# Westland Whirlwind vs Fw-187 vs P-38



## davebender (Aug 29, 2010)

A comparison between the U.S. P-38 and two foreign competitors that could have been placed into mass production. These are single seat day fighters powered by two engines.

All three aircraft get state of the art engines.
P-38. 2 x Allison V-1710.
Whirlwind. 2 x RR Merlin Merlin. Same engines as a Spitfire produced at that time.
Fw-187. 2 x DB601 / DB605. Same engines as a Me-109 produced at that time.

Aircraft Empty Weight.
P-38E. 12,700 lbs.
Whirlwind. 8,310 lbs.
Fw-187 A0 (i.e. pre-production model). 8,157 lbs.

Weapons.
P-38E. 1 x 20mm cannon. 2 x .50cal MG. 2 x .30cal MG.
Whirlwind. 4 x 20mm cannon.
Fw-187. 2 x 20mm cannon. 4 x 7.92mm MG.

Personally I think the Whirlwind and Fw-187 are nicely matched. The P-38E is overweight and under armed by comparison. But we cannot say for certain as neither the Whirlwind nor the Fw-187 were allowed to mature as single seat fighter aircraft.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 29, 2010)

slight error mate, the Whirlwind didn't use the RR Merlin it used the RR Peregrine, which was what caused it's demise really!
Mike.


----------



## rank amateur (Aug 29, 2010)

Imaging someone at Westland actually putting up 2 Merlin X on the Whirlwind. (ok, I know it would have cost a lot or rearranging) but I think Westland would have had a real hot bird on their hand able to tackle anything they would put up against it. Another great what if..


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 29, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> Imagine someone at Westland actually putting up 2 Merlin X on the Whirlwind. (ok, I know it would have cost a lot or rearranging) but I think Westland would have had a real hot bird on their hand able to tackle anything they would put up against it. Another great what if..


Not really
the Whirlwind wasn't just built with the Peregrines in mind, it was physically tailored to the Peregrines; changes to the powerplant would have resulted in considerable changes elsewhere to accommodate the new weight/size/CoG/fuel demand/you name it.

Westland had a crack at a Merlin-powered bird, it was called the Welkin but it had one or two problems of its own and the advent of the Spitfire HF VII put paid to any requirement for it.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 29, 2010)

It is difficult to compare these aircraft in that the Whirlwind and Fw-187 did not have the engines quoted.

The P-38 was definitely heavier but would most likely be superior at high altitude because of its turbos.

The other two with the quoted engines should perform better at low altitude but there are still too many unknowns.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 29, 2010)

double entry


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2010)

No telling how much of the airframe has to be modified (rudder, aft structure, cg, etc) by boosting the weight and torque on the Fw 187 and Whirlwind


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2010)

I think the agility of the FW 187 Falke with 2 x1200 or 1300 hp engines would be unbeatable. Now given its narrow fuselage the capability to carry a heavy armament like the Lightning or Wirldwind is doubtful.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 29, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> I think the agility of the FW 187 Falke with 2 x1200 or 1300 hp engines would be unbeatable. Now given its narrow fuselage the capability to carry a heavy armament like the Lightning or Wirldwind is doubtful


I wouldn't have described the Whirlwind's fuselage as wide, structurally, it had nothing going spare and managed a 4 x 20mm punch


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 29, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> I think the agility of the FW 187 Falke with 2 x1200 or 1300 hp engines would be unbeatable. Now given its narrow fuselage the capability to carry a heavy armament like the Lightning or Wirldwind is doubtful.




I think the DH Hornet was what the whirlwind wanted to be


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2010)

> I wouldn't have described the Whirlwind's fuselage as wide, structurally, it had nothing going spare and managed a 4 x 20mm punch



Yeap, but the Whirldwind had the guns in the front , that needed a longer nose than the Falke. If the Fw-187 wanted to emplace 4 x MG 151/20 or even the shorter MG-FF it would need an enlenghted fuselage. I dont think this a serious trouble, I just pointing out that the original configuration of the german fighter wasnt ideal.


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2010)

I don't think so. The Hornet was over twice as heavy. A light bomber / attack aircraft rather then a long range fighter.


Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In 1935, Kurt Tank made the suggestion of creating a long-range single-seat fighter under a private venture within Focke-Wulf. The idea was not to produce a heavy fighter or bomber destroyer like the Bf 110, but instead a long-range design that would have the performance of a single-seat design. Powered by the new 736 kW (1,000 PS) Daimler-Benz DB 600,


The Fw-187 was originally designed for DB600 engines. So the DB601 engine is a no brainer. 

The Whirlwind is a different story as it was designed for the relatively small Peregrine engine. But I think Westland would manage it somehow if/when the DB601 powered Fw-187 shows up. It can't be any worse then trying to squeeze a RR Griffon engine in a Spitfire. If necessary the Whirlwind can delete two of the 20mm cannon (and ammunition) to compensate for additional engine weight. That still leaves plenty of firepower.


----------



## skeeter (Aug 29, 2010)

I think the P-38 could have had Merlins but the political considerations and contracts of the time pointed toward the Allison engines being installed with their turbo superchargers into the famous twin boomed P-38. I have never investigated whether that is the case or not, but as we all know, the Allison engine was pretty much a weak sister to the Merlin design which, in America, was built under license by Packward. Owing to the historical nature of the P-38, and the success at which it was fought throughout World War 2 and in both major war time theatres, Europe and Asia, I do not like to see the Lightning short changed by "what if" scenarios. With the Lightning, it is not what if. It is what it did, which is kick butt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2010)

skeeter said:


> I think the P-38 could have had Merlins but the political considerations and contracts of the time pointed toward the Allison engines being installed with their turbo superchargers into the famous twin boomed P-38. I have never investigated whether that is the case or not, but as we all know, the Allison engine was pretty much a weak sister to the Merlin design which, in America, was built under license by Packward. Owing to the historical nature of the P-38, and the success at which it was fought throughout World War 2 and in both major war time theatres, Europe and Asia, I do not like to see the Lightning short changed by "what if" scenarios. With the Lightning, it is not what if. It is what it did, which is kick butt.



If you look into the archives this has been discussed in detail over the years. Personally I don't think Merlins would have made a big difference in the P-38. I believe Warren Bodie claimed there was an engineering study to put Merlins on the P-38 but any documented proof of this is either dust in the wind or this whole story is a myth. In the early 1980s I has access to the Lockheed library in Burbank and spent hours trying to verify this, although many of the old timers still around back then said the Merlin powered P-38 was always a top rumor.

This is what "should have" been done with the P-38 in lieu of the Merlin. As we're discussing comparisons with the FW 197 and the Whirlwind, this was superior to both of them.

Whatever Happened To The P-38K ?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 29, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. The Hornet was over twice as heavy. A light bomber / attack aircraft rather then a long range fighter.



Spec F.12/43 > *Long-range fighter* for the Far East - written for de Havilland Hornet

Variants

Hornet F 1
Fighter version, 60 built.
Hornet PR 2
Photo-reconnaissance version, five built.
Hornet F 3
Fighter version, 132 built.
Hornet FR 4
Fighter-reconnaissance version, 12 built.
Sea Hornet F 20
A navalised version for service on British aircraft carriers, 79 built.
Sea Hornet NF 21
Fleet Air Arm night fighter powered by Merlin 133/134 engines, 72 built.
Sea Hornet PR 22
Photo-reconnaissance version, 23 built.


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2010)

Historically RAF Bomber Command conducted daytime bombing through December 1939 and then switched to night bombing to avoid being shot to pieces by German fighter aircraft. This kept bomber losses down until the Luftwaffe developed an effective night fighter force but also rendered RAF Bomber Command ineffective for the next several years. During the early war period the average RAF bomber crew couldn't find a factory at night, much less hit it.

But what if RAF heavy bombers of 1939 to 1942 were escorted by sizable numbers of Whirlwind fighter aircraft? With drop tanks the Whirlwind can probably escort as far as the Ruhr. The bombers might hit something of military value if bombing during the daytime.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. The Hornet was over twice as heavy. A light bomber / attack aircraft rather then a long range fighter.


 A Hornet F1 empty weighed 12,400 pounds a Whirlwind empty weighed 8,400 pounds. The Hornet had bigger heavier engines and extras like pressurised cockpit and power controls, so the bare airframes probably werent too far apart even though the Hornet was a lot bigger.

Capt Eric Brown loved the Sea Hornet version and considered it to be an outstanding fighter _"in my book the Sea Hornet ranks second to none for harmony of control, performance characteristics and, perhaps most important, in inspiring confidence in its pilot. For sheer exhilarating flying enjoyment, no aircraft has ever made a deeper impression on me than did this outstanding filly from the de Havilland stable."_

My late father worked on Hornet F3s during the Malayan emergency and he said though officially the Hornet was limited to 2 x 1,000 pound bombs or 16 X 3" rockets or drop tanks. Unofficially they used to load bombs, rockets and drop tanks on it like hanging christmas tree decorations. The aircraft had enough power to lift at least 3,000 pounds off a hot tropical runway.


----------



## norab (Aug 30, 2010)

A correction here that everyone seems to have missed. the P-38 mounted a 20mm cannon and 4 x .50 calibers, not a 20mm 2 x.50's and 2 x .30's, that is a significant difference in firepower

The only time this differed was with the small pre-production run of YP-38's


> YP-38
> Despite the destruction of the prototype, the Army ordered 13 YP-38 pre-production test airplanes. These differed from the XP-38 in armament, in larger radiators, and in more powerful (1150-HP) Allison V-1710-27/29 engines. The first YP-38 flew in September, 1940, and delivery to the Army took place in Spring, 1941. The weapons package was changed to include a 37 mm cannon (instead of a 20 mm), as well as two .30 caliber and two .50 calibers (instead of four .50 calibers).



and the 37mm is much more powerful than a 20mm


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2010)

306 gallons. P-38 through H model.
290 gallons (1,100 liters). Fw-187 A0.
134 gallons. Whirlwind.

Looks like the Whirlwind is a poor third place in combat radius. Perhaps that explains why RAF Bomber Command didn't use it as an escort fighter.

The lightweight Fw-187 probably had a greater combat radius then the P-38. An ideal bomber escort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you look into the archives this has been discussed in detail over the years. Personally I don't think Merlins would have made a big difference in the P-38. I believe Warren Bodie claimed there was an engineering study to put Merlins on the P-38 but any documented proof of this is either dust in the wind or this whole story is a myth. In the early 1980s I has access to the Lockheed library in Burbank and spent hours trying to verify this, although many of the old timers still around back then said the Merlin powered P-38 was always a top rumor.
> 
> This is what "should have" been done with the P-38 in lieu of the Merlin. As we're discussing comparisons with the FW 197 and the Whirlwind, this was superior to both of them.
> 
> Whatever Happened To The P-38K ?



For FlyboyJ:

How true it is I don't know but in the book "Vee's for Victory" the author describes 2 if not 3 different P-38/Merlin proposals. In no case does it make any real difference to performance (except in some cases the Merlin versions had shorter estimated range). These are all paper studies. 
How much difference it would have made to maintenance or service issues I don't know.
For the early part of the war the P-38 was the ONLY premier US fighter and was in chronic short supply in all theaters. Delays in production would have seriously hampered US efforts at the time.

For others: 
I like both the Whirlwind and the FW 187 but people tend to forget the Whirlwind was a very small airplane for a twin, a 250 SQ ft wing. smaller than a Hurricane in area and only 5 ft more span. the two planes were either the same length or within inches of each other. I don't think anybody really believes you could make a Hurricane with TWO Merlins
A MK II was schemed with belt feed guns and a fuselage tank. If given 2 speed (NOT two-stage) engines and a more revised fuel system with drop tanks ( a center line station in addition to the wing bomb racks?) it might have a made a useful addition to the the 1942-43 period. 
The FW 187 is a bit more of a problem. It has a bigger wing than the P-38 so it can easily carry the DB engines it was designed for. However the performance numbers for the prototype may very well be for an unarmed version and the low drag surface evaporative cooling system was a no-go for a service aircraft. Another question would be the increase fuel capacity needed for the bigger engines . Granted the service DB 601 engines had more power than the DB 600 engines used in the prototype. The next problem is armament. Until the MG 151 becomes available the Germans were stuck with the MG FF cannon and it's drums. Second crewman might be needed to change drums as much as for any other reason on an early version. Not a real problem for an interceptor if you eliminate the second crewman but trying to use it as an escort fighter with a combat duration limited by ammo supply instead of fuel is a problem. It's non-adaptability to the night fighter role makes it's adaptation in place of the ME 110 a problem down the road as does it's perhaps slightly less suitability for the fast bomber role. While it might have the power to lift a pair of 1100lb bombs it's smaller wing might mean a longer take off run. Same could be said of the P-38 but the US and British seemed to have plenty of long runways for other aircraft that the P-38s could use.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> For FlyboyJ:
> 
> How true it is I don't know but in the book "Vee's for Victory" the author describes 2 if not 3 different P-38/Merlin proposals. In no case does it make any real difference to performance (except in some cases the Merlin versions had shorter estimated range). These are all paper studies.
> How much difference it would have made to maintenance or service issues I don't know.
> For the early part of the war the P-38 was the ONLY premier US fighter and was in chronic short supply in all theaters. Delays in production would have seriously hampered US efforts at the time.


This might have been true as I do know there was also 'rumor' that along with these engine proposals was a proposal to get rid of the yoke and go with a stick. I read somewhere that during an interview Kelly Johnson was quoted verifying this, but again never found any documented proof of these proposals.

When the Burbank facility was shut down in 1990, there were tons of old documents tossed. Buried benith those piles was probably the answer we are now looking for.


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2010)

> low drag surface evaporative cooling system


That feature was eliminated before the A0 (i.e. pre-production) version.



> increase fuel capacity needed for the bigger engines


Kurfurst posted DB601 / DB605 fuel consumption data awhile back. As I recall newer versions of the DB601 engine got as good or better fuel economy then the early model.



> Germans were stuck with the MG FF cannon


Which worked just fine on early Me-109s. They will work just as well on early Fw-187s.



> non-adaptability to the night fighter role
> slightly less suitability for the fast bomber role.


Those are Ju-88 missions. They do not matter for single seat day fighters like the Me-109 and Fw-187.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. The Hornet was over twice as heavy. A light bomber / attack aircraft rather then a long range fighter.
> 
> .



The hornet had much more than 2x the horse power and rate of climb with more than 100mph on top speed compared to the whirlwind.

with regard to the thread comparing two planes that hardly made it into service with one that served from start to finish is a bit unfair, the actual limitations of the P38 are known and are being compared with theoretical improvements to unsuccessful designs with engines etc that probably wouldnt have worked.


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2010)

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The first Lightning to see active service was the F-4 version, a P-38E in which the guns were replaced by four K17 cameras.[48] They joined the 8th Photographic Squadron out of Australia on 4 April 1942



The P-38 did not enter active service until 1942. Two years after Whirlwinds and Fw-187 pre-production aircraft served in combat. So you are right about the comparison being unfair. The Whirlwind and Fw-187A0 should probably be compared to the YP-38s flying during 1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> That feature was eliminated before the A0 (i.e. pre-production) version.


Yes it was but it also means that a FW 187 with twin 1000hp engines and regular radiators won't do 391-395mph. 



davebender said:


> Kurfurst posted DB601 / DB605 fuel consumption data awhile back. As I recall newer versions of the DB601 engine got as good or better fuel economy then the early model.


You are comparing apples to oranges. the DB 601-605 is not going get fuel consumption than the Ju 210 of 700hp.



davebender said:


> Which worked just fine on early Me-109s. They will work just as well on early Fw-187s.


They worked just fine for about 8 seconds and then the ammo ran out. ME 110s had two extra drums per gun and a radio operator to change them. 



davebender said:


> Those are Ju-88 missions. They do not matter for single seat day fighters like the Me-109 and Fw-187.


 That is the problem with the FW 187. It doesn't work that well as an escort fighter in the early part of the war and it isn't as adaptable to other missions. In other words why bother with it if resourses are stretched thin.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The P-38 did not enter active service until 1942. Two years after Whirlwinds and Fw-187 pre-production aircraft served in combat. So you are right about the comparison being unfair. The Whirlwind and Fw-187A0 should probably be compared to the YP-38s flying during 1940.



The whirlwind was withdrawn very shortly after its introduction, in its one major engagement during the channel dash of the Scharnhorst it was decimated by bf 109s (OK the P39 suffered in Europe too) but the P39 served from start to finish for the forces it was commisioned by the Americans. The P39 was well suited to Pacific operations but not to European ones. The Whirlwind wasnt suited to any, although it could have been. If it was designed from the outset to have merlins it may have worked but the cancellation of the peregrine cancelled the whirlwind, as I said a merlin whirlind would be as close to a mosquito/hornet as makes no difference. That is ifs and buts, what the P39 did is historical fact, the rest is conjecture.


----------



## DonL (Aug 30, 2010)

Hi,

i will put some data in to the discussion.

The most information come from; Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History by Dietmar Harmann, Peter Petrick
And i have done a lot of research for this bird. 



> are being compared with theoretical improvements to unsuccessful designs with engines etc that probably wouldnt have worked.



For the FW 187 this statement is completely wrong. And I also think for the Westland Whirlwind but for the Whirlwind I don't have enough data to proof it, for the FW 187 I have.

First some general Informations about the FW 187.

The FW 187 was designed from the edge for the DB 600/601. This was a clear specification from the RLM in the announcement for a destroyer/escort fighter.
The only real chance for the FW 187 to enter mass production was at autumm/winter 1940 as the RLM has two major problems with Messerschmitt. First the ME 110 was a total flop for escort fighting at the battle of britain and second the Me 210 had major design problems. The FW 187 was the alternative.
But with a FW 187 in mass production, the two other birds must be cancelled completely, because there were not enough DB engines two produce more then one twin engine aircraft. Two aircrafts would be reduce the output of the ME 109.
So the personal relation from Willy Messerschmitt to Göring, Ernst Udet and Erhard Milch and the problem with not enough DB engines were the only facts that the FW 187 wasn't going in mass production.
The design was outstanding and many people said this to Göring from 1940 till end of the war.
At 1942 Göring had a rage attack because someone was sarcasticaly comparing the ME 110/210 to the FW 187 and he had forbidden that anybody ever talked about the FW 187 in his presence.

Now to the specs.

There are serious data sheets from three different FW 187; THe FW 187 V4, V6 and the A0 prepoduction series. The V4 and V6 both were flown with the "evaporative" cooling system. 

General characteristics

* Crew: 2
* Length: 11.12 m (36 ft 6 in)
* Wingspan: 15.30 m (50 ft 2 ⅓ in)
* Height: 3.85 m (12 ft 7 ⅔ in)
* Wing area: 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²)
* Empty weight: 3,700 kg (8,157 lb)
* Loaded weight: 5,000 kg (11,023 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 210G 12-cylinder inverted-V piston, 515 kW (700 PS) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 525 km/h at 4,200 m (329 mph at 13,780 ft)
* Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,810 ft)
* Rate of climb: 1,050 m/min (3,445 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 164.14 kg/m² (33.62 lb/ft²)
* range: 1450km with 1100l B4
Armament

* 4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns in fuselage sides
* 2 × 20 mm MG FF cannon in lower fuselage

Both the the V4 and V6 were flawn with full armament

V4: date: 27.10.1938
with 2× Junkers Jumo 210G 12-cylinder inverted-V piston, 515 kW (700 PS) each and the "evaporative" cooling system and 545 km/h at 3600m
V6; date: October 1939
with 2 x DB 600a with 1000 PS each and the "evaporativ"e cooling system; 635 km/h at 4000m

The "evaporative" cooling system from the FW 187:

I don't know if the evaporative cooling system is the proper translation for the cooling System of the FW 187. In the englisch Wiki is claimed, that is was the same as in the Heinkel HE 100.
This is totaly wrong.
At the HE 100 System (Oberflächen Verdampfungskühlung) the cooling liquid is running through the wings and will evaporate at the wing surface. Also there is an extra wheel away cooler for the ground.
The cooling system from the FW 187 (Dampfheißkühlung) were only very low drag surface cooler for enegines with pressure water/glycol cooling systems. This cooling system was combat ready and had no problems itself.
The problem was the DB 600/601 and Junkers Jumo 210G/211weren't pressure water/glycol enegines, they had normal water cooling and there were problems with the cooling system of the the FW 187 at very low speed cruising (<250km/h) and ground action.
Pressure water/glycol engine 125 degree celsius limit; normal watercooling engine 90-100 dergree celsius limit. 
This was solved in the A0 serie with a more normal cooler.
But later for the pressure water/glycol enegines DB 605, DB 603 and Jumo 213 this system is ready for intoduction.

Speculative data's with serious basic data sheets:

For reality I think the first combat ready FW 187 would have seen service at summer/autum 1941 with following speculative specs.
Based to the facts that the ME 110 B0 with 2× Junkers Jumo 210G increase weight from 6200kg- to 6800kg full loaded to the ME 110 C-4 with 2 x DB 601a. 
The weight difference between the two engines are 170kg each.
With all this facts and the normal increasing weight from a preproduction or prototype aircraf to a full ready combat aircraft, I think the FW 187 will be increase weight of 800-900kg.

General characteristics
* Crew: 2
* Length: 11.12 m (36 ft 6 in)
* Wingspan: 15.30 m (50 ft 2 ⅓ in)
* Height: 3.85 m (12 ft 7 ⅔ in)
* Wing area: 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²)
* Empty weight: ~4,500 kg (9,921 lb)
* Loaded weight: ~5,800 kg (12,787 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× DB 601a 12-cylinder V piston, 1100 PS each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 
* Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,810 ft)
* Rate of climb: 
* Wing loading: ~190.79 kg/m² (38.35 lb/ft²)
* fuel: 1200l B4 (claimed from Dietmar Harmann, Peter Petrick for the pre production serie as first measures to increase range)
Armament
* 4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns in fuselage sides
* 2 × 20 mm MG FF cannon in lower fuselage

I think this would be the basics for a first mass production series with the DB 601a engine and later for the DB 601N (1175 PS) and the DB 601E (1350PS at 1.42 ata) .
This aircraft would be used as a multirole aircraft for destroyer-, nightfighter- and escort fighter missions.

To estimate the maxium speed is a little difficult, compared to the V6 flight, because with this engine there is only the option to use the low surface cooler from Messerschmitt with the little boost till 650 km/h ((Meredith Effect)
To my opinion and conservative, 620km/h (DB 601a), 635km/h (DB 601N) and 660-670km/h (DB601E)

With the development of the DB 605 and the circumstances of the war, I think the FW 187 would be devolped in two different directions. One aircraft as a single seater for escort and longerange missions and the other aircraft as a double seater for destroyer and nightfighter missions.
Apropos the nightfighter version was back in reality and serious discussion at 1942 at the RLM.
But the Ju 88 G and the Heinkel He 219 were preferred because of their higher weightloading and the development of the the DB 603 and Jumo 213.

At this thread the discussion is going for escort fighters so I only post the data sheet for the single seater escort fighter version .
Data sheet from Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History by Dietmar Harmann, Peter Petrick.

single seater highaltitude escort fighter version Fw187 from 1942 
General characteristics
* Crew: 1
* Length: 11.12 m (36 ft 6 in)
* Wingspan: 15.30 m (50 ft 2 ⅓ in)
* Height: 3.85 m (12 ft 7 ⅔ in)
* Wing area: 30.00 m² (322.91 ft²)
* Empty weight: 
* Loaded weight: 6.050 kg (13,338 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× DB 605a 12-cylinder-V piston, 1475 PS each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 725 km/h at 8100m 
* Service ceiling: 13.300 m (43637, ft)
* Rate of climb: 21,2 m/s / 10,6 min/10 km
* Wing loading: 202 kg/m² (40.60 lb/ft²)
* fuel: 
Armament 
4xMG151 or 2xMG151+ 4xMG131 or 1xMK03+2xMG151+2xMG131

To my opinion with all shown data from reality the sheet would be very near reality.
The DB 605 only increase weight of 140kg per engine and with the "evaporative" cooling system from the FW 187 for pressure water/glycol cooling engines, the above datas are possible for the full ata performance of the DB 605.
So I think with the reduced performance of the the DB 605 in 1943 a maximum speed of 700-705km/h is still possible.
When we look at this single seater version it would be a real energy fighter with an outstanding weight per horsepower ratio, a very good plane for increasing speed and a devil of a climber.

My Opinion for the Westland Whirlwind i will post tomorrow


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The whirlwind was withdrawn very shortly after its introduction, in its one major engagement during the channel dash of the Scharnhorst it was decimated by bf 109s .



The Whirlwind was intrroduced into squadron service in July 1940 and became operational in December 1940 getting the types first victory in February 1941. It was withdrawn from operational service in December 1943 mainly due to the fact that engine and airframe spares were running out. Not bad for a run of 112 aircraft that were only ever flown by 2 squadrons and were virtually unmodified throughout there service life. 

During the Channel Dash 4 Whirlwinds were sent to escort a flotilla of destroyers but they were bounced by 20 BF 109s and all 4 were shot down, it seems the pilots were unaware of what was occurring and werent forewarned to expect to meet fighters. 

A sensible what if instead of the usual fit Merlins what if, would be for Rolls Royce to have had the time and resources to develop the Peregrine in a similar fashion to the Merlin. The Peregrine was a 21 litre engine roughly 3/4 the size the size of a Merlin, all the upgrades for the Merlin could inspire similar approx 3/4 sized developments for the Peregrine. If Rolls Royce had built a Merlin 60 equivalent Using the Merlin Supercharger as the first stage in a similar fashion to the way the Vulture blower was used for the Merlin you could have a 1100 to 1200hp Peregrine with a decent altitude performance.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 31, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> A sensible what if instead of the usual fit Merlins what if, would be for Rolls Royce to have had the time and resources to develop the Peregrine in a similar fashion to the Merlin. The Peregrine was a 21 litre engine roughly 3/4 the size the size of a Merlin, all the upgrades for the Merlin could inspire similar approx 3/4 sized developments for the Peregrine.
> 
> If Rolls Royce had built a Merlin 60 equivalent Using the Merlin Supercharger as the first stage in a similar fashion to the way the Vulture blower was used for the Merlin you could have a 1100 to 1200hp Peregrine with a decent altitude performance.


Rolls-Royce DID have the time and resources to concentrate on one type, at a time when they had around four programs on the boil, so why do you think they would choose a 21-litre engine over a 27-litre engine? Cubes count and Rolls-Royce saw the Merlin as the principal breadwinner; the Peregrine was axed and the Griffon and Vulture were put on the backburner.

What would be the dimensional constraints imposed on your supercharger theory wrt to a tight ship like the Whirlwind?


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Not really
> the Whirlwind wasn't just built with the Peregrines in mind, it was physically tailored to the Peregrines; changes to the powerplant would have resulted in considerable changes elsewhere to accommodate the new weight/size/CoG/fuel demand/you name it.
> 
> Westland had a crack at a Merlin-powered bird, it was called the Welkin but it had one or two problems of its own and the advent of the Spitfire HF VII put paid to any requirement for it.



The Peregrine engine was a development of the Kestrel engine and to fit the Merlin into the Whirlwind would have required a complete structural reworking to cater for the increased power and weight. That said it would have been physically possible to fit the Merlin III because it was actually slightly shorter and only slightly wider, albeit heavier, than the Peregrine:

(From_ Whirlwind: The Westland Whirlwind Fighter_ Victor Bingham and _British Piston Engines and Their Aircraft_ Alec Lumsden):

Bore 5.0 in (Merlin: 5.4 in)

Stroke 5.0 in (Merlin: 6.0 in)

Displacement 1,296 cu in (21.1 Litres) (Merlin 1,649 cu in (27 L)

Length 73.6 in (Merlin III 69 in)

Width 27.1 in (29.8 in)

Height 41 in (41.2 in)

Weight (dry) 1,140 lbs (1,375 lbs)

Power rating:
860 hp @ 2,850 rpm +6 ¾ psi boost @ 13,500 ft (rated altitude) (1,030 hp @ 3,000 rpm + 6 psi boost @ 5,500 ft)

885 hp @ 3,000 " " " " @ 15,000 ft (1,310 hp @ 3,000 rpm +12 psi boost @ 9,000 ft with 100 octane fuel)

The priority for Rolls-Royce was to develop the Merlin; as a consequence the Peregrine languished. Where the Merlin III was adapted to be able to run on 100 octane petrol for a maximum of 5 minutes, and later Merlins were able to use 100 octane routinely, the Peregrine continued with 87 octane and moderate supercharger boost right through the Whirlwind's career.

There was some thought to developing the Peregrine to run on 100 octane with increased supercharger boost able to put out 1,015 hp @ 20,000 ft which (it was thought) would have increased the top speed of the Whirlwind to 422 mph - probably somewhat optimistic.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 31, 2010)

davebender said:


> 306 gallons. P-38 through H model.
> 290 gallons (1,100 liters). Fw-187 A0.
> 134 gallons. Whirlwind.
> 
> ...



Maximum range of the Whirlwind was 800 miles. One of the major problems is that the fuel tanks were not cross linked, meaning that in the event of an engine failure or damage to a fuel tank the pilot couldn't transfer fuel from one tank to another - the fuel tanks (67 imp gallons each) were in the wings outboard of the engines, each feeding one engine. 
Because they weren't linked in the event of an engine failure the remaining fuel stayed in the relevant tank and could not be used to feed the remaining engine, while the pilot was forced to fly home with dead weight of fuel in the wing, as well as a dead engine.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2010)

I expect that problem could have been fixed. However the small fuel capacity might not be so easy to solve. Whirlwind internal fuel capacity must be at least doubled if the aircraft is to be taken seriously as a bomber escort. Add in redesign for RR Merlin engines and the airframe starts to look like a dead end. Which is too bad because RAF Bomber Command desperately needed a long range escort fighter during 1939.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Rolls-Royce DID have the time and resources to concentrate on one type, at a time when they had around four programs on the boil, so why do you think they would choose a 21-litre engine over a 27-litre engine? Cubes count and Rolls-Royce saw the Merlin as the principal breadwinner;



Sorry didnt make myself clear. I didnt mean develop the Peregrine in place of the Merlin. I meant develop the Peregrine concurrently using the same technology as the real life Merlin, a mini me Merlin in other word. Obviously we know in real life Rolls Royce didnt have the capacity and it would have been a waste to develop an engine for just one aircraft but its nice to dream.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Sorry didnt make myself clear. I didnt mean develop the Peregrine in place of the Merlin. I meant develop the Peregrine concurrently using the same technology as the real life Merlin, a mini me Merlin in other word. Obviously we know in real life Rolls Royce didnt have the capacity and it would have been a waste to develop an engine for just one aircraft but its nice to dream.



In my dream somebody shoots the Vulture engine in the head while it is still on the drawing board (although that does hurt the two stage Merlin  ) which frees up design staff and production capability for around 800-1000 Peregrines. 
Designing a two stage system for it would probably take up too much time though. as would modifying the airframe to take it. 

Simply putting a two speed drive to the existing super charger would free up a fair amount of power at sea level and for take-off though. And if you could use the Merlin 45-47 supercharger design and 9lbs of boost you might get close to 900hp at 23,000ft instead of 15,000ft like the originals. You might have around 1000hp per engine at sea level instead of the 775hp of the original too. 
You wouldn't have to design and fit the 1st stage and the intercooler and you wouldn't have to find space for the inter-cooler radiators. 
They were scheming a MK II version with a fuselage tank ( I believe 37 Gals?) .
I believe the fuel tank capacities for the Whirlwind that have been given are in Imperial gallons would should close the gap somewhat but not enough to turn it into a true long range escort although a pair of 44 gallon drop tanks might have helped there.
There were 2 different trials installations of 4 belt fed cannon.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 31, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> In my dream somebody shoots the Vulture engine in the head while it is still on the drawing board (although that does hurt the two stage Merlin  ) which frees up design staff and production capability for around 800-1000 Peregrines.
> Designing a two stage system for it would probably take up too much time though. as would modifying the airframe to take it.
> 
> Simply putting a two speed drive to the existing super charger would free up a fair amount of power at sea level and for take-off though. And if you could use the Merlin 45-47 supercharger design and 9lbs of boost you might get close to 900hp at 23,000ft instead of 15,000ft like the originals. You might have around 1000hp per engine at sea level instead of the 775hp of the original too.
> ...



The problem with the Peregrine was that its design was half a generation behind that of the Merlin; essentially it was a developed Kestral. Physically there wasn't much difference in size between the Peregine and Merlin although the capacity of the engine was only 21 Litres. Overall the Merlin was a more efficient engine. I guess the question the AM and R-R needed to ask was was it worth developing a less efficient, older engine, which was used operationally on one aircraft type, alongside of a more efficient design which was used on lots of operational aircraft? 

There were two extra fuel tanks mooted for the Whirlwind II; one of 27 gallons in the forward fuselage, and one of 33 gal in the rear fuselage which made a total capacity of 194 gal. A couple of 44 gallon drop tanks would have increased fuel capacity to 282 gallons (290 Fw 187).

Another twin Peregrine/Bristol Taurus fighter which flew was the  Gloster F9/37:
Wingspan: 50ft
Length: 37ft
Wing Area: 386 Sq Ft
Weight Maximum Loaded: 11,615 lb
Fuel: 170 gallons
Max Speed: 330 mph (Peregrines) 361 Mph (Taurus)
Armament: 4 x .303 + 2x 20mm Hispano with an alternative 4 x 20 mm Hispano
Apparently this aircraft was extremely manouevrable and much easier to fly than the Whirlwind.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 31, 2010)

davebender said:


> Historically RAF Bomber Command conducted daytime bombing through December 1939 and then switched to night bombing to avoid being shot to pieces by German fighter aircraft. This kept bomber losses down until the Luftwaffe developed an effective night fighter force but also rendered RAF Bomber Command ineffective for the next several years. During the early war period the average RAF bomber crew couldn't find a factory at night, much less hit it.
> 
> But what if RAF heavy bombers of 1939 to 1942 were escorted by sizable numbers of Whirlwind fighter aircraft? With drop tanks the Whirlwind can probably escort as far as the Ruhr. The bombers might hit something of military value if bombing during the daytime.



This is a fanciful view on history, 1939/40 saw the RAF pre occupied with the BEF, Dunkerque and B of B, the idea of sending massed formations of fighters to escort daylight bombers is a complete fantasy. Fighter command at that time hardly had the aircraft to defend its own airspace. Since we could hardly make enough single engined planes to replace losses where would we get the resources for twin engined fighters?


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2010)

I don't think so.

RAF Bomber Command flew their first mission against Germany one day after Britain declared war. The final mission against Germany was flown 4 May 1945. For almost 6 years there were bombing raids every month. In fact the so called "Battle of Britain" was not a one sided affair. Britain was bombing Germany at the same time Germany was bombing Britain. RAF Bomber Command lost more aircrew during the BoB then RAF Fighter Command.

Given the massive and continuous British effort to operate heavy bombers I think it quite reasonable to spend a bit on a long range escort fighter.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2010)

The Whirlwind is a nice looking aircraft. That Gloster F.9/37 is ugly as sin.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 31, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> RAF Bomber Command flew their first mission against Germany one day after Britain declared war. The final mission against Germany was flown 4 May 1945. For almost 6 years there were bombing raids every month. In fact the so called "Battle of Britain" was not a one sided affair. Britain was bombing Germany at the same time Germany was bombing Britain. RAF Bomber Command lost more aircrew during the BoB then RAF Fighter Command.
> 
> Given the massive and continuous British effort to operate heavy bombers I think it quite reasonable to spend a bit on a long range escort fighter.



That is understandable since a bomber carried at least 4 times the crew a fighter did.

From Sept 3 1939 til Sept 2 1940 RAF BC lost 1800 KIA, MIA, POW.

From July 15 1940 til Oct 31 1940 RAF BC lost 300 bombers, including Battles.

Lost Bombers - World War II Lost Bombers

Yes the LW did a wonderful job.

Summary Of Operational Statistics

Number of nights with operations - 1,481 (71.4%)

Number of days with operations - 1,089 (52.9%)

Total Sorties - 336,037

Total Tonnage Dropped - 995,044

Total Aircraft Lost - 8,655 (2.58%)

Ave. Sorties for 24 hours period - 162.02

Ave. Tons of bombers per 24 hours period - 479.77

Ave. Aircraft lost for 24 hour period - 4.17


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Total Aircraft Lost - 8,655 (2.58%)



Actually a bit over 10000.. the numbers u quote are Daventry figures, "fake" British radio reports to the British public about losses (aircraft lost over the sea or Britain were not reported), about 20% lower than the actual losses.


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2010)

I prefer the loss figures as documented in the Bomber Command War Diaries which goes into extensive analysis. Daily repots and summaries by Squadron, Group and its the result of the study of all the official forms 540 and 541 which each aircraft complted before every mission. 

It totals 8,953 bombers lost to all causes during the war.

Kurfurst, can you support the 10,000 figure, to blame it on "fake" British radio reports to the British public about losses is a strong accusation.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 1, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Whirlwind is a nice looking aircraft. That Gloster F.9/37 is ugly as sin.



 I don't know if those photos do it justice. Had Gloster continued with the design it may well have been a better bet than the Whirlwind: it was bigger, probably more adaptable and potentially a good long range fighter

The bugbears were the Bristol Taurus engines and the small fuel load.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

Glider I ám Gajdos surprised you are unaware of this, it is pretty well known in literature and post war official histories. I suggest u do ur own research for these so-called Daventry figures, named after the BBC station Thatcher broadcasted them. Price would be a good start.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Glider I ám Gajdos surprised


You are what?


----------



## Milosh (Sep 1, 2010)

From the BC War Diaries for the time period of the BoB

July 
Night (sorties - missing - percentage - crashed - percentage overall)
3243 - 91- 2.8% - 28 - 3.7%

Day
582 - 55 - 9.5% - 3 - 11.8%

Aug
Night
3354 - 121 - 3.6% - 45 - 5.0%

Day
468 - 35 - 7.5% - 5 - 8.5%

Sept
Night
2621 - 76 - 2.9% - 61 - 5.3%

Day
263 - 14 - 5.3% - 1 - 5.7%

Oct
Night
2501 - 68 - 2.7% - 40 - 4.3%

Day
138 - 17 - 12.3% - 1 - 13.0%

for other dates, BC Operational Stats


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> You are what?



Focking iPhone LOL


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Glider I ám Gajdos surprised you are unaware of this, it is pretty well known in literature and post war official histories. I suggest u do ur own research for these so-called Daventry figures, named after the BBC station Thatcher broadcasted them. Price would be a good start.



I have my research, its the Bomber Command War Diaries by Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, not this Daventry. You have not put anything to support your statement about 10,000.

The question is very simple, where did you get your figure of 10,000? If there is nothing to support it then it has no meaning or value. 
If its pretty well known in Literature and post war official histories then all I am asking is that you let us know which official histories or Literature.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> RAF Bomber Command flew their first mission against Germany one day after Britain declared war. The final mission against Germany was flown 4 May 1945. For almost 6 years there were bombing raids every month. In fact the so called "Battle of Britain" was not a one sided affair. Britain was bombing Germany at the same time Germany was bombing Britain. RAF Bomber Command lost more aircrew during the BoB then RAF Fighter Command.
> 
> Given the massive and continuous British effort to operate heavy bombers I think it quite reasonable to spend a bit on a long range escort fighter.




The british like the Germans switched quickly from day to night bombing then developed night time escort fighters to protect them. The Americans tried daylight bombing but found they needed an escort fighter and stopped their mission until new bombers and fighter were available. Stopping fighting for a while wasnt an option for the british or germans.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2010)

A nice site that I have added to my Favorites Menu for reference purposes. Thanks.

I think data on that site supports my point. RAF Bomber Command needed a long range escort fighter right from the start of the war. Why didn't they have one? Fighter aircraft, even a twin engine model like the Whirlwind or Fw-187, cost a lot less then a bomber. The Whirlwind could have filled that role if it had been designed with substantial internal fuel capacity as the Fw-187 was.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2010)

I disagree.

The Luftwaffe was designed with tactical air support in mind. Most bombing missions were flown during the daytime for the entire duration of the war. The short BoB period was an anomaly.


----------



## DonL (Sep 1, 2010)

> The british like the Germans switched quickly from day to night bombing then developed night time escort fighters to protect them. The Americans tried daylight bombing but found they needed an escort fighter and stopped their mission until new bombers and fighter were available. Stopping fighting for a while wasnt an option for the british or germans.



Yes I agree, but the daylight bombing raids of the USAAF were the knockout for the german armaments industry.
You can't be this accurate with night bombing raids. T
For reality the RAF didn't need a longrange escort fighter because of the help from USAAF from 1942.
So they took the resources for a longrange escort fighter to other projects.
The RAF on it's own could use a long range escort fighter for day bombing. 

For the german LW a long range escort fighter would make sense in offensive and defensive missions.
To my my opinion at the defending of the Reich from 1942/43 till end of war, it would be elemental to have the opportunity to built a focal point, through a concentration of fighters, to attack at one point with the chance of air supermarcy at this moment This was impossible with the Bf 109 because she was to short legged besides other problems.

I think a tandem between the FW 187 for attacking USAAF escort fighters and the FW 190 to attack bombers would be much more effective in the years 1943/44 than the tandem Bf 109 and FW 190.

If we look at the tandem Ta 152 H1 and Me 262 it is apparent.
The Ta 152 H1 had an internal fuel capacity of 1040l and a range of someting about 1500km only with inline fuel. So I think the LW was aware later in the war of this opportunity to built concentations at a certain point.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The british like the Germans switched quickly from day to night bombing then developed night time escort fighters to protect them. The Americans tried daylight bombing but found they needed an escort fighter and stopped their mission until new bombers and fighter were available. Stopping fighting for a while wasnt an option for the british or germans.



What do you mean when you say the Americans 'stopped their mission' until new bombers and fighters were available??? 

There was no such 'stoppage' although the 8th AF did not fly deep penetrations as far as Munich or Leipzig for a period of time after October 14, 1943 to February 1944. That had the effect of 'licking their wounds' after the 60ships shot down on the October 14 Black Thursday trip to Schweinfurt.

The effect of reducing the long range targeting was to reduce 8th AF losses until the Mustangs and Lightnings became operational during the next four months. Big Week in late February 1944 was the opening of the complete Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland target portfolio for the rest of the war.

The 8th AF BC did not get 'new bombers' but did replace lost inventories of B-24s and B-17s.

The 12th and 15th AF did not restrict themselves from any targets in Germany, Rumania and Austria at any time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> The problem with the Peregrine was that its design was half a generation behind that of the Merlin; essentially it was a developed Kestral. Physically there wasn't much difference in size between the Peregine and Merlin although the capacity of the engine was only 21 Litres. Overall the Merlin was a more efficient engine. I guess the question the AM and R-R needed to ask was was it worth developing a less efficient, older engine, which was used operationally on one aircraft type, alongside of a more efficient design which was used on lots of operational aircraft?



The Peregrine was never a really practical engine past 1941-42, it just didn't have the capacity, but then neither was the Bristol Taurus, same reason, just too small to bother with. 

I would be interested in finding out just how much of the Kestral was carried over to the Peregrine aside from the bore and stroke. It did manage to gain around 140-175lbs over the Kestral and is supposed to have used some Merlin features. I am not sure how much feed back there was from the Vulture program although that engine did use wider spacing between cylinders. (supposedly so a later version could use Merlin pistons?) At any rate the Vulture MK V was rated at 1840HP at 3000rpm/9lb boost at 20,250 ft so half of that would be 920hp. the extra 35hp isn't much but the extra 5,000ft of altitude would be useful. 

Again just dreaming




NZTyphoon said:


> There were two extra fuel tanks mooted for the Whirlwind II; one of 27 gallons in the forward fuselage, and one of 33 gal in the rear fuselage which made a total capacity of 194 gal. A couple of 44 gallon drop tanks would have increased fuel capacity to 282 gallons (290 Fw 187).


The two fuselage fuel tanks would help prevent balance/trim problems. Is the FW 187 capacity in US gallons or Imperial gallons?


NZTyphoon said:


> Another twin Peregrine/Bristol Taurus fighter which flew was the
> Wingspan: 50ft
> Length: 37ft
> Wing Area: 386 Sq Ft
> ...



I didn't think the Whirlwind was that hard to fly. While it was 'hot' for a 1940 airplane it seems to have been well liked by the pilots that flew it and compared to other fighters coming on line in 1942-43 (Hawker Typhoons and P-47s) it take -off and landing runs don't seem to be that far out of line. 

The Gloster with it's bigger wing and lower wing loading should be more maneuverable and with the second seat more adaptable as a night fighter. It would need more fuel (were second seat is?) for use as an escort fighter just as the Whirlwind would. It also needs improved engines in order to be successful. Even improved Pergrines might not be enough and while the speed figures with the Taurus look good it seems there was trouble with this engine model and when the plane was re-powered with an Taurus engine closer to production standard the speed fell to 331mph at 15,000ft. Most other Taurus engines were set up for low altitude work with peak HP coming in at 3,500-4,000ft. Given the 1000lb weight difference between the Gloster and Whirlwind this plane might be better candidate for Merlins (assuming you can find them).


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

DonL said:


> Yes I agree, but the daylight bombing raids of the USAAF were the knockout for the german armaments industry.
> You can't be this accurate with night bombing raids. T
> For reality the RAF didn't need a longrange escort fighter because of the help from USAAF from 1942.
> So they took the resources for a longrange escort fighter to other projects.
> ...



I agree most of your comments but confused a little by reference to Germany's lack of focus on applying a concentration of fighters at concentrated points of attack. Perhaps I misunderstood your point but the LW developed very solid tactics to concentrate their fighters on the bombers.

In early 1943 when the 8th AF was only in the first six months of operations the LW defended essentially with JG26 and JG in the occupied countries and western Germany. They did not have to worry much about escorting fighters as only the Spit was available.

In mid 1943 the Thunderbolt was in operations with three Fighter groups and the effective tactic was was to wait for escorts to turn back and concentrate on the bombers in larger formations utilizing company front tactics to dilute bomber return fire. It was this period through January 1944 when the LW could still deploy twin engine Me 110 and 210's and Ju 88's along with Me 109s and Fw 190s to attack with little fear of escorts - but by January 1944 three groups of P-38s and one of Mustangs were beginning to take their toll on the day fighters.

Still the LW became more proficient at stalking bomber formations and providing insight to poor formations, bomb groups out of place, and bomb groups without escort. These tactics would continue through January 1945 when all hope of putting up large concentrations was squandered with Bodenplatte.

I decidedly agree that Germany should have made three changes in early 1943 when it became apparent that the US would put large forces over Germany by daylight. These are the ones that come to mind

1.) immediately put more day fighters in the west with instructions to attack both escorting fighters and bombers, 2.) concentrate more Gruppe's in the center of gravity of German defenses to enable more concentrations on any particular bomber course, 3.) accelerate the development of the Fw 190D by re-prioritizing the DB/Jumo engines to get both better high altitude performance and more range. I'm not sure the Me 262 development could have proceeded faster.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2010)

> A couple of 44 gallon drop tanks would have increased fuel capacity to 282 gallons (290 Fw 187).


Any aircraft can carry drop tanks and practically all fighter aircraft did for long range missions including the P-38. That isn't the same as having an internal fuel capacity of 290 gallons. Add a couple of Luftwaffe standard 300 liter drop tanks and Fw-187 total fuel capacity is over 500 gallons. Drop tanks get you to the target. Internal fuel is for aerial combat and (hopefully) returning home.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2010)

davebender said:


> Any aircraft can carry drop tanks and practically all fighter aircraft did for long range missions including the P-38. That isn't the same as having an internal fuel capacity of 290 gallons. Add a couple of Luftwaffe standard 300 liter drop tanks and Fw-187 total fuel capacity is over 500 gallons .



Quite a trick. Add two 300 liter (79.25 US gallons/66imp gal) drop tanks to a 290 US gallon internal fuel capacity and get a total of over 500 US gallons?

A Whirlwind fitted with the proposed fuselage tanks would have fuel capacity of 194 Imp gal/ 233US gal/882 liters. Given the smaller (lower powered) engines that presumable are less thirsty (even in a MK II version) that should give a range that is close enough to the 1100 liter/290 US gallon/242 Imp gal FW 187 once it is fitted with DB 601 engines. 

Remember that later P-38s (the ones that did the long range escort duties in the winter of 43-44) carried 410 US gallons for their nominal 1425 Hp engines.
To get the range and armament package of the P-38 with the P-38s performance you are going to need a plane about the size, weight and power of the P-38. The P-38s gun armament with ammo was over 1300lbs. While the 20mm might run dry after 15 seconds of firing time the .50cal guns were good for 33-34 seconds of firing time. Perhaps this was too much but it sure beats the 6-8 seconds of firing time for the Whirlwind and FW 187 20mm cannon as built. Something to consider for "escort" fighters.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> What do you mean when you say the Americans 'stopped their mission' until new bombers and fighters were available???
> 
> There was no such 'stoppage' although the 8th AF did not fly deep penetrations as far as Munich or Leipzig for a period of time after October 14, 1943 to February 1944. That had the effect of 'licking their wounds' after the 60ships shot down on the October 14 Black Thursday trip to Schweinfurt.
> 
> ...




I meant they stopped "deep penetrations as far as Munich or Leipzig for a period of time after October 14, 1943 to February 1944. That had the effect of 'licking their wounds' after the 60ships shot down on the October 14 Black Thursday trip to Schweinfurt." until "the Mustangs and Lightnings became operational during the next four months." The USAAF also implemented new tactics and increased armament on the bombers during the lull in activity

By February 1944 Germany was heading for collapse as can be seen by the assassination attempts on Hitler it will always be conjecture as to who played the biggest part in that collapse.


----------



## DonL (Sep 1, 2010)

> Remember that later P-38s (the ones that did the long range escort duties in the winter of 43-44) carried 410 US gallons for their nominal 1425 Hp engines.
> To get the range and armament package of the P-38 with the P-38s performance you are going to need a plane about the size, weight and power of the P-38. The P-38s gun armament with ammo was over 1300lbs. While the 20mm might run dry after 15 seconds of firing time the .50cal guns were good for 33-34 seconds of firing time. Perhaps this was too much but it sure beats the 6-8 seconds of firing time for the Whirlwind and FW 187 20mm cannon as built. Something to consider for "escort" fighters.



That statement is wrong.


> To get the range and armament package of the P-38 with the P-38s performance you are going to need a plane about the size, weight and power of the P-38.



The Fw 187 could carry 8200kg as take off weight. That was was the maximal take off weight for a 2 seater Nightfighter with the same measurements as the single seater escort fighter.
The Fw 187 had one 880 Ltr tank in the fuselage and in each wing one 210 Ltr.tank.
That's for the inline fuel plus 900 Ltr. in one or two external tanks. That's 2200Ltr.
If I have done the maths correct this are 581 US gallons. And I think the FW 187 had enough space to carry ammo.
And the external tanks could get larger because the FW 187 single seater escort fighter had plenty of reserves for weight loading


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2010)

DonL said:


> That statement is wrong.



Could you please explain why?



DonL said:


> The Fw 187 could carry 8200kg as take off weight. That was was the maximal take off weight for a 2 seater Nightfighter with the same measurements as the single seater escort fighter.
> The Fw 187 had one 880 Ltr tank in the fuselage and in each wing one 210 Ltr.tank.
> That's for the inline fuel plus 900 Ltr. in one or two external tanks. That's 2200Ltr.
> If I have done the maths correct this are 581 US gallons. And I think the FW 187 had enough space to carry ammo.
> And the external tanks could get larger because the FW 187 single seater escort fighter had plenty of reserves for weight loading



Just what airplane are you talking about?
Most sources give a max gross weight of 4900-5000kg for the FW 187. You are giving a weight 400kg higher than for a Bf 110 G. Granted a developed FW 187 with DB 600 series engines could and would weigh more than the Jumo 210 powered prototypes but a 64% increase seems to be pushing things. of course that weight does push it right into the middle of P-38 weight range. FW 187 and the P-38 have almost identical wing area
I am also trying to figure out just what FW 187 night fighter you are talking about since none of the planes that were built ever carried radar. 
You seem to talking about paper airplanes that never had a metal cut for them.
A 1942-43 FW 187 using MG 151 guns would not have the firing time restrictions that the AS BUILT Jumo powered versions did with their DRUM fed cannon. With the MG FF guns you have two choices. Either fly as a single seat airplane and be limited to the 60 round drum (about 8 seconds firing time) or carry a second crewman to change drums like the Bf 110 did. Bf 110 carried two spare drums per gun for the 180 rpg.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 1, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The Peregrine was never a really practical engine past 1941-42, it just didn't have the capacity, but then neither was the Bristol Taurus, same reason, just too small to bother with.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out just how much of the Kestral was carried over to the Peregrine aside from the bore and stroke. It did manage to gain around 140-175lbs over the Kestral and is supposed to have used some Merlin features. I am not sure how much feed back there was from the Vulture program although that engine did use wider spacing between cylinders. (supposedly so a later version could use Merlin pistons?) At any rate the Vulture MK V was rated at 1840HP at 3000rpm/9lb boost at 20,250 ft so half of that would be 920hp. the extra 35hp isn't much but the extra 5,000ft of altitude would be useful.
> 
> ...



According to Bingham, p 42 in January 1941 the managing director of Westland wrote to the C in C of Fighter Command, Sholto Douglas that "We are now able...to offer to install in the Whirlwind twin Merlin 20 engines, thus overcoming the difficulty of continuing to supply Peregrine engines. This would give the aeroplane...a top speed of 410 mph, a service ceiling of 37,000 ft and a range of 800 miles." Why this wasn't taken up...  Apparently there was some official prejudice against Westland who, admittedly, were slow building the Whirlwind.

You're right about the Whirlwind being easy to fly and highly regarded by its pilots*: there was a myth being pushed at the time, by some RAF types who should have known better, that the Whirlwind needed long airstrips because of a high landing speed; in practice it was easily able to use small fighter strips. It was also found that it was far easier to use as a nightfighter than any of the single-engine fighters.

With some more development either the Whirlwind or the Gloster - or both - could have been good escort fighters. The Taurus engines on the Gloster could have been replaced by Pratt Whitney R-1830s, which were similar in size and lighter, but more powerful and reliable than the Taurus (which is how Bristol made the Beaufort Mk II and the Australians the Mks V to VIII). BTW the F.9/37 was a single seater and was very similar to the Fw 187 in size and weight.

*I was thinking about the Beaufighter for some reason


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

@Shortround6



> Just what airplane are you talking about?



I just talking about a normal development evolution.
You have put the P38 from 1943/44 in the discussion. 

Bf 109: Bf 109D, Jumo 210G, 2160 kg; Bf 109 E, DB 601 A, 2573 kg; Bf 109 F-4,DB 601 E, 2890 kg; Bf 109 G-6,DB 605 A, 3200 kg; Bf 109 K-4,DB 605 DC, 3500 kg

Bf 110: Bf110B-0, Jumo 210G, 6150kg Bf 110 C-4, 2x DB 601, 6750 kg, Bf 110 G-2, 2x DB 605, 7790kg (destroyer/fighter bomber/escort fighter)
Bf 110 G-4 (Nightfighter 1943/45),2x DB605, 9800kg 



> I am also trying to figure out just what FW 187 night fighter you are talking about since none of the planes that were built ever carried radar.
> You seem to talking about paper airplanes that never had a metal cut for them.



Please read my post Nr. 27. A nightfighter version of the FW 187 was ready for development and production at 1942/1943 because the LW wanted badly a better and faster nightfighter than the Me 110. This FW 187 nightfighter version (1942) was in heavy discussion bei the the RLM at the end of 1942.
The Jumo 213 and the heavier weightloading were the points for the JU 88 G. 
If you want data, i will post them.

And besides no Bf 109 G or Bf 110G had a metal cut at 1940/41/42.
So about what do we talking? About normal design evolution or negate all as paper launches?
The basic design was produced and had shown her potential in real flights.



> The FW 187 is a bit more of a problem. It has a bigger wing than the P-38 so it can easily carry the DB engines it was designed for. However the performance numbers for the prototype may very well be for an unarmed version and the low drag surface evaporative cooling system was a no-go for a service aircraft..


I don't know if you have read my post Nr.27 but the V4 and V6 were armed at their flights, it was no evaporative cooling system and it was ready for service for pressure water/glycol engines.



> It's non-adaptability to the night fighter role makes it's adaptation in place of the ME 110 a problem down the road as does it's perhaps slightly less suitability for the fast bomber role. While it might have the power to lift a pair of 1100lb bombs it's smaller wing might mean a longer take off run. Same could be said of the P-38 but the US and British seemed to have plenty of long runways for other aircraft that the P-38s could use.



To the non-adaptability to the night fighter role I have said all. (The FW 187 could carry a 1000kg bomb)
Do you realy think that a FW 187 with 8200kg take off weight would need a longer take off run then a Bf 110G-4 with 9800kg. I think in germany were also plenty of long runways. And we are talking here about a nightfighter version not a single seater escort version.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

@drgondog



> but confused a little by reference to Germany's lack of focus on applying a concentration of fighters at concentrated points of attack. Perhaps I misunderstood your point but the LW developed very solid tactics to concentrate their fighters on the bombers.



I agree but to my opinion it is also important to have the possibility to concentrate fighters in the air.
That is very difficult with a Bf 109 and her short combat radius.
Also I'm not a friend of the tactic to attack only bombers, for me it is important also to attack the escort fighters.
The LW tactic functioned only at long raids, at a raid to the Ruhrgebiet, there is not enough time to attack only bombers without escort fighters or time to wait that the escort fighters are on their way home.



> 1.) immediately put more day fighters in the west with instructions to attack both escorting fighters and bombers, 2.) concentrate more Gruppe's in the center of gravity of German defenses to enable more concentrations on any particular bomber course, 3.) accelerate the development of the Fw 190D by re-prioritizing the DB/Jumo engines to get both better high altitude performance and more range



I agree!
Point 3, to my opinion the high altitude performance is a major key element. And the high altitude performance is one of the major problems of the LW in 1943/44.
The FW 190 D-9 was a help but not a major because the Jumo 213A wasn't a high altitude engine, best altitude outputperformance 6600m. Only the Jumo 213E with the three-speed two-stage supercharger was a real high altitude engine.
The "normal" Bf 109G6 was outclassed at high altitude against P 47 and P 38 especially with "normal" pilots.
This wasn't only the fault of the Bf 109G, most of the problem was the DB 605.
It took more then one and half year to solve all engine problems and go back to normal development with the DB 605AS or DB605D. With this engines the Bf 109G was back to state of the art (at high altitudes)but one and half year is a very very long space of time.

So it would be important to have a design that could match with "normal" DB 605 the allied escort fighters at high altitudes.
I tend to say the FW 187 could be this design. I can't proof this and it is speculative but from all I have read and the potentials of the real live flights, it is my opinion, that the FW 187 was the better and faster design then the Bf 109 and would be better at high altitudes because the lag of performance would be lower compare to the Bf 109G and the allied escort fighters.


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm confused as to why the Jumo 210 engine keeps appearing in this discussion. The Fw-187 was designed for the DB600 / DB601 engine and that is almost certainly how it would have been mass produced. Which is why my very first post states the Fw-187 will have the same engine current in the Me-109 series.

One can argue that the RR Merlin might not have made it into the Whirlwind due to redesign problems. No such arguement exists for the Fw-187.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> @drgondog
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know enough about the Fw 187 to speculate regarding its air to air capabilities against the Mustang or the P-47 and later version P-38J/L.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 2, 2010)

How did the Me410 fair against American fighters? I would imagine an up engined Fw187 would fair the same.

The initial roll response of the P-38 was slow but once it started rolling it wasn't that bad.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

@ Milosh

you can't compare this two designs. That's like apples and beans.

Me 410: 2x DB603A 1750hp each, empty weight 6627kg. loaded between 8000-10000kg, max highspeed 624 km/h at 6700m

FW 187 V6 2x DB600a 1000hp each, empty weight ~4500kg, loaded ~5800kg, max highspeed 634km/h

The FW 187 could achieve 10km/h more max highspeed with 1500hp less.
And the supercharger of the DB 600a wasn't that good as the superchargerr from the DB 603A.
The DB 600a was the engine without direct fuel injection

Also the Wing area of the Me 410: 36.20 m² (390 ft²) compare to the FW 187 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²).
Me 410 Wing loading 221kg/m²(44.42 lb/ft²) / FW 187 Wing loading: ~190.79 kg/m² (38.35 lb/ft²)
You can't argument with this comparison.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 2, 2010)

Don, if the DB600 could be fitted to the Fw187, then there is no reason why a DB605 or even a DB603, could not have be fitted. This is what I meant by up engined. What engine did the Bf109 start with and what did it end up with.

Speaking of the DB603 engine, this is what should have been installed in the _long nose_ 190.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> Don, if the DB600 could be fitted to the Fw187, then there is no reason why a DB605 or even a DB603, could not have be fitted. This is what I meant by up engined. What engine did the Bf109 start with and what did it end up with.



Sure I understand you. I agree to the DB 605, the DB603 was too heavy. DB605 (750kg); DB 603 (910kg)

But you can't compare a FW 187 with DB605 to the Me 410.

The difference in weight between a DB 600a and a DB 605a are 140kg each. So a DB 605 powered FW 187 as a two seater gain weight about 400kg.

FW 187 VX 2x DB605a 1475hp each, empty weight ~4900kg, loaded ~6200kg, max highspeed XX.
Perhaps something about 720 km/h with 950hp more then the V6 version.
FW 187 Wing loading: ~203.95 kg/m² (41.00 lb/ft²)

How do you want to compare this with a Me 410?
You can compare this with a P38J and to me it looks better on paper. And the basic design FW 187 V6 was a real flight.



> Speaking of the DB603 engine, this is what should have been installed in the long nose 190



No the FW 190D-9 was installed with the Jumo 213A and the Tank 152H1 with the Jumo 213E.
But the DB 603 and Jumo 213 were constructed as uniform engines so you can put a DB 603 in a FW 190 D.


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

The Fw-187G would get the DB605 engine at the same time as the Me-109G. That's just a normal development of the DB601 series. 

The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605
I doubt the Fw-187 would receive the DB603, Jumo213 or BMW801 as those engines were always in short supply. In any case the Fw-187 G10 doesn't need a DB603 engine anymore then the Me-109G10. Both aircraft will perform just fine with newer versions of the existing engine like the 1,800hp DB605AM.


----------



## rank amateur (Sep 2, 2010)

Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P-38, how many twin engined fighter desigs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking Bf110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or Me262 vs P-51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.


Well
I've read that a P-38 could be. It took a better than average or experienced pilot to get the best out of the P-38 and once he'd mastered the type, he could turn with his single-engined opponent, feathering the inside engine whilst revving the outside engine, this would turn the P-38 inside the target and give the pilot the necessary lead for a solution. It was described as 'WWII thrust vectoring' and it was the ability to use this technique (according to the piece) that gave rise to the opinion that it required an experienced pilot to get the best out of the P-38.


----------



## rank amateur (Sep 2, 2010)

Like I said: apart from the p38


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> Like I said: apart from the p38




Obviously the Avro Anson is right up there 
quote
In June 1940, a flight of three Ansons was attacked by nine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Remarkably, the Ansons downed two German aircraft "and damaging a third before the 'dogfight' ended" [2], without losing any of their own
unquote

I dont know if I believe the above but I have read it in several places, must be the best piece of shooting in the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> Like I said: apart from the p38


I was just testing you - you passed
The Whirlwind could hold its own with the Bf109 at low level


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

There were several comparative flies between the Bf 109 B and D with Jumo 210 or Jumo 21G and the Fw 187 V4 with 2x 210G at Rechlin.

The report tells that the FW 187 was equal in turning, climbing and increasing speed but much faster.
This is one of the main reasons why we are discussing in general about the FW 187 as a fighter.

Besides when you are looking at all single engine long range fighter (which can carry a lot of internal fuel) of WWII, then it is obvious that the radial engines have an advantage.

I know only two inline designs with a huge internal fuel load . The Mustang P51 and the Tank 152H1. 
So if "you" have only an average radial engine or a bad one but "you" have good inliners you must try to find other ways for long range fighter, especially early forties.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Lost me a wee bit Don
what's 'inline fuel'?


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> what's 'inline fuel'?



Thats the fuel that the bird carrys without an external or droptank. 
For example in the wings or the fuselage.
Internal fuel. 

Sorry for my bad english


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

I got you - internal fuel
you threw me a bit because you mentioned an advantage over radials in the same sentence


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.



Grumman F7F Tigercat 8)


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

rank amateur said:


> Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.



It depends what you mean by holding its own, what each side was trying to do. A mosquito, for most of the war could outrun single engined fighters and so could choose whether to fight or not. With 4 cannon and 4 machine guns if it hit a single engined fighter it would cause serious damage. With any combat twin or single engined the winner is the one with the crucial advantage.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> A mosquito, for most of the war could outrun single engined fighters and so could choose whether to fight or not. With 4 cannon and 4 machine guns if it hit a single engined fighter it would cause serious damage. With any combat twin or single engined the winner is the one with the crucial advantage.



I absolutely agree!
The Mosquito was in it's one league for speed and firepower.

This is one of the reasons why I'm so convinced of the FW 187. She is exact in between the Westland Whirlwind and the the Mosquito. So I think the FW 187 could combine both good characteristics.


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

The F7F was not certified ready for combat until July 1945. By then the competition consists of Me-262 jet fighters plus late model piston engine fighters like the Spitfire XIV, Do-335, P-51H and Ta-152H. Much stiffer competition then what the Whirlwind, Fw-187 and P-38 had to face during 1939 to 1942.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> I absolutely agree!
> The Mosquito was in it's one league for speed and firepower.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I'm so convinced of the FW 187. She is exact in between the Westlad Whirlwind and the the Mosquito. So I think the FW 187 could combine both good characteristics.



I suppose it depends what you are doing with it and a twin engined plane has 2 engines, for all sides engine production was a factor at times, unless a twin is significantly better you are wasting resources.

Don I spent a depressingly large part of my life in Niedersachsen near Celle....Nice place but a bit quiet


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

@ davebender



> The F7F was not certified ready for combat until July 1945. By then the competition consists of Me-262 jet fighters plus late model piston engine fighters like the Spitfire XIV, Do-335, P-51H and Ta-152H. Much stiffer competition then what the Whirlwind, Fw-187 and P-38 had to face during 1939 to 1942.



I absolutely agree.
But I think an enhanced Fw 187 with DB 605AS or D and the latest versions of the P38 can hold their position.
I don't think that these birds were easy meat compare to the others.

@tail end charlie

I live in Hannover, that's ok. We have a good night life, i think.
Were you a soldier?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> @ davebender
> 
> @tail end charlie
> 
> ...




No, I know there were many british squaddies there but I wasnt one of them. There is a specialist stainless steel (edelstahl)company near there , for a while I lived on a farm with an old couple Otto and Hilda, Otto was a soldier in the war protecting airfields it was strange for an english guy to meet someone who actually saw an Me262 fly. Even more strange was he spoke "plat" with his friends, my grandmother spoke "yorkshire dialect" .....they are surprisingly close


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Even more strange was he spoke "plat" with his friends, my grandmother spoke "yorkshire dialect" .....they are surprisingly close


Eee baa'gum you schweinhund...

...it's not working for me...


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> for a while I lived on a farm with an old couple Otto and Hilda, Otto was a soldier in the war protecting airfields it was strange for an english guy to meet someone who actually saw an Me262 fly. Even more strange was he spoke "plat" with his friends, my grandmother spoke "yorkshire dialect" .....they are surprisingly close



My Grandmother and all her relatives speak "plat" too. So if the "yorkshire dialect" is something similar i can absolutely follow your description.
But I think for you, it must be hard to apart german and "plat".

Edit: Also I think you and Otto had some great discussions about "birds" and WWII with a good drink?!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Eee baa'gum you schweinhund...
> 
> ...it's not working for me...



Seriously Colin the yorkshire dialect comes from the danes and saxon, Yorkshire was known as the Danelaw before the Norman occupation but the Danes came from present day Noth Germany as well as Denmark.

For example she would say the time 06.35 as five and twenty to seven which is english in the German style
and always put the verb at the end of a sentence, my wife cant follow what they say, she knows the words but not exactly what they are saying LMAO.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> My Grandmother and all her relatives speak "plat" too. So if the "yorkshire dialect" is something similar i can absolutely follow your description.
> But I think for you, it must be hard to apart german and "plat".
> 
> Edit: Also I think you and Otto had some great discussions about "birds" and WWII with a good drink?!


I used to drink in a bar where the barmaid spoke Bayerisch, one customer spoke plat, another spoke hoch and the owner was Italian.....Great nights they were

phonetically
Hoch = rous
Plat = root
Bayerisch = Oussie
hoch+plat+bayerisch= OUT (english)





Otto was an old guy, during the D Day landings he was around Calais (somewhere) and must have retreated across Europe. Those must have been terrible times for him and also his wife. He only mentioned it once, he was sort of embarrassed (because I was english) and proud (it was his young life). Like many old people he didnt talk about his experience easily.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Seriously Colin the yorkshire dialect comes from the danes and saxon


TEC
I don't doubt it, I was just pulling your leg


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> I used to drink in a bar where the barmaid spoke Bayerisch, one customer spoke plat, another spoke hoch and the owner was Italian.....Great nights they were
> 
> phonetically
> Hoch = rous
> ...



At this moment I´m still laughing. Yes it can be realy funny to be with mixed people and dialects and foreign languages in between and this in a rural environment .



> Otto was an old guy, during the D Day landings he was around Calais (somewhere) and must have retreated across Europe. Those must have been terrible times for him and also his wife. He only mentioned it once, he was sort of embarrassed (because I was english) and proud (it was his young life). Like many old people he didnt talk about his experience easily.



I can follow this. I only get the brothers of my Grandmother to talk about WWII, when they drink a lot. Then they are more relaxed. But these times are over because they are stone old now.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> TEC
> I don't doubt it, I was just pulling your leg



LOL since my wife couldnt understand either she thinks they speak the same language, she can tell the french are different coz they shrug their shoulders and the italians have a mobile phone in their hand


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> At this moment I´m still laughing. Yes it can be realy funny to be with mixed people and dialects or foreign languages in between and this in a rural environment .
> I can follow this. I only get the brothers of my Grandmother to talk about WWII, when they drink a lot. Then they are more relaxed. But this times are over because they are stone old now.



Well during D Day three of my family and Otto were separated by approximately 40Km, he was a nice guy and a gent, Hilda was the very image of my grandmother. It was a pleasure to meet then and if you like lay some ghosts to rest.

I did meet one guy who was a real laugh, he spoke english when I had no german, during the war he was buried alive by a shell for 4 hours ended up as a prisoner of war and after the war worked for the army driving transporters, we had some great nights together.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> I did meet one guy who was a real laugh, he spoke english when I had no german, during the war he was buried alive by a shell for 4 hours ended up as a prisoner of war and after the war worked for the army driving transporters, we had some great nights together.



I can imagine......


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> Obviously the Avro Anson is right up there
> quote
> In June 1940, a flight of three Ansons was attacked by nine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Remarkably, the Ansons downed two German aircraft "and damaging a third before the 'dogfight' ended" [2], without losing any of their own
> unquote
> ...



This is a joke or?
The Bf 109 pilots must be talking about their girl friends last night and at this moment very graphic, otherwise i can't imagine this incident. Lol.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

DonL said:


> This is a joke or?
> The Bf 109 pilots must be talking about their girls last night and at this moment very graphic, otherwise i can't imagine this incident. Lol.



Seriously I have read that on 2 sites, since the anson had one forward firing gun and one rear firing it must have been a miracle if it ever happened. I dont know if you just looked up the anson but I cannot imagine a bigger miss match lol 1 Bf109 has more fire power than all three ansons.

Maybe the ansons used their speed and manouverability to advantage


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

Yes i have looked up the anson!!!

Realy these must be outstanding girls and one of the best descriptions of a very successfuly night to justfy this incident!......



> Maybe the ansons used their speed and manouverability to advantage



Yeah! They have pushed the engines to maximum speed (at least 600 km/h ) dive away and had shown "one finger". Lol. 

If it is true i can't say something to this, i'm lost for words.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 2, 2010)

Just because it is on a couple of sites doesn't mean much. Look at the number of 'copy and paste's saying the 109K-4 had MG151 cowl guns.

Ansons aren't that hard to fly. My father piloted them and he wasn't a pilot, though aircrew. He has told stories of non pilots landing and taking-off in them. This ended when a seagull crashed through the nose on take-off and the Anson crashed (no fatalities).


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Just because it is on a couple of sites doesn't mean much. Look at the number of 'copy and paste's saying the 109K-4 had MG151 cowl guns.
> 
> Ansons aren't that hard to fly. My father piloted them and he wasn't a pilot, though aircrew. He has told stories of non pilots landing and taking-off in them. This ended when a seagull crashed through the nose on take-off and the Anson crashed (no fatalities).



like I said I dont know if I believe it but the two sites didnt give exactly the same account ( and I dont know if that is good or bad)


I dont know if you read the origin of this but it started as which twin engine fighter was a match for a single engined fighter, 
I just thought proposing the anson was a bit off the wall, bearing in mind that quote.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

> I suppose it depends what you are doing with it and a twin engined plane has 2 engines, for all sides engine production was a factor at times, unless a twin is significantly better you are wasting resources.



This is one of the key questions!!!

I think the FW 187 beats the Me 110 in most of the important issues. The only points she can't match is weight loading and punch! But she is faster, can turn, climb and increase speed better and had the same endurance. The punch and weight loading are minimally worse for the missions!

And with the DB 605, to my opinion she is superior to the Bf 109 G6 from speed, climbing and increase speed and equal in turning. So if you watch the problems of the LW with nightfighters (Mosquito Plague) and the disadvantage at speed and high altitudes at 1943/44 what will be your technical decision?.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> I'm confused as to why the Jumo 210 engine keeps appearing in this discussion. The Fw-187 was designed for the DB600 / DB601 engine and that is almost certainly how it would have been mass produced. Which is why my very first post states the Fw-187 will have the same engine current in the Me-109 series.



Except you gave the weights of the Whirlwind and the FW 187 with the Peregrine and Jumo 210 engines in your comparison. 
you also may be in error on the P-38s weight. Empty weight for a J is 12,780lbs. only 80 lbs more for the "J" than th e"E"?

You also gave the fuel capacity of the FW 187 AO in post #19. That is the Jumo powered version. While the fuel capacity might not change (selfsealing tanks?) in a DB powered version the "lightweight" part might. Especially if you go past the early DB601 engines. 



davebender said:


> One can argue that the RR Merlin might not have made it into the Whirlwind due to redesign problems. No such arguement exists for the Fw-187.



You are correct but then a DB powered FW 187 isn't going to weigh 8157lbs empty either. 

While an up-engined FW 187 may match a P-38 in some respects the Whirlwind is too small to match the other two aircraft. It may have speed( with upgraded Peregrine engines) and armament but it won't have the range (even with the fuselage tanks) of the other two. Without a serious upgrade of the engines the Whirlwind won't have the high altitude performance either. While a later model supercharger (like a Merlin 460 and a two speed gearbox would help there may not be room for a two stage supercharger and the associated intercooler system. Designed as a short ranged interceptor the range issue isn't too surprising 

An early FW 187 (pre MG 151) has an armament problem, even if it is fitted with different engines. Once the Mg 151s show up things get a lot better but trying to extrapolate performance gets tricky since this airplane has the most modifications. While it was noted for it's maneuverability that is for the under engined, lightly loaded prototypes. Adding several thousand kilograms as some of the proposals call for is going to seriously raise the wing loading and hurt that maneuverability, it may still be a bit better than the heavier P-38 however. While the German engines may not suffer some of the maintenance issues of the Turbo-charged P-38 engines, they are not going to offer the high altitude altitude performance either. 

With the P-38 you know what you are getting, pick your year and model. 
Please note however the high altitude performance (F model was supposed to still climb at 1000ft per minute at 33,000ft according to one source) 
Also designed as an interceptor the large size of the United states meant that most US planes had longer ranges than their contemporary European counterparts. the versions before the "D" model carried 400-410 US gallons internally which dropped to 300 gallons with the advent of self sealing tanks. The self sealing tanks also weighed more which might have to factored into the weight's of the other two planes. The Js and Ls went back to 410 US gallons in protected tanks. 
The P-38 also had a rather large armament weight. Something that doesn't show up in a brief comparison of calibers and numbers of guns. The .50 cal ammo alone weighed on the order of 622lbs. This is more than the four 7.92mg and their 1000rpg and the 20MG FF guns and ONE set of drums in the Bf 110. 

How many rpg for the 7.9mm MGs in the FW 187?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> The F7F was not certified ready for combat until July 1945. By then the competition consists of Me-262 jet fighters plus late model piston engine fighters like the Spitfire XIV, Do-335, P-51H and Ta-152H.



Yeah, but try flying those airplanes from a carrier deck.............at night.


----------



## DonL (Sep 2, 2010)

@ Shortround6

What is your argument?



> An early FW 187 (pre MG 151) has an armament problem, even if it is fitted with different engines. Once the Mg 151s show up things get a lot better but trying to extrapolate performance gets tricky since this airplane has the most modifications. While it was noted for it's maneuverability that is for the under engined, lightly loaded prototypes. Adding several thousand kilograms as some of the proposals call for is going to seriously raise the wing loading and hurt that maneuverability, it may still be a bit better than the heavier P-38 however. While the German engines may not suffer some of the maintenance issues of the Turbo-charged P-38 engines, they are not going to offer the high altitude altitude performance either.



We can speculate a lot, but a single seater escort fighter will be at 5800 to 6400kg with DB 601 (all variations and DB 605a) full loaded. Or do you have other data that the weight increase from the A0 serial with loaded weight: 5,000 kg much more? Then please show or post us!

This supposed a maximal wingloading of 213,33 kg/m².
That is much less from the 260 kg/m² of the P38.



> While the German engines may not suffer some of the maintenance issues of the Turbo-charged P-38 engines, they are not going to offer the high altitude altitude performance either.



With reduced surface cooler the FW 187 with DB 605a engines had a much better performance between 6000-7000m then the P38. It is the question how much performance will be lost at high altitudes.

What I have written about the tanks of the FW 187 are real!
The Fw 187 had one 880 Ltr tank in the fuselage and in each wing one 210 Ltr.tank. That were the improvements right from the A0 series. So she can carry something about 1200-1300Ltr. internal fuel, it depends if you have other plans with MW 50 or GM1.

That are facts and not what if's


----------



## rank amateur (Sep 3, 2010)

Just showing of my ignorance, but did the Tigercat see any serious flying opposition before te end of WW2?


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2010)

What German aircraft carriers would you have the Ta-152H, Do-335 and Me-262 operate from? 

I like the F7F. However like the Mosquito and Ju-88G it has no business engaging high performance day fighters available during mid 1945.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

On the Anson incidence, I once checked it by using BC Losses, CC Losses and Prien's Jagdwaffe etc and yes, Anson got IIRC one Bf 109, Germans claimed a Blenheim but none were lost at right time at right place.

Anson was really nice and easy plane to fly, that's why it wasn't a good twin engine trainer, real twin bombers were so much more difficult.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2010)

davebender said:


> What German aircraft carriers would you have the Ta-152H, Do-335 and Me-262 operate from?



They were designed to do different jobs with different requirements.
Claiming plane "A" isn't up to par because part of it's performance envelope doesn't match plane "B"s performance level when plane "B" can't even begin to perform Plane "A"s main job seems a little bogus.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 3, 2010)

Juha said:


> On the Anson incidence, I once checked it by using BC Losses, CC Losses and Prien's Jagdwaffe etc and yes, Anson got IIRC one Bf 109, Germans claimed a Blenheim but none were lost at right time at right place.
> Anson was really nice and easy plane to fly, that's why it wasn't a good twin engine trainer, real twin bombers were so much more difficult.
> Juha



I suppose given the right scenario, a huge amount skill and bit of luck anything is possible. As a boy the anson was the best aeroplane ever because on the airfix model I made of it the propellors spun around so quickly that it looked like a real engine in there, impressive when you are 10


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 3, 2010)

DonL said:


> This is one of the key questions!!!
> 
> I think the FW 187 beats the Me 110 in most of the important issues. The only points she can't match is weight loading and punch! But she is faster, can turn, climb and increase speed better and had the same endurance. The punch and weight loading are minimally worse for the missions!
> 
> And with the DB 605, to my opinion she is superior to the Bf 109 G6 from speed, climbing and increase speed and equal in turning. So if you watch the problems of the LW with nightfighters (Mosquito Plague) and the disadvantage at speed and high altitudes at 1943/44 what will be your technical decision?.




Don 

In terms of a night fighter you are probably right, however the night fighter conflicts were a mixture of aeroplane capability and radar, jamming and homing technologies. Of all the qualities a plane had at night speed and range were maybe the most important, I cant imagine a turning fight in the dark.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello, on the Anson, from my old messages.
in fact it seem that P/O Peters and his crew got one Bf 109E from I/JG 20, Uffz. Werner Bielefeldt (WIA) had to made a crash-landing near Dunkirk, Bf 109E 100% loss. 
I looked on this case in 2003 while reading Ross McNeill's excellent CC Losses. I compared info from Ross’s and Chorley's loss books with info from of Prien's Jagdfliegerverbände Teil 3 and also got help from Chris Goss, Frank Olynyk and David Pausey who answered my questions in one other forum. 

I/JG 20 reported a clash with a Blenheim unit, made one claim (Oblt Walter Oesau, 11:35 20km N of Ostende, later confirmed) but suffered one loss, Uffz. Werner Bielefeldt (WIA) had to made a crash-landing near Dunkirk, Bf 109E 100% loss.
There were no BC Blenheim losses on June 1st and the two CC Blenheim losses were too early. No relevant FC Blenheim loss either. So it seems that we have a near match in time and place. Both sides were using summertime at that time. So the Germans were using time one hour ahead the British time.

Annie was much slower than Blenheim but at least both were twin engine monoplanes with a mid upper turret,so German identification error was understandable.

Juha


----------



## skeeter (Sep 3, 2010)

Operation Vengeance: the interception and shooting down of Yamamoto's Betty. Accomplished by P-38 fighter aircraft. A tour de force of what the fighter could do, and also of our ability to read encrypted Japanese cyphers. I offer you now a link to a good read:

Operation Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 3, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello, on the Anson, from my old messages.
> in fact it seem that P/O Peters and his crew got one Bf 109E from I/JG 20, Uffz. Werner Bielefeldt (WIA) had to made a crash-landing near Dunkirk, Bf 109E 100% loss.
> I looked on this case in 2003 while reading Ross McNeill's excellent CC Losses. I compared info from Ross’s and Chorley's loss books with info from of Prien's Jagdfliegerverbände Teil 3 and also got help from Chris Goss, Frank Olynyk and David Pausey who answered my questions in one other forum.
> 
> ...



well thanks for the verification, if the reports I read were correct it was a great feat just to get out alive let alone bring down a 109.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 3, 2010)

skeeter said:


> Operation Vengeance: the interception and shooting down of Yamamoto's Betty. Accomplished by P-38 fighter aircraft. A tour de force of what the fighter could do, and also of our ability to read encrypted Japanese cyphers. I offer you now a link to a good read:
> 
> Operation Vengeance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Much of what happened in code braking was still secret when I was young, I remember when it was made public with claims that it shortened the war by two years Ii found it hard to believe. However since reading about various operations in all theatres I think that is a fair claim. What I find hard to understand is how it remained so secret for so long and how both the Japanese and Germans never took action, they may have suspected but never proved it.

In the Pacific especially given the size of the area of operations and speed of a fleet the Japanese were particularly screwed from the outset.


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2010)

Those were rare. I would guess no more then a couple hundred night fighter aircraft were shot down by enemy night fighter aircraft during the entire war. Far more night fighters were lost to bomber tail gunners and night landing accidents. Hence requirements for day fighters and night fighters are entirely different.


----------

