is for Kurt.

The FW190 was superior to the -109 and the Ta152 had the potential to really mess things up for the allies.


----------



## Watanbe (Dec 15, 2008)

My vote is for Kurt, whilst Willy may of been ahead with jet designs but at the end of the day Kurt was realistic with what he produced. The planes he produced were ready to fight and make an immediate impact.


----------



## steelDUST (Dec 22, 2008)

Kurt Tank.
End of discussion.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2008)

steelDUST said:


> Kurt Tank.
> End of discussion.



I worked for two giants in te US airframe biz - each contributing dramatically in separate secors of the Aerospace industry. One was Kelly Johnson who needs no introduction and might be a hybrid of Tank and Messerschmidt.

The other was Bart Kelly at Bell Helicopter who had many of the fundamental patenst on rotary wings and control systems.

Both were 'hands on' and involved in all major design branches.

The separation of the two above might be similar in that Willy and his design team pushed the envelope and emerged with a fighter in production that was poised for supersonic flight given the right engines and incorporating radical swept wing technology.

Kurt Tank combined performance with reliability and capability to grow into evolutionary roles.

Both are giants in the industry so choosing is a matter of choice.

Given all the above and posing the question - who best innovator and program manager? I would vote Johnson. There may never be another example of pushing the envelope like the YF-12/SR-71


----------



## Venganza (Dec 25, 2008)

I have to go with Kurt Tank, apologies to Herr Messerchmitt. The FW-190 and Ta-152 do it for me. And I'd forgotten about the FW-189, Das Fliegende Auge, an excellent plane that's not as well known as it should be, doing the dangerous but useful job of battlefield reconnassaince. And let's not forget the Ta-183 - a design that looks very suspiciously like the Mig-15.

Venganza


----------



## Nicolas (Dec 28, 2008)

In 1944, Focke-Wulf created three designs for a bomber using two Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 turbojets. These bombers were known under the name of the 1000x1000x1000 Bomber-Projekt and were under the direction of Dipl.-Ing. H. von Halem and D. Küchemann. The designation meant that the aircraft could carry a 1000 kg (2205 lbs) bomb load 1000 km (621 miles) and fly at 1000 km/h (621 mph).
The second design under the design number 031 0239/10 was for a flying wing layout. There was a small fuselage which contained the cockpit and forward landing gear. The wing was swept back at 35 degrees and the fuel load in flexible tanks was carried ahead of the main wing spar. The engines and main landing gear were located behind the main wing spar. Two Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 jet engines each developing 1300 kg (2866 lbs) of thrust were fed by air intakes located in the wing leading edge near the wing roots. The wing tips were bent downwards to act as vertical stabilizers and contained small rudders. The ailerons also served as elevators and in addition small deflectors were mounted within the jet exhaust, one of the first uses of thrust vectoring. The main landing gear retracted inwards and the nose gear swung up and forward. A single pilot sat in the extensively glazed cockpit located in the extreme nose, and no armament was planned at this stage in the development. A 1000 kg (2205 lbs) bomb load could be carried in the internal bomb bay located in the center wing.
Since these designs would have taken several years to complete, the end of the war ended all development.


----------



## steelDUST (Dec 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I worked for two giants in te US airframe biz - each contributing dramatically in separate secors of the Aerospace industry. One was Kelly Johnson who needs no introduction and might be a hybrid of Tank and Messerschmidt.
> 
> The other was Bart Kelly at Bell Helicopter who had many of the fundamental patenst on rotary wings and control systems.
> 
> ...



But, my friend, the question in this thread is: Who was the best German Aircraft Designer?

Definitely, Johnson and Kelly shouldn't be mentioned here. Good day!


----------



## 4mot (Jan 1, 2009)

Kurt Tank for me. He has designed by Focke Wulf 187 (it was better and faster than Me 110), 190 and Ta 152, 154...


----------



## CloCloZ (Jan 1, 2009)

Although I think FW190D-13 was likely the best all-around fighter of WWII, I voted for Willi Messerschmitt.

In fact, I consider FW190 to be the only really remarkable achievement of Prof. Tank (an outstanding one, indeed), whereas Messerschmitt designed at least two: Me109 and Me262, the latter being not just well ahead of its time but (relatively) mass-produced too.
Talking about Tank's planes, Ta-152 is in my opinion the most overrated and overhyped plane *ever*: Ta-152H was no more than an high-altitude successor of FW190D, that used at medium and low heights had during its short career, contrary to popular belief, an absolutely unimpressive (yes: *UN*impressive …) kill/loss score (7:4) notwithstanding it was flown by aces for almost the half of them.
Whereas Ta-152C, that never went much beyond prototypal stage, wasn't a big step forward if compared to Dora 13 (if any ...).
As for the other Tank's projects, Ta-183 never "flown" outside the wind tunnel whereas FW-187 was likely a good plane on which in my opinion too many people have daydreams and “what if”. And we have to remember that whereas prototypes performances were very good, it probably would haven’t been so much superior to competitors if it were tested fully armed and had to carry the weapons' load (just as the story of the disastrous Ta-154 remarks).
Although Fw200 was a good plane in the very particular role of maritime reconnaissance and bombing, even considering that it's not enough for me to put Tank ahead of Messerschmitt.
Of course, it's a close contest between the two ...


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 1, 2009)

To say Tank's other designs were unimpressive is just wrong. The Fw 200 was arguably a better design than even the Fw 190. The Fw 189 was great aswell. The post war Marut was a great design aswell, it only suffered from never receiving a proper engine such as the RB.153.

The Ta 152 H was designed as a high altitude interceptor, that's where it should be judged. Mid-to-low altitude still was sufficient.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 4, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> To say Tank's other designs were unimpressive is just wrong. The Fw 200 was arguably a better design than even the Fw 190. The Fw 189 was great aswell. The post war Marut was a great design aswell, it only suffered from never receiving a proper engine such as the RB.153.
> 
> The Ta 152 H was designed as a high altitude interceptor, that's where it should be judged. Mid-to-low altitude still was sufficient.



Why was the FW200 such a great design? I thought it was a decent passenger plane, quickly converted for navel warfare, with the standard problems, weak undercarriage etc. I don't see anything unusual outstanding to that. 
Tank also had his failures, just like other designers/manufacturers, think for instance about the TA154.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 5, 2016)

Kurfürst said:


> even though Messerschmitt himself was less and less engaged in the actual design work, his philosophy was still there.


I'm curious what that was?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious what that was?



FYI Kurfürst was banned a long time ago


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2016)

There's _ghosts_ in the corridors .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Dec 6, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> There's _ghosts_ in the corridors .....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 9, 2016)

Walter Blume

Designer of the Arado jets.

Beautiful and innovative aircraft but I admit I know almost nothing of their design features_.
_
From what is on Wiki it appears though that too much effort was put into designing a massive number of variants (a common German trait). Had the design been frozen on just one or two production variants far more could have been built, not that it would have made any difference in the end because there were no engines coming from either manufacturers.
Note to self - must read some of those early post WW2 reports on German manufacturing that are gathering cobwebs somewhere here


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 12, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FYI Kurfürst was banned a long time ago


I guess I'm not going to get an answer to that question eh? lol


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 7, 2017)

My vote would be Heinkel just edging out Tank. Heinkel's first jet was far ahead of any other fighter and could have been deployed in 1940. How far Heinkel could have gone if the politics allowed is interesting speculation. Messerschmitt had several brilliant planes, but most of his designs were dogs.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 9, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> Heinkel's first jet was far ahead of any other fighter and could have been deployed in 1940.



Doubtful.

He 178 first flight was in August 1939, it had a decent, at the time, top speed ~380mph, but range and endurance were short, it had no armour or armament. It was, basically, a research aircraft, like the (later) Gloster E.28/39.

Heinkel's 2nd attempt, the He 280, first flew in 1940, but only as a glider. It wouldn't fly under its own power until 1941.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 9, 2017)

Why didn't the Luftwaffe field the He-280 and Me-262?


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 9, 2017)

He-280 - engines

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 9, 2017)

What was wrong with them?


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 9, 2017)

I believe under powered and fuel problems. Probably more into it as well; politics, mismanagement and direction

Heinkel He 280


_View: https://youtu.be/zdb30LLq8L8_​


----------



## spicmart (Jul 3, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FYI Kurfürst was banned a long time ago


He and Barbarossa Isegrim were the same guy, right?
Are they active anywhere else?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2022)

spicmart said:


> He and Barbarossa Isegrim were the same guy, right?
> Are they active anywhere else?


Don't know


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 3, 2022)

Kurfürst has his own website, but I do not remember what the name of the site is.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 4, 2022)

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance


The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site. Wartime reports of the WW2 Luftwaffe fighter Messerschmitt Bf 109. Performance tests and tactical trials, and related information.



kurfurst.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

