# Twin boom question



## Velius (Oct 25, 2008)

Hello everyone,

I was wondering about this the other day- what are the structural/aerodynamic advantages and disadvantages of twin boom aircraft like the P-38, Fokker G.1, FW-189, etc.?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2008)

Velius said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I was wondering about this the other day- what are the structural/aerodynamic advantages and disadvantages of twin boom aircraft like the P-38, Fokker G.1, FW-189, etc.?



Can't think offhand of an advantage other than two engines when one lets go (maybe - the bromide about the purpose of the second fan is to carry you safely to the crash site) - and frequently you can not only carry a larger payload but have more room for fuel and also have the potential for more power/wt ratio for acceleration and climb. Armament packaging is more efficient

In general, the cons are -

It is difficult to reduce drag of a twin to anywhere close to a well designed single.

It is heavier

It is bigger and easier to see

It has a higher rolling intertia 

It is more expensive

It is more complicated and requires longer training 

With twin engines in nacelles you have 'three' fuselages to create parasite drag.

Fuel transfer typically is more complicated

These are not universal truths... but food for thought?


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 25, 2008)

you can load up the nose with some serious firepower, peace of mind having two engines


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 25, 2008)

I always wondered what the performance of the P-38 would have been if it had a conventional fuselage like the mossie.

.


----------



## Velius (Oct 25, 2008)

Interesting concept Cosimo. The horizontal stabilizer looks a little too small for the rest of the plane.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 25, 2008)

Velius said:


> Interesting concept Cosimo. The horizontal stabilizer looks a little too small for the rest of the plane.



I spent 73 seconds on it... I wast designing a new aircraft,,, just a quick sketch..
copy and paste


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

In the case of the P-38 the booms may have allowed more internal space than "normal" nacelles. This is significant as turbochargers were installed, and it allowed the radiators to be mounted farther back on the boom. It allowed the use of a larger and higher AR horizontal stabilizer than would normally be practical for a fuselage mounted tail.


A twin boom configuration is also important in cases other than twin-engine a/c. Such as in a pusher configuration with the engine mounted on the rear of the central pod. This provides space for a central (unsynchronised) mounted armament like a twin, but the smaller size of a single engine a/c. 

Twin boom push-pull aircraft (Fokker D.XXIII) are also something to be noted, and generally easier to arrange than the configuraton used on the Do 335. (and is occasionally used on modern aircraft)


It's advantageous for jets as well, as in the case of the Vampire (Venom, Sea Vixen) this allows for an aircraft with short intake and exhaust which minimizes thrust loss. (particularly important to early jets with relatively low thrust engines) Although single boom designs like the Me P.1101 gave similar advantages.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> In the case of the P-38 the booms may have allowed more internal space than "normal" nacelles. This is significant as turbochargers were installed, and it allowed the radiators to be mounted farther back on the boom. It allowed the use of a larger and higher AR horizontal stabilizer than would normally be practical for a fuselage mounted tail.



kk is quite right. In the case of the P-38, half of the reason for going with the twin-boom configuration was so that there was a place to put the (fairly large) turbo-superchargers; a conventional nacelle would not have worked for the Allison V-1710 engines AND the turbo-superchargers, there simply would not have been enough room. It also incidentally provided a convenient place to house the main landing gear.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

Comiso, here are some drawings of other P-38 configurations:
it came up in this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-not-jet-driven-p-38-a-9076-2.html





Interestingly, it included the twing boom push-pull arrangement I mentioned earlier.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

Stich, I think it could have worked, but the nacelles would have had to be long to have space (and proper positioning) for the landing gear. (or switch to a taildragger) The radiator could have gone under the foreward part of the nacelle, like the one on the P-40's nose.

However, with the large nacelles (probably weighing almost as much as the previous booms) and the added weight of the fuselage, the aircraft would probably have been somewhat heavier.


The push-pull twin boom configuration is interesting as it eliminates the extra drag and rotational inertia (though the small booms will still add some) of outboard placed engines, and is significantly simpler than the Do 335's arrangement. (however, only a small armament would be able to be sone mounted, and -except for an engine cannon- would have to be synchronized)


And*, Bill*, most of what you discussed was common to all twin engined aircraft. I think the question was what was the advantages of the twin boom configuration compared to wing mounted nacelles with a central fuselage. (though, as I introduced, there are many other possibilities for the twin boom arrangement)


----------



## Marcel (Oct 26, 2008)

In the G.1 the configuration was made like this because the rear observer/gunner got a good view to all side (even under) while still being very close to the pilot, which was preferred by Fokker.


----------



## Micdrow (Oct 26, 2008)

As a side note after listening to lectures on the P-38 glacier girl and Ruff Stuff another advantage was that with the weapons in the center they where easier to aim. Conventunal fighters with the engine in front are subject to more vibration in the nose making it harder to aim. There is very little if any vibration in the nose of a P-38 when it comes to aiming during battle. 

Also with all your guns in central locations they pack a greater punch then say a mustang that has to offset there guns to a certain range or distance to bring all guns into play to hit the target at the same time.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 26, 2008)

Also has advantages of range, don't forget!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

*Micdrow*,

I noted that already in post #7. The twin-boom (single engine) pusher also allowed this. (the push-pull obviously would not)

Of course, you could still mount nose (or wing root) guns on a/c with a tractor propeller on the nose, but they would have to be synchronized (except for an engine gun) which reduced RoF and excluded weapons not able to be synchronized. The size and number of weapons are also more limited given they all have to fit around the engine and compete for ammo space. (except for wing root guns)


----------



## Marcel (Oct 26, 2008)

You are all talking about the advantages which are shared between all twin engined fighters. I think the question was why a twin boom construction. I believe in several cases this was because of the visibility for the gunner in the rear. Could the P38 configuration been chosen because of the tricycle gear?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Could the P38 configuration been chosen because of the tricycle gear?


I believe that Kelly Johnson wanted to build an interceptor that could carry a big gun and could climb extremely well. At the time the P-38 design team thought the only way to achieve the design goals was with a supercharged twin. Using the twin boom alleviated bulky nacelles and lended it self for a nice turbocharger installation. Also remember - those responsible for the design of the P-38 thought that no more then a handful of the aircraft would be produced.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 26, 2008)

Good point Joe, I forgot about the superchargers. Twin booms was a neat solution indeed.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Comiso, here are some drawings of other P-38 configurations:
> it came up in this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-not-jet-driven-p-38-a-9076-2.html
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting the one looks like a ME110...


----------



## Graeme (Oct 26, 2008)

Couple of illustrative advantages.

In the case of the ANT-23, the booms provided access for the recoilless cannons... 





For White Night, it allowed a large payload to be carried... 





And it remains an active concept in Homebuilts. The latest(?) being The New Horizons design. In their words, eliminating visibility problems...
_
"Our design is a pilot-forward design, keeping the wings and propulsion system aft of the pilot thereby eliminating visibility issues common in the traditional "tractor" designs."_

New Horizons Aircraft Inc. | Prototype Aircraft, Light Sport Airplane, Experimental Airplane









Some of their future designs...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 26, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe that Kelly Johnson wanted to build an interceptor that could carry a big gun and could climb extremely well. At the time the P-38 design team thought the only way to achieve the design goals was with a supercharged twin. Using the twin boom alleviated bulky nacelles and lended it self for a nice turbocharger installation.



Good point, Joe. The requirements the USAAC were looking for virtually ruled out the use of a single engine; at that time (1938 ), there was no single engine (yet) on the market that provided adequate performance, hence the use of twin engines. Since twin engines were required (and also twin turbo-supercharger), Lockheed's airframe options were extremely limited.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Also remember - those responsible for the design of the P-38 thought that no more then a handful of the aircraft would be produced.



And, yes, at that time Lockheed figured they'd be lucky if they got an order for 50 (yes, that's right, I said 50) from the USAAC, instead of the over 5,000 that ended up being produced before War's end; the first models were virtually "hand built" before the institution of the assembly line in 1942.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

Stich, the original specification behind the P-38 was for a small order of interceptors. As such the original P-38 design (ie that used for the XP-38 ) was not designed for large scale production. When this philosophy changed, significant changes had to be made to make it suitable for mass production. (the YP-38 and all subsequent aircraft)

Despite the inherant delay this would have caused in development, the crash of the XP-38 (which would still have been fairly representative for testing) delayed the whole program by over a year. (until the first YP-38 was ready)


And *Marcel,*

If you notice, pretty much all my posts are tied to the twin boom configuration's various advantages, layouts, and characteristics. (in fact I brought up the specific point you noted in my response to Bill -drgondog- in post #10)


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi KK, 

You're right, I was more aiming at these poste:



Micdrow said:


> Also with all your guns in central locations they pack a greater punch then say a mustang that has to offset there guns to a certain range or distance to bring all guns into play to hit the target at the same time.





Watanbe said:


> Also has advantages of range, don't forget!



Which are both statements true for any twin engined fighter.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Interesting the one looks like a ME110...



I like the looks of that one in particular. Reminds me more of a cross between a P-80 and a De Havilland Albatross though. 

On another though on the P-38, bulky nacelles could have been avoided if the landing gear has been carried in the inboard portion of the wings. (with additional fuel being carried in the fuselage) Though this may bring into question the placement of the bomb/drop-tank pylons. (depending on how the gear is arranged)

On advantage of the P-38's central pylon configuration was the ability to carry asymmetric loads. (the Corsair had this too) Additionally it put the stress on a very strong part of the airplane, with less structural limitations than outboard wing mountings.

Again this may still have been possible in the "conventional" twin engine configuration, sepending on how the gear could be placed.



*Marcel,*

Thanks, but if you note Micdrow's statement would apply to any a/c witout a tractor propeller. (including a single engine pusher -not to mention jets-)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On another though on the P-38, bulky nacelles could have been avoided if the landing gear has been carried in the inboard portion of the wings. (with additional fuel being carried in the fuselage) Though this may bring into question the placement of the bomb/drop-tank pylons. (depending on how the gear is arranged)


And where would the turbo charger and ducting go?


----------



## Velius (Oct 27, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> I spent 73 seconds on it... I wast designing a new aircraft,,, just a quick sketch..
> copy and paste



oh  . I thought it was an actual concept.



Graeme said:


> And it remains an active concept in Homebuilts. The latest(?) being The New Horizons design. In their words, eliminating visibility problems...



I think the twin boom concept was chosen for this reason on the FW-189 for it's reconnaissance role. And indeed, the fuselage section was constructed almost entirely with glazed glass windows to get an unobstructed view in just about every direction. A small note- it’s usefulness for recon roles earned it the nickname “flying eye”


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2008)

Velius said:


> oh  . I thought it was an actual concept.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the twin boom concept was chosen for this reason on the FW-189 for it's reconnaissance role. And indeed, the fuselage section was constructed almost entirely with glazed glass windows to get an unobstructed view in just about every direction. A small note- it’s usefulness for recon roles earned it the nickname “flying eye”



Correct and suprise suprise, look at the amount of glass on the G.1


----------



## Waynos (Oct 27, 2008)

And on the same theme over 30 years later............


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On another though on the P-38, bulky nacelles could have been avoided if the landing gear has been carried in the inboard portion of the wings. (with additional fuel being carried in the fuselage) Though this may bring into question the placement of the bomb/drop-tank pylons. (depending on how the gear is arranged)



I could be wrong (have before), but I believe this would have made the wings too thick on their inboard portion, not to mention what you've already said about losing the inner-wing pylons AND internal tankage.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ,

The turbochargers/ducting would be in the same location, the turbochargers didn't add any real "bulk" to the nacelles. Then again, the landing gear wouldn't add a lot either. (adding to length, but that wouldn't have a significant effect on drag)

And after I thought about it, I think the gear were best where they were. (booms or no booms) Hence why pretty much all twin engined piston engined aircraft of the war had them located in the nacelles.

Chin mounted radiators would make the nacelles bulkier and add drag. (though, having them grouped with the engine and oil cooler reduces vulnerability)

Mounting the radiators (probably along with oil coolers and intercoolers) in extended inboard wing sections (ie Mossie or Whirlwind) may have been a possibility. (the resulting increase inchord may have also delayed compressibility) This may have had other issues though. 

So, for the "conventional P-38," compact, low drag, outer-wing mounted radiators were probably the best choice. (like on the Bf 110)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> The turbochargers/ducting would be in the same location, the turbochargers didn't add any real "bulk" to the nacelles. Then again, the landing gear wouldn't add a lot either. (adding to length, but that wouldn't have a significant effect on drag)
> 
> ...



You forget one thing - the set up of the turbo chargers are based on the size and length of the ducting running from the intakes to the turbocharger and on to the engine. If the ducting is shortened or lengthened it will effect the turbo charger performance. Remember, it was decided to build an interceptor that could climb and with the "tools" available a turbocharged twin seemed to be the way to go - what was available was the Allison so by adding the turbo charger everything "worked." I think in the end this is the reason why Johnson decided on a twin boom configuration.

BTW Johnson was also very "into" twin tail (H tail) configurations. His college thesis actually gave critical critique of the Electra's first windshield configuration and actually


----------



## Graeme (Oct 28, 2008)

Johnson explains the reasoning behind the long nacelle/boom...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2008)

Yes, the twin boom configuration was naturally the most practical solution, my argument was more or less academic. (I do think the airfoil chosen for the P-38 was it's main development limitation -and not just due to compressibility, but that's not the nature of this discussion)

The coment that the turbochargers had to be used because they "*had a long engine*." ??? That makes no sense to me at all.

The turbochargers had to be used to obtain good high altitude performance. (the V-1710 being equipped with a relatively small supercharger, though compared to the early Merlins and DB-601 it's critical altitude wasn't much lower, all being rated for "medium altitudes")



Everyone but the US was using single-stage supercharging on their engines, up until the Merlin 60 series came out. Though single stage two-speed (though never Used on the Allison) or variable speed (DB engines) were faily commonly used. 
The only country using 2-stage superchargers operationally in the early stages of the war was in fact the US, with the good old F4F's P&W R-1830-76/86 featuring a 2-stage 3-speed (including neutral) supercharger with intercooler. (some models, particulalr for foreign use, featured engines -Wright 1820 or P&W 1830- with simpler single stage 2-speed units, and the FM-2 with it's Wright engine featured one such as well -resulting in slightly poorer altitude performance)
The Corsair's R-2800 featured a similar 2-stage supercharger.(along with a more powerful one in the F4U-4) 
Had Allison focused on such developments, thy too probably could have had a decent 2-stage supercharger available fairly early on. (though USAAC policy focused on turbocharging -technically all the engine companyies had to do was make sure the engine would be suitable for a turbocharger installation, the R-2600 being an example of an engine with poor turbocharging qualities)

Then of course came the 2-stage Merlins. 

But no operational German engines ever featured 2-stage superchargers or intercoolers (inless the rare use of turbocharging). However, due to the larger displacement of the DB-605 (at similar size and weight to the Merlin) it was still able to compete for performance at high altitude. (particularly with the larger DB-603 supercharger of the AS and D models, and of course, GM-1 provided further high altitude booting possibilities for German engines)

And turbocharging in pretty much any case on a WWII aircraft was actually 2-stage, with the turbocharger (after passing through the intercooler) feeding into an "integral" "engine supercharger."



The best altitude performance the single stage V-1710 managed was with the supercharger gear ratio increaded from 8.8:1 to 9.6:1 on engines like the the V-1710-81/99/85/83, which increased WEP to 1,480 hp at 10,500 ft. (mil 1,125 at 17,500 ft). But due to increased charge heating max boost was limited to 57," the older engines (-39, 35, 73 etc) had a WEP limit of 60" with ~1,570 hp, but only at ~5,000 ft with mil of 1,150 hp at ~14,000 ft. (all figures with ram air -high speed level flight, w/out ram -low-peed/climb figures are all 2,000 ft lower)

This performance was almost as good as Merlin 45 (single-stage single speed as well), but max power is still a bit short as well as critical altitude. But not bad with all things considered.


Also note that with the 8.8:1 blower, the actual boost (MAP) limit was above 70" Hg, but this results in almost 1,800 hp, well above the 1,600 hp rating for the reduction gearing (not to mention other structural areas) and in any case this would only be atainable at SL with full ram. (or over-rev to 3,200 rpm) 

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You forget one thing - the set up of the turbo chargers are based on the size and length of the ducting running from the intakes to the turbocharger and on to the engine. If the ducting is shortened or lengthened it will effect the turbo charger performance. Remember, it was decided to build an interceptor that could climb and with the "tools" available a turbocharged twin seemed to be the way to go - what was available was the Allison so by adding the turbo charger everything "worked." I think in the end this is the reason why Johnson decided on a twin boom configuration.
> 
> *I agree this is the best overall layout. As I put in my last post, I was just discussing how the P-38 might have been arrange in a "conventional" layout.
> 
> ...



Did you forget to finish that last sentence?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Did you forget to finish that last sentence?


Yes, the kids started crying


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

> However, I didn't say anything about movint the turbocharger, so I'm not sure why you made the first comment. The P-38 had a pretty compact location for the turbocharger, almost back to back with the engine with relatively short ducting (except for the original intercoolers in the wing LE) generally similar to that on a B-17 or B-24, opposed to the much longer ducting of the P-47 with its ventral turbocharger.


OK I see your point - I thought the turbocharger was further back than it actually was.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, the kids started crying



Sorry, what was the rest of that though?

Were you just going to mention how he influenced the L-10 design? (twin tail, wing fillet, altered windshield/nose)

And the preference to twin-fin tails is demonstrated on the sketch of a "conventional" P-38 as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Sorry, what was the rest of that though?
> 
> Were you just going to mention how he influenced the L-10 design? (twin tail, wing fillet, altered windshield/nose)
> 
> And the preference to twin-fin tails is demonstrated on the sketch of a "conventional" P-38 as well.


Well because of his paper he eventually got hired at Lockhhed. He convinced Lockheed to go with an "H" tail and to drop the "motorboat" inward canted windscreen.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2008)

Right.

They also tested a T-33/T2V experimentally with a twin-tail very similar to the Super Electra/Lodestar/Ventura/Hudson. (the biggest difference is the tailplane not extending past the fins)


----------



## AMCKen (Feb 12, 2009)

One of my 'fantasy' aircraft was to build one with the P-38 basic layout but with just a single Allison T-56 in the nose.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 13, 2009)

AMCKen said:


> One of my 'fantasy' aircraft was to build one with the P-38 basic layout but with just a single Allison T-56 in the nose.



Is that a turboprop? I'm guessing the one turboprop probably had about as much power as the twin Allisons, if not more. This is essentially what they did to the Mustang when they developed it into the Enforcer.


----------



## AMCKen (Feb 17, 2009)

The T-56 is the engine in the C-130 Hercules and others.


----------



## davebender (Feb 18, 2009)

If you want a twin engine fighter with a conventional fuselage then the Fw-187 is the solution. Powered by 2 x DB605 engines I suspect the Fw-187 would have eaten the P-38 for lunch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> If you want a twin engine fighter with a conventional fuselage then the Fw-187 is the solution. Powered by 2 x DB605 engines I suspect the Fw-187 would have eaten the P-38 for lunch.



It had a top speed of 330 mph and a service ceiling of under 33,000 feet. I hope it "would of" been maneuverable!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 18, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It had a top speed of 330 mph and a service ceiling of under 33,000 feet. I hope it "would of" been maneuverable!



I think even a P-38E would've been able to handle it, not to mention the J/L.


----------



## davebender (Feb 19, 2009)

> It had a top speed of 330 mph and a service ceiling of under 33,000 feet.


Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
The pre-production Fw-187 A-0 had a top speed of 545 kph when powered by 2 x 675hp engines. What do you think the top speed will be when powered by 2 x 1,450hp DB605 engines? Everything I have read suggests that the Fw-187 will be faster and have a rate of climb superior to the Me-109 when equipped with the same engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
> The pre-production Fw-187 A-0 had a top speed of 545 kph when powered by 2 x 675hp engines. What do you think the top speed will be when powered by 2 x 1,450hp DB605 engines? Everything I have read suggests that the Fw-187 will be faster and have a rate of climb superior to the Me-109 when equipped with the same engine.


"Will be, would have been."

Was it ever fitted with the DB605s? No - The aircraft was never developed any further and even with the more powerful engines there was no guarantee that this aircraft's performance would have greatly improved. Tank went on to develop the Ta 154 which showed much more promise.

Remember, this aircraft was designed during the time when the Me 110 was supposed to be this devastating fighter - look what happened then.


----------



## davebender (Feb 19, 2009)

The Fw-187 was designed during the same time frame as the American P-38. We know that the DB601/DB605 engines will fit as one of the prototypes was powered by DB600 engines. If we are comparing the P-38 to contemporary twin engine fighter aircraft then the Fw-187 is as close as we can get. It's certainly a better comparison then the British Mosquito.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> The Fw-187 was designed during the same time frame as the American P-38. We know that the DB601/DB605 engines will fit as one of the prototypes was powered by DB600 engines. If we are comparing the P-38 to contemporary twin engine fighter aircraft then the Fw-187 is as close as we can get. It's certainly a better comparison then the British Mosquito.


Then even the early P-38s were superior to the Fw 187 in the form that it was actually produced, but I agree about the British Mosquito comparison.


----------



## HoHun (Feb 19, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Was it ever fitted with the DB605s? No - The aircraft was never developed any further and even with the more powerful engines there was no guarantee that this aircraft's performance would have greatly improved. Tank went on to develop the Ta 154 which showed much more promise.

The Fw 187 was designed for DB 600-series engines and only "down-engined" initially when the Jumo 210 was the Luftwaffe's standard engine. Several DB 601-engined aircraft were built, with the V-5 reaching 635 km/h at low altitude in one speed measurement run.

Kurt Tank actually planned to beat the absolute world speed record of (at the time) 755 km/h with a Fw 187V-7, powered by the same type of DB 601 record engines used by Heinkel's and Messerschmitt's record aircraft, and this attempt only was stopped by the outbreak of the war.

Focke-Wulf had actually been building B-0 pre-series aircraft with DB 601 engines at the beginning of the war, but the B series was canceled at the outbreak of the war for reasons that have not been recorded for history.

The Fw 187V-5 was used for testing purposes until early 1942, so the data for the DB 605-engined variant the RLM ordered into development in mid-1942 had a solid basis. The Me 109 and Me 110 show that it was not difficult to fit a DB605 to an aircraft designed for a DB 601, and Focke-Wulf did in fact plan to convert the existing V-5.

(The orders Focke-Wulf received in 1942 first for the development, then for preparation of series production of the DB 605-engined Fw 187C were clearly motivated by the problems encountered by the generally similar Me 210.)

Before the prototypes and the preparations for series production could be completed, the Fw 187C was cancelled in late 1942, again for reasons that are poorly documented.

In addition to the Fw 187C, Focke-Wulf also suggested a Fw 187H high-altitude fighter as superior alternative to the Fw 190 high-altitude variants they were then developing (which would finally evolve in the Ta 152H). The DB 605-engined Fw 187H would have had superior characteristics to the projected DB 603-engined Fw 190 Kurt Tank was envisioning at the time.

The Ta 154 in fact was not a "more promising" aircraft, but supposed to be a cheap night fighter due to the use of non-strategic material and an older engine, the Jumo 211. It seems that the performance of the Ta 154 even re-engined with the late-war Jumo 213 engines was at about the same level as that of the Fw 187C with mid-war DB 605 engines.

(I'm relying on Hermann/Petrick's "Focke-Wulf Fw 187" and Hermann's article on the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 in Flugzeug Classic 3/2009.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2009)

Great info Henning - I still believe the P-38 was superior for a host of reasons although it "would of" been interesting to see this aircraft with the 605.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 20, 2009)

Flyboyj, sorry for being off topic but I've wondered this for a while now and thought I'd take the opportunity to ask, why is it that you write 'would of' instead of would have or would've?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Flyboyj, sorry for being off topic but I've wondered this for a while now and thought I'd take the opportunity to ask, why is it that you write 'would of' instead of would have or would've?



Because I see a lot of folks talking of hypothetical situations that might of changed a situation - "would of, could of, should of" is a saying in my neck of the woods implying one is trying to adjust their hindsight goggles....


----------



## Waynos (Feb 20, 2009)

Thanks for settling my curiosity. I've seen people use that phrase here too, its the use of the word 'of' instead of 'have' that I find strange


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Thanks for settling my curiosity. I've seen people use that phrase here too, its the use of the word 'of' instead of 'have' that I find strange


More examples of us Yanks just killing the English language!!!


----------



## hesham (Nov 5, 2010)

Hi all,

from a friend,the Lockheed proposals for Army fighter 
competition of 1937.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 15, 2010)

Sorry if I am reviving an old topic, but it appears to me that one serious advantage of the FW 187 over the P-38 is that you can alter the armament to a significant degree or expend a heavy load of ammunition without changing the trim of the aircraft even with all armament near the centerline. The guns and ammunition on the P-38 (and P-39 and P-63 for that matter) are all way forward of the center of gravity.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2010)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Sorry if I am reviving an old topic, but it appears to me that one serious advantage of the FW 187 over the P-38 is that you can alter the armament to a significant degree or expend a heavy load of ammunition without changing the trim of the aircraft even with all armament near the centerline. The guns and ammunition on the P-38 (and P-39 and P-63 for that matter) are all way forward of the center of gravity.
> 
> - Ivan.



There were never any adverse conditions C/G wise with the P-38 expelling its ammunition as far as I know, all you had to do is maintain the MAC below 32% wheels up. The P-39 and P-63 had a much narrower C/G range and even had C/G limits along their water line. Aircraft with "usable weight" (fuel, ammunition) forward of the C/G are fine provided you can trim out adverse stick forces. I see nothing to show the FW 187 would have offered any advantage in this area and I can tell you that any aircraft is continually trimmed in flight to compensate for spent fuel, ammunition, ordnance, etc. regardless of C/G location.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 15, 2010)

Think Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar. Load from the rear - clear access. Equally open for para-drops (and in Korea the C-119 was the air-drop workhorse). In general twin boom creates 'alternatives' - for specialization. Guns in the nose - the P-38 *AND *the Bell Airacobra - both Bell and Lockheed were designing the fighter around its guns. Two approaches - P-38 and P-39 - to the same specialization.

MM

Thx FB


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2010)

That's C-119.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 15, 2010)

Two approaches to guns in the nose. The turbojet makes a huge difference.


----------

