# Heavy fighter: you are in charge



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2012)

Many nations were trying to design manufacture heavy fighters in WW2, some being more successful than others. Typically a twin engined, those were to offer a distinctive edge over the single-engined ones, in payload range, some times in performance. The offset was purchase maintenance cost.

So how would such a plane looked like of you were in charge? 
Oh, yes, this should not turn in a debate if such planes were 'better' than SE, etc - just what kind of design would be good for a particular air force, or it's ally. You may propose a 'starting' design (in service from 1939-42) and a 'mature' design (in service from 1943-45) if you wish. A brand new design gets extra points over a modified existing design


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2012)

A single seat Mossie that would look very like a Hornet


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

If the Fw-187 program is properly supported with state of the art engines and periodic airframe updates I think it would be the best long range single seat day fighter in the world from 1939 through 1945.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 26, 2012)

P38K


----------



## spicmart (Jan 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> View attachment 190891
> 
> If the Fw-187 program is properly supported with state of the art engines and periodic airframe updates I think it would be the best long range single seat day fighter in the world from 1939 through 1945.



Second that.


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2012)

Starting design:
Single seat. Radials, say the R-2600 of 1,600 HP, close set on the wings but with sufficient prop clearance for the nose and armament to stick out. Along the lines of the Beaufighter and Tigercat, but with a thinner airfoil and more streamlined. I think a twin tail and rudder for better control in an engine-out situation. Heavy armament, probably four 20 mm cannons and maybe a single 37 mm cannon, all in the fuselage. Ability to carry some bombs, but with removable shackles.

Growth version:
Same basic layout but with R-2800 engines and four 30 mm cannons only, probably a 15% bigger wing and tail.

Should be in the high 380 – 390 mph class to start with and grow into the 400 - 425 mph class or maybe slightly faster. Probably along the the performance of the P-38 Lightning and Grumman Tigercat. I think hydraulic ailerons would have been a good thing.

Or simply take the Grumman F7F Tigercat and use that design, perhaps with twin tails, but maybe not. Maybe a competitive flyoff for the tail design.

For a single-seater, I'd opt for the Grumman F8F Bearcat. Personal preference and holder of the curent world piston speed record at 528+ mph. Later this year, Rare Bear will probably set a faster record. At least there are planes to do so.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2012)

Somehow I've knew that mr. davebender would propose the 187


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 26, 2012)

How about a P-63 with contra rotating props and a Griffon 65 engine? The P-63 could outmaneuver a P-51 and out range it.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 26, 2012)

Out range with the thirsty Griffon? Don’t think so.
cimmex


----------



## Elmas (Jan 26, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> ..........
> So how would such a plane looked like of you were in charge?
> ........



Interceptor?
Long range escort?
Air superiority?
Night figther?
Fighter-bomber?
All-purpose fighter?
All these tasks require different configurations, to have the "best of all" aircraft.

Europe theater?
Pacific theater?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2012)

It all rather depends on what the actual "mission requirements" are. The Japanese Ki-45 was a heavy fighter but only in relation to the Ki-43. 
If plane "A" only has to carry 1/2 the armament load 80% as far in range as plane "B" does and is allowed to have a service ceiling 5,000ft lower you are going to wind up with rather different aircraft even if they have the same top speed. Other mission requirements can affect aircraft size and performance. Why was the Bf 110 as large as it was? Partially because the rear seater operated the "standard" German long radio set, the same one used in a He 111. He was also the loading system for the two 20mm cannon (changed the drums). Not much sense in building a long range escort fighter if it can't radio back to land for a good part of it's range or it runs out of ammo for it's main guns in 8 seconds.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2012)

Think the Fw-187 (or any other heavy fighter Germans would've fielded) with 8 x MG-17 would've fared just fine in 1940 - 400-500 rpg, guns centrally mounted.



Elmas said:


> Interceptor?
> Long range escort?
> Air superiority?
> Night figther?
> ...



Perhaps 2 basic designs should satisfy the needs? You can tailor your plane to excel in one area, and be good in others.


----------



## jim (Jan 26, 2012)

Fw 187 is the most obvius answer for germany
from the historicaly produced aircrafts i would propose an imroved Me410 with the following improvements.Target is the creation of a multi purpose day heavy fighter/attack for the east and NF version for west.
1) Reshaped nose section, as planned for the D version, for improved visibility and less drug
2)Remove the side MG 131 to reduce drug, save weight (~300 kgr) and create space for either extra fuel or electronics(NF version). If required put a flexible Mg131 in rear canopy.
3) Reposition of radiators .2 choise a) like 190 d9 b) in inner wings leading edges like the Hornet. If possible oil coolers too. I am not sure which choice would produce less drug but either should be better than the stock one.
4) Ydravlicaly boosted ailerons for better high speed manouvering
5) Use of Mw50. As far as i know no Mw50 was used operationaly with Db603,so a change to jumo 213 should be examined. In the east altitude performance was not important so this would not be a problem. 
6) Find a way to replace the nose 13mm with 20mm for a total front battery of 4x20mm without using the bomb bay
7) Reduce avionics to absolutely nessecary to save weight. Hs123 had proved that fancy,heavy , radios are not required for effectivness

I would expect for this aircraft to have a speed 0f 650km/h with out Mw50 (25 km/h better than the 410A ),better hanling and range. In the east would be unstopable as attack aircraft with its internal bomb bay and dive bombing capability.It would be able to operate even in the west but only during night. As heavy fighter would be unable to mix it with Yaks and Las but would be fast enough for hit and run tactics and very dangerous against Il2s, Bostons,etc...
Perharps with proper tactics would be possible to eliminate the gunner for even less drug and weight(-250 kgr?) and additional fuel and 20 mm ammo
I would expect such an aircraft to be a fine basis for NF as well, with the freed space behind the gunner used for electronics,.
Of course all these changes ,while i believe totaly realistics, would be impossible to be introduced in a Germany that needed 3 years to intriduce fully covered main landing gear in 109 production lines
Me 410 is unfair to be judged by 43/44 Defence of the Reich actions. Mosquito would have better results in the same conditions and emloying the same tactics?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2012)

What about an upgraded Whirlwind for Britain? 4x20mm centerlined firepower, upgraded engines, relatively inexpensive to use an existing airframe with minimal modifications...


----------



## pinsog (Jan 26, 2012)

What were the performances standards of the FW187? How did it compare to the P38K?


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 26, 2012)

I’m very surprised no one has listed the P-38 - seems to me to meet all requirements.

Oops! Sorry pinsog - I missed your post.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 26, 2012)

I’m very surprised no one has listed the P-38 - seems to me to meet all requirements.
Oops! Sorry pinsog, I missed your post.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

Assumption. Production date spring 1944.
I don't think the P-38K could be mass produced any earlier.

*P-38K.*
2 x V-1710-75/77 engnes. 1,875 hp.
~17,500 lbs loaded weight. Similiar to P-38L.
410 gallons internal fuel. Plus drop tanks.

*Fw-187G6* My best wild guess for a 1944 model Fw-187.
2 x DB605ASM engines. 1,800 hp take off. 1,500 hp @ 6,400 meters.
~14,000 lbs loaded weight. 3,000 lbs more then Fw-187A0.
1,100 liters internal fuel for Fw-187A0. 1944 version will have at least this much. Plus drop tanks.

The Fw-187 is smaller and would probably have a superior power to weight ratio at most altitudes. 

By 1944 the Fw-187 will have at least two and possibly four MG151/20 cannon mounted in the fuselage sides. A lot more firepower then the P-38.

Both aircraft have plenty of internal fuel resulting in excellent endurance.

The P-38 was very expensive to produce. I have no price data for the Fw-187 but it would almost certainly be less expensive.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 26, 2012)

The concept of heavy Fighter is however quite conflated.

Is a heavy fighter an aircraft like the FW 187, P-38 or DH Hornet which could take on single seaters on their own terms or is
it like the Me 110 or Britains Beaufighter?

The Me 110 was regarded as a failure due to not coping with single seat fighters when working as an escort in the BoB and latter after being a succesfull bomber destroyer it was also eventually mauled by long range escorts. However the 370 mph Me 110G2 (G4 radar equiped) was a succesfull night fighter (Bad weather fighter was one of its roles) and the Beaufighter a rather limited in (when used as a night intruder its performance was too limited versus the German night fighters althout it served well as a night interceptor early in the war) however the Beaufighters was an excellent coastal command fighter bombers using rockets, torpedoes, its guns. Neither aircraft could handle single engined fighters however P-38, FW-187 and even the Hornet would have had limitations as night fighters. (the hornet coudl carry a radar opperator in a bubble mid fuseselage).

In the case of 'proper heavy fighters' such as the P-38 and FW 187 I would lay down some rules:

1 Wing loading should be less than or equal to competing single engined fighters.
2 Power to Weight ratio should be better than or equal to competing single engined fighters.
3 The temptation to use the superior size of the aircraft to cram in significantly higher levels of armament, fire power and second crew members must be avoided.

The size and power advantage of the aircraft must be used to increase primarily range and performance, though slight increases in fire power will be possible.

The large size will help the aircraft carry external ordinance with less degradation of performance.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2012)

I still go with a Hornet like development. The UK stripped out the extra equipment needed for the navigator from a normal Mosquito and saved (if I remember correctly) 1,800 lb in weight and it made a significant difference in performance. If I can find it I will post the difference it made. 

The idea of swapping the engines of the Fw187 to DB605 sound easy but I am willing to bet that a change like that would add a lot more weight to the aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2012)

deleted


----------



## pinsog (Jan 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> Assumption. Production date spring 1944.
> I don't think the P-38K could be mass produced any earlier.
> 
> *P-38K.*
> ...



The standard P38 of the time was at least 30 mph faster than the Fw-187 and also climbed better. The P38K was said to do 432 omh in level flight on military power and was guessed to be over 450 on WEP. It was also said to have had a ceiling of nearly 50,000 ft and climb at 4,800 fpm on military power and thought to be over 5,000 fpm on WEP. The P38 also had sufficient firepower for it's intended targets and could have been armed with cannon if needed. Money, at that time, meant nothing to the US, we were out to win.

So exactly what advantage did the Fw-187 have over even the standard P38?


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> Assumption. Production date spring 1944.
> *Fw-187G6* My best wild guess for a 1944 model Fw-187.
> 2 x DB605ASM engines. 1,800 hp take off. 1,500 hp @ 6,400 meters.
> ~14,000 lbs loaded weight. 3,000 lbs more then Fw-187A0.
> ...



I rather suspect that the FW 187 would have had its fuel capacity increased over the initial 1100, the Me 110 and P-38 did recieve increases.

I estimate the range of the FW 187 at maximum cruise as about 700 miles: about 1.5 times that of the Me 109 plus 10% for its superior speed and 5-10% for the lower proportion of the journey spent in climb. With drop tanks this open up the possibillity of sustained opperations out to 330 miles from base; something the Luftwaffe didn't have moreover unlike the P-38 it could have been ready by by wars begining.

Ernst Udet allowed the production of the FW 187 prototypes to go ahead however he stipulated the rather small Jumo 210 engines due to DB600 series shortages. Going straight for the DB601 for small production runs should have been worthwile even if it meant sacrificing 10% of Me 109 and Me 110 production to get a small number of this aircraft to fill in the gaps. The Jumo 211J could have powered around half of FW 187 production between early 1942 and 43 when it was superior to the DB605A at low altitudes.

The turbo superchargers of the Allison would probably allow the P-38 to win out over the DB605ASM at very high altitudes, probably somewhere close to 30,000ft.

The primary advantage would be
1 Longer range escort
2 Abillity to carry external ordinance (eg a 500lb bomb) with little impact on performance.
3 An aircraft faster than single seaters of the same technology (laimar flow wings aside) thus providing for a high speed reconaisance aircraft.
3 A two seater, which allowing rearward facing observer still provides for a radar opperator and navigator (eg using the lightweight Siemens FuG 217 Neptune radar)


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 26, 2012)

GregP said:


> Starting design:
> Single seat. Radials, say the R-2600 of 1,600 HP, close set on the wings but with sufficient prop clearance for the nose and armament to stick out.
> snip
> Growth version:
> ...



I like the idea, it might work so long as the rules I proposed of maintaining power to weight ratios and wing loadings better than single seaters is maintained. Your proposal is however so big it might be possible to do it with a second crew member to provide assistance with navigation and copiloting during ultra long range missions. It would need turbosupercharging for sure as well as the boosted ailerons as the large size will cut into roll rate.

What are you going to use it for?

One disadvantage of large fighters is that they are generally seen first.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

During early 1939 a Fw-187 prototype powered by 1,000 hp DB600 engines achieved 395 mph in level flight.

The P-38 protytpe first flew 27 Jan 1939. On 11 Feb 1939 the P-38 prototype conducted a high speed test.
The P-38 Lightning


> as flown, it would appear to be between 394 to 403 mph



It appears to me P-38 prototype max speed was similiar to Fw-187 prototype max speed.

Internal fuel.
According to the web site P-38s prior to the J model carried only 300 gallons of internal fuel. Internal fuel capacity increased by a third for late war P-38s. A similiar increase would give late war Fw-187s 1,467 liters of internal fuel.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm going to go for the Do335 for the Germans.

Except that I would redesign the Göppingen Gö 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to include a second engine, and test the push-pull, twin coaxial pusher and twin coaxial tractor engine layouts. 







The discovering the extra performace of the pusher layout the Do335 would become a twin engine pusher aircraft, with the cockpit moved forward and nose mounted armament. 

It would, in fact, look a lot like the proposed P.252/3, though probably with a shorter fuselage.

Dornier Do P.252

For the Brits it would be the Supermarine Type 327 with 4 20mm instead of 6. Developed version to use 2 stage Merlins, or possibly Griffons.

US I think were set with the P-38.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> During early 1939 a Fw-187 prototype powered by 1,000 hp DB600 engines achieved 395 mph in level flight.
> 
> The P-38 protytpe first flew 27 Jan 1939. On 11 Feb 1939 the P-38 prototype conducted a high speed test.
> The P-38 Lightning
> ...



The Fw187 which achieved that speed was using surface/evaporative cooling - negating a lot of drag. However, such systems didn't work in production machinery - though they worked well in racing/record breaking aircraft.

When fitted with normal radiators the Fw187 was quite a bit slower.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 26, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The Fw187 which achieved that speed was using surface/evaporative cooling - negating a lot of drag. However, such systems didn't work in production machinery - though they worked well in racing/record breaking aircraft.
> 
> When fitted with normal radiators the Fw187 was quite a bit slower.



Forum member DonL wrote the following on the "Whirlwind vs. Fw 187 vs. P-38" thread, I copy/paste it. It is part of post #27 in this thread:

"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."


----------



## drgondog (Jan 26, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> It all rather depends on what the actual "mission requirements" are. The Japanese Ki-45 was a heavy fighter but only in relation to the Ki-43.
> If plane "A" only has to carry 1/2 the armament load 80% as far in range as plane "B" does and is allowed to have a service ceiling 5,000ft lower you are going to wind up with rather different aircraft even if they have the same top speed. Other mission requirements can affect aircraft size and performance. Why was the Bf 110 as large as it was? Partially because the rear seater operated the "standard" German long radio set, the same one used in a He 111. He was also the loading system for the two 20mm cannon (changed the drums). Not much sense in building a long range escort fighter if it can't radio back to land for a good part of it's range or it runs out of ammo for it's main guns in 8 seconds.



I'm with SR. The mission will dictate to design. 

If I had pre-sight and was asked to propose a long range fighter in 1940 it would have been big and heavy to carry the fuel. If the specified altitude for standard ops was 25-30000 feet I would have been thinking Merlin with two stage or Allison with Turbo. I wouldn't think R-2600 or R-2800 because specific fuel consumption would dominate one aspect of the design.

There was no engine in 1940 that popped up in designer's radar for less than .6 to 1.0 GPH and still delivered 1200 hp at 25000 feet without turbo supercharger - and I didn't have access to Merlin - so Allison is what I am stuck with (in US). Cruise drag bucket range needs close scrutiny

Next - I have to think about what kind of performance I needed at 25-30K to deliver 400+mph on a medium loaded airframe at 500 miles radius. If speed was sole dictate then low drag/high thrust to weight airframe at 1/2 load of fuel starts the drag calcs and dictates the airframe config. I probably have to settle for less than optimal acceleration. 

Twin booms - more drag. Single standard fuselage/twin engines says we have to have the superchargers in the nacelle with each engine.

Wing airfoil poses the initial drag calcs, span and aspect ratio start the trade offs between more induced drag but better climb and turn capability.. how important is that?

Guns - centerline more effective. 6x50 or 3x20mm - ammo near cg if possible

Move fuel to wings (inboard as much as possible, some fuel aft of cockpit). Design for drop tanks inboard, external stores inboard or outboard when fuel not primary issue. 

Prop design - can I get what I need with nose gear. Nose gear heavier and complicates armament - try tail dragger first.

What kind of airfields? How much take off run do I need on a hot day, fully loaded at SL - to clear a 50 foot obstacle?

Do I need a second crew? Why? -stick with one if possible.

Do we propose a second mission? Fighter Bomber, Recon, Interceptor? Each influences wing design and power requirements.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jan 26, 2012)

I think that Mossie's that were bubble canopied like a Tempest with one pilot would be great. Kinda like Hornets, only earlier. Gas, armament, speed, power all there.
Beaufighters with nothing in the back, no crew, no turret, rear firing guns, nothing besides the pilot with a big Malcolm hood. Keep it light. Need gas? Fill the bombay.
A-20's, keep it light, no crew beside the pilot, Malcolm hood. Big guns in the nose and belly. -2600's from the TBM high power version. Need gas? See above...
P-38's already were the best, designed for the fighter role. Thank God they had drops from the start. A few thousand V-1650-3 powered versions, for the ETO.
P-82's, leave out the other guy, close up the other hole, wow did NA and Lockheed build and use some big drops late war.
P-65/F7F, simply awesome, good guns, long range with a drop, super speed, altitude capability.
ETO and PTO would be covered.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

The historical Do-335 was a high speed light bomber. The 1945 equivalent of a F-105 or F-111.

If you want the Do-335 as a fighter aircraft it could be quite a bit smaller and lighter in weight. That should improve maneuverability, which is what you want for a fighter aircraft. 
- Eliminate the bomb bay.
- Eliminate structural strengthening required for bombing.
I would seriously consider powering the fighter aircraft with two DB605 engines rather then the larger and heavier DB603. That should save quite a bit of weight and allow the aircraft to be smaller in size. It also allows you to build the Do-335 anytime after 1942 rather then waiting for DB603 engines to become available in 1945.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Forum member DonL wrote the following on the "Whirlwind vs. Fw 187 vs. P-38" thread, I copy/paste it. It is part of post #27 in this thread:
> 
> "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.
> ...



The systems as used on the Me209 and He100 were total loss systems - the cooling fluid exited the aircraft as steam never to be used again.

The system used by the Macchi MC72 and Supermarine S6B and their predecessors was surface cooling, where the cooling water would change to steam and then be condensed back to water in surface radiators. Rolls-Royce tested such a system with the Goshawk version of the Kestrel.

The Fw187 system, as I understand it, was much the same as used on the Schneider Trophy races. A closed system evaporative cooling system with surface radiatiors/condensors.

IIRC the HE112 was also originally fitted with such a system, though it was later changed for a conventional radiator.

The surface cooling system required a lot of surface area to work effectively, and thus it was especially vulnerable to enemy fire. I doubt that the system was ready for a production aircraft, and if it was the Luftwaffe would be reluctant to have it on one of their aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> The historical Do-335 was a high speed light bomber. The 1945 equivalent of a F-105 or F-111.
> 
> If you want the Do-335 as a fighter aircraft it could be quite a bit smaller and lighter in weight. That should improve maneuverability, which is what you want for a fighter aircraft.
> - Eliminate the bomb bay.
> ...



Actually the high speed light bomber was but one version of the Do335. Another was the heavy fighter version, and a night fighter version also proposed/constructed.

I agree that the DB605 could have been substituted for the DB603, saving quite a bit of space (the DB603 being quite a bit longer IIRC) - so more fuel could be carried or the fuselage made shorter.

Still like the idea of moving the pilot forward, and the front engine brought in behind him, with each engine driving one half of a contra-rotating pusher prop setup.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

Put someone competent in charge of RLM engine procurement.

October 1935. 
DB601 / DB605 engine program receives 50 million RM as originally planned rather then being scaled back to 20 million RM.
.....Enough DB601 engines available to allow mass production of the inexpensive He-100 from 1940 onward. Germany can sell it to allied nations such as Hungary and Bulgaria.
.....Fw-187 could be produced too. However we will forego that program in favor of the Fw-190C.

1936. 
Daimler-Benz begins development of DB603 engine. Essentially a scaled up DB601.

1937.
DB603 engine program receives 50 million RM rather then being cancelled as happened historically.

1937.
Dr. Tank expresses a desire to power his proposed Fw-190 fighter aircraft with the DB603 engine.

RLM tells him to make it so. The DB603 will enter mass production by 1941 at the rate of 400 engines per month. However the proposed Fw-190C must meet these specifications:
- 700 liters of internal fuel. Twice as much as the Me-109. About a third more then the historical Fw-190A.
- 3 x 20mm cannon. One firing through the prop hub plus one in each wing.
- Cockpit a bit roomier then the Me-109. We don’t want the pilot too cramped on long missions. Maybe we will also provide a really comfortable seat, an excellent cockpit heater and a clip to hold a thermos of coffee. 

A Fw-190C with 700 liters of internal fuel plus a 300 liter drop tank under each wing should have enough endurance for most German bomber escort missions. Three 20mm cannon (including 1 on centerline) will provide plenty of firepower. 

We will cancel the Me-110 aircraft and BMW801 engine. That will provide funding for the Fw-190C plus DB603 engine.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2012)

What aboutthe bombers that used the BMW 801?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 27, 2012)

Mine would be a bastard, a Frankenstein of ideas that were good. Airframe, start with the P-63. Bubble canopy, no doors. The nose would house a 20mm. The wing design would still be laminar, but the gear would retract forward to allow more room for wing stores or drop tanks. Like the Mustang, it would have wing tanks, inboard of the gear. The wing would be large from the fuselage to the area of the guns, then the aileron area would have a forward taper towards the wingtip. 2 - .50 cals in each wing just outboard of the gear. It would also have a belly radiatior, freeing up the wing roots for fuel. Griffon V-12 produced by Chrysler, so Packard could keep making Merlins in the U.S.A.


----------



## stona (Jan 27, 2012)

I'll take a P-47
Steve


----------



## Elmas (Jan 27, 2012)

I would like to propose a P 38 with last generation Merlin engines (or DB 603...) and a laminar wing profile......


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2012)

P-38 was managing to have good low-speed characteristics because of it's Fowler-type flaps, since those both increase wing area and wind camber (sp? - curvature?). Hence the airstrips used did not needed to be that long - typically under 2000 ft, and never more than 2500 ft, comparable with early P-40s.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 27, 2012)

Mine would be simple: Take your best single-engine fighter and make it a twin or Zwilling.

- reduced development risk
- much shorter development
- cost effective due to commonality of parts, tooling and labour
- faster entry into service for the same reasons as above
- reduction of logistical efforts
- reduction of training due to similarity cockpits and probably similar behaviour in many ways.

Unfortunately the one Me 109 Z proto never got off the ground so there are only estimated performance figures are available. But these are at least as good as contemporary conventional twins. The F-82 shows that this arrangement works.


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

I cannot think of a single BMW801 powered aircraft that wouldn't perform better powered by DB603 engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2012)

While that may be so it might also depend on wither the plane is powered by 1942 BMW 801s or 1944/45 DB603s. It might be interesting to speculate on what a 1940/41 DB603 would actually give for power in production versions. 

Like 1445PS at 3700meters at 2400rpm being roughly equal to a DB601Aa.

Or 1542PS at 4900 meters at 2600rpm being roughly equal to a DB601N.

Or 1730PS at 4800 meters at 2700rpm being roughly equal to a DB601NE.

But then the DB 603 didn't really run much over 2500rpm did it? and large cylinders rarely equaled the power per liter of smaller cylinders of the same time period (months).


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Westland Whirlwind with belt fed Hispanos and cross-feed to its fuel tanks.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

Historically the DB603 engine program wasn't funded during 1937 to 1940. Three years of missing research and development. We can only speculate what a properly funded 1941 DB603 engine will look like but it would certainly be superior to the historical model. For that matter the DB601 would be more advanced too if it receives 50 million RM as originally proposed rather then the historical 20 million.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2012)

The layout of the Kawasaki Ki-64 seem like no-brainer for the USA - back engine of the E-series V-1710, front from F-series. Counter-rotating prop at front. The 'combined' engine (made of two close relatives of the DB-601A) from the Ki-64 was developing 2350 HP @ 12600 ft (static alt), max speed 430 mph @ 16100 ft. The corresponding US engines were developing 1150 HP @ 11-12 kft in 1942, or @ 14,5 - 15,5 kft in 1943. No turbo here, of course.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 27, 2012)

For general performance.

For the 39-42 time frame, I would select the P-38 with better heater and perfected cooling and turbo system, maneuvering flaps, speed brakes, and possibly spoilers instead of ailerons ala P-61. For armament I would have two 20 mm (brit) and two 50s.

The Fw-187 seems no better than the contemporary Whirlwind, both would most likely have to add weight to make usable. All in all, both would be similar to the P-38, except in high altitude performance.

The standard F4U-1 would be my selection had it been produced earlier. Well, since this is a day dream, I would develop the F4U-1 earlier. It would be my selection for heavy fighter. The F4U-1 was capable of 417 mph and climbed at 2890 ft/min and had a range of 1015 miles.

For the ’43-’45 time frame, the selection is pretty easy. I would develop the XP-72 earlier and mount four 20s (brit), and expedite the -19 engine, 3600 hp.

Top speed 480 mph, possibly approaching 500+ mph with counter rotating props and/or upgraded engine.
ROC 5280 ft/min
Range 1200 miles
Engine R-3369-13, 3000 hp growth to 3600 
Ceiling 42k ft.
Single engine reliability, maintainability and cost.


Grade per Elmas
Interceptor A+
Long range escort A
Air superiority A
Night fighter C
Fighter-bomber B
All-purpose fighter A

Europe theater A
Pacific theater A


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Historically the DB603 engine program wasn't funded during 1937 to 1940. Three years of missing research and development. We can only speculate what a properly funded 1941 DB603 engine will look like but it would certainly be superior to the historical model. For that matter the DB601 would be more advanced too if it receives 50 million RM as originally proposed rather then the historical 20 million.



That depends on what you mean by "missing research and development". Engine development did not exist in a vacuum. What a company ( or even a nation, or allies, or even the world in general) learned about one engine, manufacturing technique or fuel was often applied to other models or brands of engine which shorten up some research and development considerably. For instance the bearings used by one model of P&W engine were not only rapidly spread to other P&W engines but to Wright and perhaps Packard and so on. The DB 600-601 went through 4 if not 5 different impeller designs for it's supercharger by the time it made it do the "E" model. When work started back up on the 603 DB could use everything it learned on the 601-605 up till that time. Running parallel programs might have speeded things up a bit but would have been much more costly with much duplication of effort. You also might have had blind alleys like a DB 603 equivalent of the 601N using C3 fuel. The 180mm stroke of the 603 would have pretty much limited it's rpm to 2500 without a lot of work or the relaxing of some standards (like overhaul life?). Limits the Germans may have been willing to live with in 1943/44 but not willing to put up with in 1939/40.
Again, please remember that the world fuel situation was rapidly changing in 1937-40. They knew better fuel than 87 octane was coming but they didn't know when or even what it's limits might actually be. British and American 100 octane fuel at the time having rather different limits since they were NOT the same fuel. Octane rating being just performance measurement of fuel and not a fuel specification by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight a year later, on 24 June 1942



Earlier then June 1942? Will there be enough R2800 engines and were they reliable during 1941?

*R-2800 engine production.*
17. 1940.
1,733. 1941.
11,840. 1942.
23,726. 1943.
45,259. 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2012)

They were reliable, they were just 1850hp for take-off 2 speed single stage engines, not the 2 stage engines used in the F4U.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Earlier then June 1942? Will there be enough R2800 engines and were they reliable during 1941?
> ...



If you can dream German engines could be advanced, I can dream American engines could be advanced.


----------



## brewerjerry (Jan 27, 2012)

Hi
Gloster f9/37
Gloster F.9/37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cheers
Jerry


----------



## spicmart (Jan 27, 2012)

How about the Arado Ar 240 or 440? Don't know too much about them though..


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

Only if historical development was delayed due to the government cutting engine program funding. Was that the case for the R2800 engine?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2012)

We don't know what the delay in the DB 603 program affected or by what time line.

We do know that the Griffon program was put on the back burner for a while. Does that mean we can claim faster development of the Griffon? Including the igher boosts needing better fuel?

How about the fact that the Wright R-3350 was "paused" in development for a while. In fact the engines that powered the B-29 shared little more than the number of cylinders and the bore&stroke with the early engines. How about wright drops the Tornado engine and gets the later R-3350 done a year or two early?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> We do know that the Griffon program was put on the back burner for a while. Does that mean we can claim faster development of the Griffon? Including the igher boosts needing better fuel?



It had a delay (work suspended during BoB IIRC) and a redesign when someone came up with the idea of a Griffon engined Spitfire.

The Griffon is an excellent example of what you were saying earlier SR - its design and development benefitted greatly from Rolls-Royce's experinces with the Merlin.

Things like the end to end lubrication system were on the Griffon from the start, the Griffon drove all its accessories and supercharger fron the front of the engine (later verisions had teh supercharger drive from the rear), no external oil lines, two piece block and heads, etc.


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> ...The Me 110 was regarded as a failure due to not coping with single seat fighters when working as an escort in the BoB and latter after being a succesfull bomber destroyer it was also eventually mauled by long range escorts. However the 370 mph Me 110G2 (G4 radar equiped) was a succesfull night fighter (Bad weather fighter was one of its roles) and the Beaufighter a rather limited in (when used as a night intruder its performance was too limited versus the German night fighters althout it served well as a night interceptor early in the war) however the Beaufighters was an excellent coastal command fighter bombers using rockets, torpedoes, its guns. Neither aircraft could handle single engined fighters however P-38, FW-187 and even the Hornet would have had limitations as night fighters. (the hornet coudl carry a radar opperator in a bubble mid fuseselage)....


 
Bf 110 did fairly well during the Battle of France, also against Hurricanes, during the BoB it was more a question of wrong tactics, 110 was not a good close escort type because of its large turning circle and poor acceleration. After BoB 110 fought a draw against Hurri Mk I(Trop.) in North Africa and did well in SU in 41. IMHO it was better day fighter than Beau. The latter was better strafer because of its heavier armament and radial engines. The 370mph 110G-2 was a day fighter, 342mph G-4 was the night fighter version of 110G. It was not much faster than contemporary 333mph Beau VIF night fighter and in fact Beaus did fairly well at first in intruder ops, got some top LW night fighter pilots, even if the intruders were handicapped by the decision that they could only be equipped wwith older model radars, so that the newer radar types would not end into hands of Germans. After all Beau was almost as fast as 110G-4 and faster than almost all Ju 88Cs. I agree that both 110 and Beau were acceptable night fighters but late in the war 110G-4 became overburdened by all those ever more numerous electronics, that's why Ju88G became the main NF of LW during late 44. Beau became too slow against Ju 88S, 410 and 190 fighter bombers. But as I wrote earlier, 110, when rightly used, was dangerous to SE fighters at least from 39 to 42, Beau less so.

I agree that the smaller fuselage TE fighters didn't have enough internal volume to be effective night fighter during WWII. Do 217 and P-61 were probably too big for optimal NF and as smaller heavy fighters, IMHO something like Tempest or P-47N could do what P-38 or Fw 187 could but with only one engine.

Juha

Juha


----------



## Hoju2k (Jan 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> But then the DB 603 didn't really run much over 2500rpm did it?



2700rpm


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 28, 2012)

To use an existing late war aircraft what about that P-61?. Eliminate a large portion of the fuselage decreasing weight and drag. Shrink it down to only house the pilot. No upper turret. Keep the 4 belly 20 mms, and in the nose replace the radar dome and nose area with 4 .50 cals. Yum.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 28, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> To use an existing late war aircraft what about that P-61?. Eliminate a large portion of the fuselage decreasing weight and drag. Shrink it down to only house the pilot. No upper turret. Keep the 4 belly 20 mms, and in the nose replace the radar dome and nose area with 4 .50 cals. Yum.



You mean like the P-61E or F-15 Reporter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg

http://aerofiles.com/north-p61e.jpg

The P-61E was to be a heavy day fighter.


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2012)

wuzak said:


> You mean like the P-61E or F-15 Reporter?
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg
> 
> ...



Hello Wuzak
IMHO P-61E only shows that Riacrato's opinion, that why bother to design a heavy twin fighter, why not design a twin or Zwilling a la P-/F-82 Twin Mustang, has a good point.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2012)

Hoju2k said:


> 2700rpm



You are of course, correct. My apologies, I was away from my books at the time at was looking at Wiki. Some engines did use a higher take off rpm that was not used for other flight conditions and I thought the DB 603 might be one of them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Wuzak
> IMHO P-61E only shows that Riacrato's opinion, that why bother to design a heavy twin fighter, why not design a twin or Zwilling a la P-/F-82 Twin Mustang, has a good point.
> 
> Juha



The problem with using a "Zwilling" is that it doesn't give much more range than the parent single engine fighter. Fine if you are starting with a Mustang, not so good if you are starting with a 109 or Spitfire. Only large space for more fuel is taking out the second cockpit which rather limits nightfighting ability or fitting long range radios? Some Zwillings would be hard press to be fitted as night fighters in any case. Want to try to cram the needed radar equipment into a 109 cockpit even if you take out the normal instrument panel? One of the things they didn't like about the He 219 was not enough room for the radar operator.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2012)

As for Zwiling's fuel tankage, it all depends what the designers/costumers want to accomplish. 
The twinned Spitfire, for example, can house it's armament ammo in central wing, leaving outer wings free for extra fuel. For 109, the central battery can be retained, leaving room for fuel tanks both inner outer wing panels. Both planes were featuring radio sets in rear hull - since only one radio set is needed, the rear part of another hull can house radar electronics.
British were able to install radar in their Defiants as early as 1940 (while still retaining the turret), so I see no problems for a twinned Spit to carry a radar set.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 28, 2012)

An italian design with similar dimensions as the Whirlwind. Pretty neat looking plane like most italian designs. Needs better engines of course.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 28, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Wuzak
> IMHO P-61E only shows that Riacrato's opinion, that why bother to design a heavy twin fighter, why not design a twin or Zwilling a la P-/F-82 Twin Mustang, has a good point.
> 
> Juha



But zwillings didn't work. The Germans tried for a Bf109Z - but that got nowhere.

The twin Mustang worked, but it didn't appear until 1946 and was very much a new aircraft and not a zwilling - despite appearances.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 28, 2012)

I haven't seen anything mentioned that would come close to matching an XP-72 Super Thunderbolt. Wish they had built a few and deployed them. What a machine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2012)

wuzak said:


> But zwillings didn't work. The Germans tried for a Bf109Z - but that got nowhere.
> 
> The twin Mustang worked, but it didn't appear until 1946 and was very much a new aircraft and not a zwilling - despite appearances.



Claiming that twinned planes did not worked, because Bf-109Z was damaged by allied bomb(s) and never repaired, is hardly some conclusion. 
Sure enough that a twinned plane is not something to be made quick-and-dirty; having many components is mass production can help to drive the price down, while expediting the delivery of the plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Claiming that twinned planes did not worked, because Bf-109Z was damaged by allied bomb(s) and never repaired, is hardly some conclusion.
> Sure enough that a twinned plane is not something to be made quick-and-dirty; having many components is mass production can help to drive the price down, while expediting the delivery of the plane.



The Bf-109Z may have worked quite well in some roles, not so good in others ( one account says second cockpit area used for fuel tank/s). the more modifications that are made the fewer common parts are used and the rational for the idea starts to loose it's attractiveness. 

While the P-82 looked like a twin mustang the Fuselages were almost entirely new. You had the new wing center section, new tailplane , new landing gear ( by the time you get to the P-82E you are dealing with 14,914 pounds empty and 24,864 pounds maximum) . One source says had 576 US gallons internal fuel? 

The F-82 was _not_ a small airplane. 






Something to consider is that the original heavy fighters were built with certain goals in mind and were _not_ small twins with small engines comparable in size to large single engine fighters like the Whirlwind and Ro-57 (which had a smaller wing than a Typhoon)


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 28, 2012)

Anyone remember the P-75? If further developed it might have been worthwhile.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 29, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> Anyone remember the P-75? If further developed it might have been worthwhile.



Doubtful, but what about a XP-67 with turbocharged (or turbocompound) Allisons or two stage Merlins?

405mph on engines giving just over 1000hp (and much the same as the XP-49, which was largely based on the P-38).

Surely looking at over 450mph for a pair of Merlin 70 series?

Also, ditch the 6 x 37mm armament, and replace with 6 x 20mm Hispanos. Or 4 x 20mm Hispanos and 2 x 37mm (to keep the AAF happy a sit wa sone of their favourite weapons). Just don't bother loading ammo for the 37s....


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 29, 2012)

wuzak said:


> You mean like the P-61E or F-15 Reporter?
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg
> 
> ...



Wow! I had never ever known of the P-61E. See, I was on to something. That plane would have been perfect! Any test data on it's performance? This thread is closed, P-61E would be the supreme heavy fighter.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 29, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> Wow! I had never ever known of the P-61E. See, I was on to something. That plane would have been perfect! Any test data on it's performance? This thread is closed, P-61E would be the supreme heavy fighter.



Very much the same as the P-61A/B, I believe - meaning top speed of around 380mph.

I would also argue that it would be a better arrangement for teh night fighter version - ditch the nose guns for the radar - 4 x 20mm should be plenty for a nightfighter. Two crew instead of three, no pesky 4 gun turret to worry about.


----------



## Juha (Jan 29, 2012)

wuzak said:


> But zwillings didn't work. The Germans tried for a Bf109Z - but that got nowhere.



There were some outside forces working against 109Z, Germans seemed to have had some intrest on Zwillings late in the WWII, IIRC there were plans for Twin Do 335, was that Do 445 for ex.



wuzak said:


> The twin Mustang worked, but it didn't appear until 1946 and was very much a new aircraft and not a zwilling - despite appearances.



Yes i know, IIRC the fuselages were lenghtened for more room for extra fuel and extra electronics for very long range work, IMHO a Twin Spitfire would also needed longer fuselages for same reasons or at least for some changes so that rear fuselage fuel tanks would have had less effect on handling than in late Mk IXs.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2012)

Something that should've, hopefully, increased a number of P-38s - the non-turboed versions? Not the Merlin version (though that one seem like a winner), but a regular V-1710? 
Such planes, historically, were featuring 2 x 1040 HP (the C-series) engines, considered by the RAF in 1940, and low-level F-series ( used by USAAF in the USA only, supercharger ratio 6.44:1,relic from the turboed engine version, unlike the 'usual' 8.80:1 as found on P-39/40/51s of 1942). The P-38F, with 1150 HP, was capable of 370 mph at 15000 ft. Since 'my' P-38 would've used the exhaust thrust, then another 10 mph should be added? The plane is lighter, the drag is lower, the WER rating is about 1500 HP at 4500 ft (no ram), easier to maintain, cheaper. More than enough for Asia/Pacific prior 1944? 
By late 1942, the engine with 9.60:1 is in production, so the max speed should be attained at 17-18000 ft. The WER is some 1400 HP @ 9500 ft (no ram). Again, the P-38F was capable of 380 mph @ 18000 ft, adding some 10 mph due to exhaust thrust makes 390. 
With 1325 HP, the P-38F was tested 365 mph at 8000 ft, 375 at 12000 ft, so the non-turbo should have no problems to top this.

But, then, again, P-51(A) can do even better


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2012)

I am not sure that P-38 production was held up by a lack of turbos, at least not often or not long ( I would not be surprised if there were temporary hiccups in supply). At times in 1941 (?) the Army was rationing Allison engines to airframe makers but that had nothing to do with the turbos. Compared to the total weight of the plane the turbos just weren't that heavy. Until you get to the "J" there isn't going to much of change in drag in drag due to leaving out the "inter coolers" although the extra fuel tankage might come in handy. Jet thrust works better the higher you go, less back pressure means higher exhaust velocity. A Merlin XX got 86.5 Hp at 325mph at 15,000 from jet exhaust with a charge flow of 140lbs per minute. At 30,000ft it got 89hp (in between was more with a high of 127hp) at 317mph with a charge flow of just 107lbs minute. While jet thrust helps speed it doesn't do any where near as much for climb. 

The 109 Zwilling had just under 250sq ft of wing which gives it about 6-7% more than a P-51 or 61% of the wing of a P-82. It just isn't big enough to hold everything that a P-82 could, something has to give. 2nd crew member and radar or fuel?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2012)

My idea for more 'P-38s' is pointed towards man-hours per a plane produced, more than towards any perceived lack of turbo set-ups. 
The decreased maintenance should be also adding to the serviceable vs. available planes ratio (ie. more planes in combat for same number of on-hand ones). The two turbos deleted should make plane weight 600+ lbs less (same as 100 gals of fuel), so the climbing abilities would remain competitive. More so the short climbs during combat in lower altitudes with introduction of WER, some time in second half of 1942. The drag should go down since the airframe where once the turbine was would be far better streamlined (5 mph extra?).

The 109s were carrying some 100+ gals of fuel. With just extra 100 gals in wings (for 300 gals total, internal), the 109Z has useful range. So I'd give 270 gals of fuel


----------



## Arossihman (Jan 29, 2012)

F7F-Tigercat


----------



## davebender (Jan 29, 2012)

Nothing wrong with the F7F. Powered by R2800 engines so it theoretically could have been designed early and entered production during summer 1942 along with the F4U. A 1943 model F7F would have less engine power then the post-war F7F but it would still be faster then anything Japan had.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2012)

Tigercat is an awesome looking plane, with capabilities to go with that.


----------



## Arossihman (Jan 29, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Tigercat is an awesome looking plane, with capabilities to go with that.



Kind of my thoughts as well although i've heard it did'nt have the best carrier traits for landing on flight decks it was still a very good land based aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Jan 29, 2012)

Neither did the F4U but both aircraft operated just fine from airfields on land. An aircraft that works well for the USMC would work equally well for the Army Air Force.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 29, 2012)

davparlr said:


> For general performance.
> The Fw-187 seems no better than the contemporary Whirlwind, both would most likely have to add weight to make usable. All in all, both would be similar to the P-38, except in high altitude performance.



FW 187's with DB605A were supposedly capable of 440mph, way beyond the Whirwind and the 399.5 mph the Me 109G1 could accomplish with the same engine and some 395mph on the DB600 engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> My idea for more 'P-38s' is pointed towards man-hours per a plane produced, more than towards any perceived lack of turbo set-ups.
> The decreased maintenance should be also adding to the serviceable vs. available planes ratio (ie. more planes in combat for same number of on-hand ones). The two turbos deleted should make plane weight 600+ lbs less (same as 100 gals of fuel), so the climbing abilities would remain competitive. More so the short climbs during combat in lower altitudes with introduction of WER, some time in second half of 1942. The drag should go down since the airframe where once the turbine was would be far better streamlined (5 mph extra?).



Putting better intercoolers into the P-38 would have done more than anything else to improve it's performance in 1942/43. you also have the situation were models of the Allison engine tended to leapfrog each other by a number of months. The F2 engines in the very early P-38s (D's and E's) started production a number of moths before the F3s in the P-40D&E. Production contracts and tooling often were a year or more ahead of combat use. The F5 engines used in the P-38F passed their 150 hr test in may of 1941. NO WER ratings were for ANY engines were approved until late summer/fall of 1942. 



tomo pauk said:


> The 109s were carrying some 100+ gals of fuel. With just extra 100 gals in wings (for 300 gals total, internal), the 109Z has useful range. So I'd give 270 gals of fuel



The early Bf 110s carried 336-340 US gallons in standard tanks and around another 140 in auxiliary tanks inside the wing. the Me 210 had 660 US gallons internal tankage. Granted the they had more drag but the Zwilling is not going to do some of the same jobs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2012)

The suggestion was aimed to increase number of P-38s all together if possible (producing both turboed and non-turboed version). Sure enough, better intercoolers would've helped. I'm aware when WER was introduced historically, and acknowledged it in post #76 here.

109Z would be way smaller lighter than 110 or 210, hopefully better suited for jobs in Reich defence (in day night fighter versions), with longer legs vs. real 109s. If LW really needs bigger planes, with bigger fuel tankage, with great performance, then 2 x 1300-1500 HP is hardly sufficient. Even 2 x 1750 did not help the 410 to become a performer.

Hi, Sigfried,



> FW 187's with DB605A were supposedly capable of 440mph, way beyond the Whirwind and the 399.5 mph the Me 109G1 could accomplish with the same engine and some 395mph on the DB600 engine.



Would it be that you are comparing the (unbuilt) 3000 HP Fw-187 with (real) 1750 HP Whirlwind? What plane was capable to make 395 mph with DB-600 on board?


----------



## davebender (Jan 29, 2012)

I should hope so. The Me-109Z was a fighter aircraft. The Me-210C was a light bomber. Rather like comparing a P-38 with an A-20.


----------



## DonL (Jan 29, 2012)

Some datas and sources for the FW 187 



> Think the Fw-187 (or any other heavy fighter Germans would've fielded) with 8 x MG-17 would've fared just fine in 1940 - 400-500 rpg, guns centrally mounted.



The preproduction serie FW 187 A0 (3 planes) had 4 x 7,92-mm-MG 17 and two 20-mm-Maschinenkanonen MG/FF
This three planes were at combat missions in Norway, Denmark and Bremen!

All FW 187 planes ever built; FW 187 V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 and three A0! In summary 9 planes.



> The Fw187 which achieved that speed was using surface/evaporative cooling - negating a lot of drag. However, such systems didn't work in production machinery - though they worked well in racing/record breaking aircraft.





> The Fw187 system, as I understand it, was much the same as used on the Schneider Trophy races. A closed system evaporative cooling system with surface radiatiors/condensors.



This is wrong and a translation error!
The FW 187 had never a surface/evaporative cooling 

"Dampfheißkühlung"!: From the book Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History Page 73 (german version)
"Das Prinzip kann vereinfacht so beschrieben werden: Das vom Motor benötigte Kühlwasser wird unter Druck gesetzt, um das Triebwerk mit höheren Temperaturen fahren zu können. Um dabei Dampfblasen zu vermeiden, wird aber zusätzlich ein zentrifugal-Dampfabscheider benötigt."
Translation:
"The principle can be described as simplified. The amount of cooling water from the engine is put under pressure to drive the engine at higher temperatures. In order to avoid vapor/steam bubbles youd are in need of a centrifugal Steam-separator (Dampfabschneider)."

Kyrill von Gersdorff / Schubert / Ebert "Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke" Seite 203 / 204
"Heißdampfkühlung":
"Die Flüssigkeitskühlung der deutschen Hochleistungstriebwerke ist in den 40er Jahren durchweg als Überdrucksystem ausgebildet. Dazu gehören ein im Nebenstrom liegender Vorratsbehälter mit Überdruck/Unterdruckventil und eine Entlüftung mit Dampf-Luft-Abscheider.
...
Daimler-Benz führt 1941 mit dem DB 605 das bereits auf DB-601-Rekordmotoren erprobte Überdrucksystem in die Serie ein.
...
Junkers wendet seit 1938/39 bei den ersten Baureihen des Jumo 211 ein System mit 0,3 bis 0,4 bar Überdruck an. Glykolzusatz ist nur für Winterbetrieb vorgeschrieben. Höchsttemperatur am Motoraustritt bis 95°C in Bodennähe zulässig. Mit dem leistungsgesteigerten Jumo 211 F kommt das neue Überdrucksystem erstmals zum Einsatz, die "Preßwasserkühlung", die dann mit dem Jumo 213 1942 in Großserie geht."
Translation:
"The liquid cooling of the German high-performance engines in the 40s consistently designed as positive/high pressure system. This includes at the secondary flow a reservoir with pressure / vacuum relief valve and a vent with steam-air separator.
...
Daimler-Benz introduced in 1941, the DB 605a with the already proven overpressure system of the DB-601 R (record engines) in the series.
...
Junkers used since 1938/39 on the first series of the Jumo 211, a system of 0.3 to 0.4 at elevated pressure. Glycol addition is required only for winter use. Maximum temperature at outlet permitted to 95 ° C near the ground. With the uprated Jumo 211 F, the new pressure system is first used, the "Preßwasserkühlung" (pressure water cooling)which then goes with the Jumo 213 in 1942 in volume production. "




> The systems as used on the Me209 and He100 were total loss systems - the cooling fluid exited the aircraft as steam never to be used again.


This is correct for the world record planes (HE 100 V8 ), but wrong for the normal He 100 till the He 100D.
All He 100 except the D had a *closed* evaporative cooling system where the cooling liquid is running through the wings and will evaporate at the wing surface. 



> IIRC the HE112 was also originally fitted with such a system, though it was later changed for a conventional radiator.


No, only the He 100 had such a system and the He 100*D* was later changed for a conventional radiator

In summary the flight of the Fw 187 V5(WNr. 1976) with two DB 601a at October 1939 with 635km/h at level flight near the ground was with a high pressure cooling with very small coolers. The DB 601a wasn't fit for this high pressure cooling but the later DB 605a had the same technics through the Steam-air separator and the pressure water/glycol cooling.

The FW 187 V5 was flying till the end of 1942 in different conditions with differnt coolers, based on this data are the projects from FW of the 187 as Destroyer and Nightfighter and as clean Heavy Fighter/Longrange Fighter from 1942.

Source: Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History/Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick



> The idea of swapping the engines of the Fw187 to DB605 sound easy but I am willing to bet that a change like that would add a lot more weight to the aircraft.





> The standard P38 of the time was at least 30 mph faster than the Fw-187 and also climbed better. The P38K was said to do 432 omh in level flight on military power and was guessed to be over 450 on WEP. It was also said to have had a ceiling of nearly 50,000 ft and climb at 4,800 fpm on military power and thought to be over 5,000 fpm on WEP. The P38 also had sufficient firepower for it's intended targets and could have been armed with cannon if needed. Money, at that time, meant nothing to the US, we were out to win.
> 
> So exactly what advantage did the Fw-187 have over even the standard P38?



According from the book of Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick there are completely calculated projects and the weight gain of the Bf 110 B to C to E to F are good examples for the weight gain of the FW 187.

Two seater destroyer variants.
FW 187 A0 (2 x Jumo 210g): empty: 3700kg full load: 5000kg (preproduction serie)
Estimated:
FW 187 "B0" (2x DB 601a) empty: 4200kg full load: 5500kg (weight gain 500kg -> Bf 110B (Jumo 210g, 6250kg) to Bf 110C (BD 601a,6750kg ) 
FW 187 "C0" (2 x Db 601E) empty 4800kg full load: 6200kg (DB 601 E is heavier then the DB 605a with equipment and thicker armor)
Calculated:
FW 187 "D0" destroyer and nightfighter full calculated project from FW 1942 with plans to the RLM/ordered by RLM but canceled 1943

weight: 7000kg loaded; 2 x DB 605A (2 x 1475PS), wing span 30m², payload to 8200kg (bombs, external fuel tanks, external weapons), internal fuel capacity 1300 liter; fuselage 880 Liter (increased to the A0) wings 210liter each; armor 167 kg; 4 x MG151/20 with 250 bullets - rigidly to the front, 2 x MG131 with 450 bullets - rigidly to the back, range 1200 km to 1.330 km,
Calculated with 6650 kg:
max speed at 7100m 685km/h, max speed near ground 547km/h, climb rate near ground 18m/s, climb time 0,9 min/1,0 km, 1,7 min/2,0 km, 3,6 min/4,0 km, 5,7 min/6,0 km .

FW 187 "X" single seater clean fighter/long range fighter full calculated project from FW 1942 with plans to the RLM/ordered by RLM but canceled 1943

weight: 6350kg loaded, 2 x DB 605A( 2x 1475PS), wing span 30m², internal fuel 1300 liter, 4 x MG151/20
Calculated with 6050 kg:
max speed at 7100m 725km/h, climb rate near ground 21,2 m/s, climb time 10,6 min/10 km

Source: Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History/Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick



> I rather suspect that the FW 187 would have had its fuel capacity increased over the initial 1100, the Me 110 and P-38 did recieve increases.


Fuel capacity was increased to 1300 liters



> I estimate the range of the FW 187 at maximum cruise as about 700 miles: about 1.5 times that of the Me 109 plus 10% for its superior speed and 5-10% for the lower proportion of the journey spent in climb. With drop tanks this open up the possibillity of sustained opperations out to 330 miles from base; something the Luftwaffe didn't have moreover unlike the P-38 it could have been ready by by wars begining.



Estimated range from FW 1200 km to 1.330 km accordind to 0,85 and 1,15 ata


----------



## davparlr (Jan 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> FW 187's with DB605A were supposedly capable of 440mph, way beyond the Whirwind and the 399.5 mph the Me 109G1 could accomplish with the same engine and some 395mph on the DB600 engine.


 
The Fw-187 with 670 hp engines had a max speed of 326 mph. The Whirlwind, with 885 hp engines had a max speed of 360 mph. Increasing the Fw-187's engines to 885 hp and calculating the effect on airspeed generates an airspeed of 358 mph, or equal to the Whirlwind. The planes were almost identical aerodynamically. Putting engines in the Whirlwind equivalent to the DB605 would generate similar airspeed.

Calculating airspeed of an Fw-187 with a Bf-109G-6 engine (1475 hp), based on the above performance, gives 424 mph. Still quite impressive. However, these are very light. Removing one engine from the weight, they are very close to the Bf-109. The Fw-187 was 70% of the Bf-110 weight. Probably too small to be considered heavy fighters.


----------



## DonL (Jan 29, 2012)

@ davparir



> Putting engines in the Whirlwind equivalent to the DB605 would generate similar airspeed.



To my sources it was not possible without major reconstruction to put the Merlin engines to the Whirlwind.
The Whirlwind was developed and constructed to the Peregrine engines.

The FW 187 was constructed from the scratch for the 35 Liter 1000PS engines DB 601 and Jumo 211 (advetisement of the destroyer)
Only of the shortcomings of the DB 601 engines at 1938, the FW 187 A0 was built with Jumo 210g engines.



> Calculating airspeed of an Fw-187 with a Fw-109G-6 engine (1475 hp), based on the above performance, gives 424 mph.


For the twin seater destroyer and nightfighter.
For the single seater Heavy fighter/Long range fighter it was calculated with 725km/h (450mph)



> However, these are very light. Removing one engine from the weight, they are very close to the Bf-109. The Fw-187 was 70% of the Bf-110 weight. Probably too small to be considered heavy fighters.



What do you are considering as heavy fighter?
The FW 187 projects had all 4 x 151/20 cannons, this is three times the firepower of the Bf 109, and the payload was till 8200kg. Why is this not a heavy fighter?

Edit:
Even the A0 had 2 x 20mm cannons and 4x MG, thats two times of the firepower of the Bf 109 at the same timeline.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2012)

I really do like the Whirlwind but it was not a heavy fighter. A 250sq ft wing is just too small. and 8300lbs empty shows where if falls compared to later single engine planes. More could have been done withit but it was never going to be a night fighter with a second seat, a long range escort fighter or some of the other jobs that bigger fighters did.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 30, 2012)

DonL said:


> This is wrong and a translation error!
> The FW 187 had never a surface/evaporative cooling
> 
> "Dampfheißkühlung"!: From the book Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History Page 73 (german version)
> ...



If the evaporative cooling system is closed loop then the steam will be condensed back to water in the wing surface radiators. 

So, you are saying that there wa sno surcae radiators at all on the Fw187? Just small radiators?


----------



## DonL (Jan 30, 2012)

> So, you are saying that there wa sno surcae radiators at all on the Fw187? Just small radiators?



Yes my books say that, and Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History/Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick is the reference book to the FW 187!
Mr. Hermann had done the most research on this plane and had the material what is available!

Also the translation of the independent words has an other meaning.

Oberflächenverdampfungskühlung -> Oberfläche-> surface -> Verdampfung-> evaporation-> Kühlung -> cooling.

"Dampfheißkühlung" -> Dampf -> steam -> heiß -> hot -> Kühlung -> cooling.

At the german documents of the FW 187 stand "Dampfheißkühlung" and at the documents of the He 100 stand "Oberflächenverdampfungskühlung".

Also at which surface of the FW 187 should the water evaporate/cooling?
The FW 187 had no wings with water cooling lines.


----------



## Juha (Jan 30, 2012)

Hello Don
thanks for the interesting info on Fw-187. I have a couple questions.



DonL said:


> ...The preproduction serie FW 187 A0 (3 planes) had 4 x 7,92-mm-MG 17 and two 20-mm-Maschinenkanonen MG/FF
> This three planes were at combat missions in Norway, Denmark and Bremen!...



But were they ever in contact with enemy planes? Or achieved they any kills?




DonL said:


> ...In summary the flight of the Fw 187 V5(WNr. 1976) with two DB 601a at October 1939 with 635km/h at level flight near the ground was with a high pressure cooling with very small coolers. The DB 601a wasn't fit for this high pressure cooling but the later DB 605a had the same technics through the Steam-air separator and the pressure water/glycol cooling.



So was the V5 max speed flown with coolers that would have been too small for practical combat plane, ie too small for ex a long climb in summertime.



DonL said:


> ...The FW 187 V5 was flying till the end of 1942 in different conditions with differnt coolers, based on this data are the projects from FW of the 187 as Destroyer and Nightfighter and as clean Heavy Fighter/Longrange Fighter from 1942.
> 
> Source: Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History/Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick



IIRC RLM studied briefly Fw-187 as nightfighter in 42 but reached rapidly conclusion that it was too small for that, not enough space for radar and other electronics.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 30, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> FW 187's with DB605A were supposedly capable of 440mph, way beyond the Whirwind and the 399.5 mph the Me 109G1 could accomplish with the same engine and some 395mph on the DB600 engine.



Now Westland made calculations for Whirlwind Mk II at the beginning of 1940 (belt fed Hispanos, 60 imp.gals more fuel etc plus 100-octane R-R Peregrines) TAS 354 mph at 5,000ft and 422mph at 20,000ft, 7.4min to 20,000ft.

Source: Bowyer's Interceptor fighters

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Jan 30, 2012)

DonL said:


> Yes my books say that, and Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History/Dietmar Hermann/Peter Petrick is the reference book to the FW 187!
> Mr. Hermann had done the most research on this plane and had the material what is available!
> 
> Also the translation of the independent words has an other meaning.
> ...



I would go with Dietmar Hemann too, no doubt he is the best Focke Wulf expert around and has access to very rare original documents
cimmex


----------



## DonL (Jan 30, 2012)

@ Juha

I have emailed with Mr. Hermann and had near the same questions. I can only repeat his answers.



> But were they ever in contact with enemy planes? Or achieved they any kills?



There are rumors that a FW 187 A0 had shot down a Spitfire at Norway at 1942 and in general the pilots who tested the FW 187 prefered the FW 187 A0 over the Bf 110C, but there is no document available to prove this rumors, also it can be a myth. Mr. Hermann had not found any pilot a life that confirmed this and so this information are not proved.



> So was the V5 max speed flown with coolers that would have been too small for practical combat plane, ie too small for ex a long climb in summertime.



Yes, the coolers had problems at the taxiway, on the ground (to warm up the engine) and at very slow flight's less then 250km/h.
The "Dampfheißkühlung" was an experimental cooling from FW, but the conclusions and technics were introduced in the next generation engines DB 605, DB 603 and Jumo 213 through the steam/air seperator. 



> IIRC RLM studied briefly Fw-187 as nightfighter in 42 but reached rapidly conclusion that it was too small for that, not enough space for radar and other electronics.



This is a *myth*! After Mr. Hermann there is no single document available to prove this myth/theorie.
After his reasearch the RLM come to the conclusion that the FW 187 nightfighter was coming to late or at the same timeline with the He 219 in production and the RLM don't want to produce two new nightfighters, so the RLM decided pro He 219!
That are the reasons from the documents.


----------



## Juha (Jan 30, 2012)

Hello Don
thanks a lot for the answers!
On the RLM and Fw-187 nightfighter, IIRC I read the myth from Kay's and Smith's book on LW planes published maybe in 80s, but as You wrote, Hermann is the Fw specialist, so I tend to believe him on questions on Fw fighters.

Thankfully
Juha

EDIT: After all it was William Green's Famous Fighters (1975), from which I got the info, Green gives as his source "the evaluation report of the Chief of Department C-E2".


----------



## spicmart (Jan 30, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Calculating airspeed of an Fw-187 with a Bf-109G-6 engine (1475 hp), based on the above performance, gives 424 mph. Still quite impressive. However, these are very light. Removing one engine from the weight, they are very close to the Bf-109. The Fw-187 was 70% of the Bf-110 weight. Probably too small to be considered heavy fighters.



The de Havilland Hornet has similar dimensions as the Fw 187 and is considered a single seat heavy fighter. Why should the Fw 187 not be considered as such? With periodic airframe updates as Mr. Davebender mentioned it could have been developed into what the Hornet was. 
The Fw 187 was intended to be a two seat destroyer after all, which is generally heavier than a heavy fighter.
Also the Merlin has similar weight and dimensions as the DB 605.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2012)

DonL said:


> @ davparir
> 
> 
> To my sources it was not possible without major reconstruction to put the Merlin engines to the Whirlwind.
> The Whirlwind was developed and constructed to the Peregrine engines.



I suspect it would have not been an unusual modification 




> For the twin seater destroyer and nightfighter.
> For the single seater Heavy fighter/Long range fighter it was calculated with 725km/h (450mph)



424 mph was the results of my calculations. Horsepower goes up at cube of the power (double the speed requires eight times the power). Using a speed of 326 mph with a total of 1340 hp and increasing speed to 450 mph would require engines producing 1726 hp each, something I don't think the DB605A was doing in 1942.


----------



## davebender (Jan 30, 2012)

RLM cancelled the Ju-252 and Me-210C during 1942 for no apparent reason. They also cancelled the Jumo222 engine just as it was about to enter production. So I wouldn't place too much weight on their evaluation of the Fw-187 during the same time frame. RLM wasn't thinking too clearly during 1942.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 30, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I suspect it would have not been an unusual modification
> 
> 424 mph was the results of my calculations. Horsepower goes up at cube of the power (double the speed requires eight times the power). Using a speed of 326 mph with a total of 1340 hp and increasing speed to 450 mph would require engines producing 1726 hp each, something I don't think the DB605A was doing in 1942.



However you must also take into account improvements in power at higher altitudes due to engine (eg supercharger improvements) where the thinner air produces a linear increase in airspeed. I suspect relative pressures at the relative full pressure altitudes would give an indication of density and therefore speed increase.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2012)

DonL said:


> This is a *myth*! After Mr. Hermann there is no single document available to prove this myth/theorie.
> After his reasearch the RLM come to the conclusion that the FW 187 nightfighter was coming to late or at the same timeline with the He 219 in production and the RLM don't want to produce two new nightfighters, so the RLM decided pro He 219!
> That are the reasons from the documents.



Actually I am not sure it is a myth. The fuselage is very small on the Fw-187, not much bigger than a man sitting with his legs straight out. I will try to do some measuring. I think I will find that the Bf-110 fuselage is much larger than the Fw. From the attached picture my question is, Where do you stick the radar, second crewman, two 20mm cannon and four machine guns and their ammo? Major modifications required! At the very least it would be marginal in growth. Just compare this to the He-219.


----------



## davebender (Jan 30, 2012)

The same place they were historically located on the Fw-187A.

Personally I don't think the Fw-187 had enough interior space for a really good night fighter. However it would certainly be superior to single seat night fighters employed by Germany and the USA.


----------



## DonL (Jan 30, 2012)

> Actually I am not sure it is a myth. The fuselage is very small on the Fw-187, not much bigger than a man sitting with his legs straight out. I will try to do some measuring. I think I will find that the Bf-110 fuselage is much larger than the Fw. From the attached picture my question is, Where do you stick the radar, second crewman, two 20mm cannon and four machine guns and their ammo? Major modifications required! At the very least it would be marginal in growth. Just compare this to the He-219.



First, only the FW 187 V1 and V2 were single seater, all other 7 aircrafts were twin seater also the three A0 preproduction serie!

According to Mr. Hermann FW was always very accurate with all their project plans and calculations that were send to the RLM.

FW was the company who didn't make promises that they can't hold and didn't do high gloss marketing with special prototypes or spackled prototypes!
All their calculation to the many aircrafts that goes in production were very accurate and the promised performances from their calculation were always reached from the production aircrafts.

So FW engineers believed they can built and develope a FW 187 two seater destroyer and nightfighter with the given datas, so I have no doubt that they can do this!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2012)

The ammo for the 7.9mm MGs was behind the pilot. The 20mm guns were drum fed and under the floor or In the bottom 'corners' of the fuselage. I don't know if the rear seater had spare drums to reload the guns with as was done on the Bf110. As far as cockpit size goes the Fw 187 had 4-5 engine instruments mounted on each cowling above the exhaust because there wasn't room in the cockpit. 
A big problem in trying to evaluate the Fw 187 is that the examples that did exist either used lower powered engines than intended or a rather experimental cooling setup. Trying to project performance forward to even bigger, heavier engines than were intended gets very complicated. The prototypes may have been overbuilt for their 740hp engines and needed no structural weight increase to use 100-1100hp engines. I am not sure the same could be said for going to the DB605. You not only have the weight if the engines but the bigger propellers, radiators, oil systems, etc. Increasing the gross weight of the plane buy several thousand pounds is going to compromise it's "G" rating with some structural beefing up. I am sure the Fw engineers could do the job. I also wonder if they really intended to use the exact same cockpit area on a proposed night fighter? There was no production tooling to "save". Adding 10CM in width or Height or both would not have been hard or extending the nose a bit. It was done on other planes and certainly was an option at the design stage. It does add a complication to simple performance estimates though. 
We are left with the FW estimates which are probably better than anyone on this forum could do ( with perhaps a few exceptions,I am not one of them) but they are still estimates.
I do have the book quoted and while very interested a few details need a bit more clarification. Some ammunition load outs specified for some "paper" versions seem to be on the very generous side.


----------



## DonL (Jan 30, 2012)

Some explanations:

To my opinion it makes only sense to bring the FW 187 in production at 1939 till end of 1940!
After this timeline I have my doubt's about the sense, because of the difficults of productline changes and the needed numbers of the war.

If you start after BoB (end of 1940), frontline aircrafts will reache the units perhaps at the begin of 1942.
At 1939/1940 the FW 187 could only go to production if the RLM cancle the Bf 110 and the Bf 210 project, to first have the resources and second the FW 187 would also been built under license from other aircraft companys like the Bf 110, because FW was limited with their capacity through the FW 190.

If the FW 187 is in production instead of the Bf 110, the FW 187 must be also play the part of the nightfighter role as the Bf 110 and the FW engineers must do their job, to make an adequate nightfighter of the FW 187 (thickened up the fuselage, extending the nose etc..).As also the Bf 110 the FW 187 can only be an interim nightfighter, because as history shown something like the Ju88 G6 or He 219 was in need to do the job properly!

In comparison to the the Bf 110 and the Bf 210/410 the FW 187 had the big advantage (if she is introduced in production at 1939/1940) that she can play more roles as the Messerschmitt aircrafts especially in the fighter/heavy fighter/long range fighter and reconnaissance role, but the FW 187 is also be able to do the destroyer role/light bomber and interim nightfighter role. 
To my opinion the FW 187 had more options then the Messerschmitt destroyers and was the better multirole plane through her much better speed and agility but also with a possible payload of 8200kg.

But at 1942 a decision to produce a FW 187 with a frontline aircraft at the end of 1943 or begin 1944 doesn't make sense.


----------



## davebender (Jan 30, 2012)

> If the FW 187 is in production instead of the Bf 110, the FW 187 must be also play the part of the nightfighter role


Why not produce both?

The Me-110 wasn't just assigned to day fighter units. It was performing photo recon missions from the beginning and was performing night fighter missions by the spring of 1940. The Me-110 could still be produced in numbers adequate to equip those units. It would still be the starting point for the Me-210C light bomber. 

Fw-187s would be produced in numbers adequate to equip long range day fighter units. These are units assigned to bomber escort missions.

Fw-187 day fighters would have priority for DB601 engines. Some or all of the Me-110 night fighters might be powered by Jumo 211 engines unless RLM makes different engine production decisions during 1935 to 1940.


----------



## jim (Jan 30, 2012)

Mr DonL
Do you believe a single seat Db 605 Fw187 could make a deference in November43 -june 44 period over Germany ?
Assuming 6350 kgr loaded weight ,1475 ps output , 30 m2 wing area . These means 211 kgr/m2 wing loading, 2,15 kgr/ ps power loading at 0m (impressive) but reducing to about 2,8 kgr/ps around 7000m
P51D 192 kgr/m2 2,31 kgr/ps (assuming 1800ps merlin)
Spit IX 177 kgr/m2 2,22kgr/ps (assuming 1800ps/0m 1580 ps/7000m merlin )
P47 284 kgr/m2 ~ 3kgr/ps but up to 10000m
Could Fw mix it with these fighters over 6000m ? Surely, even with 700km/h at 7100m, and long range would be better than 190s and G6s but would be able to fight the escort fighters on equal terms? Do you have any info about its roll rate?
in Mediterennean theater 41-43 with Db 601E would be invaluable. Also on the eastern front would be excellent as multi purpose fighter bomber


----------



## wuzak (Jan 30, 2012)

Jim, what weights are you basing the P-51 and Spitfire weight to power ratios?


----------



## DonL (Jan 30, 2012)

Hello Jim,



> Do you believe a single seat Db 605 Fw187 could make a deference in November43 -june 44 period over Germany ?
> Assuming 6350 kgr loaded weight ,1475 ps output , 30 m2 wing area . These means 211 kgr/m2 wing loading, 2,15 kgr/ ps power loading at 0m (impressive) but reducing to about 2,8 kgr/ps around 7000m





> Could Fw mix it with these fighters over 6000m ? Surely, even with 700km/h at 7100m, and long range would be better than 190s and G6s but would be able to fight the escort fighters on equal terms? Do you have any info about its roll rate?



This is highly speculativ, but if the estimated and calculated performance from FW would be reached from normal production aircrafts, then yes to my very personal opinion it would be a huge difference in November43 -june 44 period over Germany!

The Bf 109 G6 wasn't a success and to my opinion a step back to the Bf 109F4. Especially the G6 version of defending of the reich with the 2 gondola (151/20) was crap. Both G6 version (normal/gondula) laged speed against their enemy counterparts.
Both G6 version were in the defensive from the beginning against mostly the P 47 C/D and the P 51B. The G6 gondula even against the P38H.

The calculated single seat Db 605 Fw187 would had be major advantages!
A estimated speed of 700-725km/h at 1943, 4 x 151/20 cannons and much more range to be in the air and built a focal point with other aircrafts to attack with air supermarcy.
The speed and power to weight advantage against the P 47 C/D, P51B and the P38H would be significant at late 1943 till summer 1944.
To my opinion the calculated single seat Db 605 Fw187 is in the same performance and high altitude leage as the FW 190 D-9 but at summer 1943 and not in summer/autum 1944.

With better pilot schools and training and the tandem FW 190A/ Sturmgruppen FW 190A against the bomber and the calculated single seat Db 605 Fw187 against the escort fighter, to my opinion the defending of the reich would be much more effectiv and yes the FW 187 could fight and match the escort fighters on equal terms above 6000m.

According to Mr. Hermann the FW 187 V4 which was in Rechlin to fly against the Bf 109, rolled better then the Bf 109, but every FW fighter had a very good roll rate, this was the compensation of the poor turning performance.

To close this summary I want to say it with Mr. Hermanns Book title (FW 187: An Illustrated History) in the german version.
The FW 187: The *forgotten* high performance fighter!

To my opinion this statement hit the nail!


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Jan 30, 2012)

I wonder how a Tigercat with a pair of wasp Majors would stack up?


GregP said:


> Starting design:
> Single seat. Radials, say the R-2600 of 1,600 HP, close set on the wings but with sufficient prop clearance for the nose and armament to stick out. Along the lines of the Beaufighter and Tigercat, but with a thinner airfoil and more streamlined. I think a twin tail and rudder for better control in an engine-out situation. Heavy armament, probably four 20 mm cannons and maybe a single 37 mm cannon, all in the fuselage. Ability to carry some bombs, but with removable shackles.
> 
> Growth version:
> ...


----------



## jim (Jan 31, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Jim, what weights are you basing the P-51 and Spitfire weight to power ratios?


 Mr Wuzak
I used my limited bibliography on alleid aircrafts.
P51 Max around 5000kgr ,normaly loaded 4310 . I assumed that by the time they would enter combat the weight would have been reduced. So i choose to use 4150kgr, 
Spit IX Max 4310kgr for the same reason i used 4000kgr as more representive of combat condition
In both cases used 1800ps merlins, which i believe is somewhat generous for late 43 early 44 but i wanted to balance a possible generocity in FW s performance estimations about 187.
Mr DonL
Given the great power to weight ratio and speed reserves of 187 ,and the coming of ASM engine, i would like more wing area. e.g 33m2 would bring wing loading well under 200kgr/m2 , to P51 levels, allowing perhaps turning with most single seaters and improve altitude handling .Whats your opinion?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 31, 2012)

jim said:


> Mr Wuzak
> I used my limited bibliography on alleid aircrafts.
> P51 Max around 5000kgr ,normaly loaded 4310 . I assumed that by the time they would enter combat the weight would have been reduced. So i choose to use 4150kgr,
> Spit IX Max 4310kgr for the same reason i used 4000kgr as more representive of combat condition
> ...



Jim, Spitfire MkIX loaded weight 7400lb/3354kg, 1720hp @ 11,000ft (Merlin 66, LF IX), MkXIV loaded weight 8574lb/3889kg, 2050hp @ 9800ft.

Source: Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DonL (Jan 31, 2012)

> In both cases used 1800ps merlins, which i believe is somewhat generous for late 43 early 44 but i wanted to balance a possible generocity in FW s performance estimations about 187.



I'm not convinced about 1800 PS Merlins at frontline quadrons at late 1943 or early/summer 1944 wether for the Spit nor for the Mustang!

The FW 187 would also benefit from DB 605AS,ASM MW 50 and later the DB 605D serie.
I think the FW 187 would be an energy fighter and would be flown nearly as a FW 190 D-9; Bf 109 or P38.
With the introduction of the Ta 152 H1 and C serie it would be get slowly obsolet.



> i would like more wing area. e.g 33m2 would bring wing loading well under 200kgr/m2 , to P51 levels, allowing perhaps turning with most single seaters and improve altitude handling .Whats your opinion?



I don't know, possible but I'm no engineer, so I can't say much to this.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 31, 2012)

Merlin 70, PN100/130 fuel, +18psi boost 1700hp @ 10,250ft, 1475hp, +18psi boost @ 22,500ft.

PN100/150 fuel allowed +25psi sometime during 1944, 1940hp @ 5500ft.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 31, 2012)

Form Kurfurst's site it appears the DB605ASM allowed 1800PS at takeoff, 1500PS at 6400m (20,997ft). Kurfürst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 605 ASM

DB605DB 1850PS at takeoff, 1600PS at 6000m (19,685ft). Kurfürst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 605 DB/DC


----------



## Timppa (Jan 31, 2012)

My choice for twin would be the layout of the Do-335 because of: 
1. Least drag.
2. Least rolling inertia.
3. Engine failure does not lead to asymmetric thrust problems.
4. Engines give some protection to the pilot, unlike "normal" twin.
5. There is no net torque so the plane is easy to handle.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 31, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> However you must also take into account improvements in power at higher altitudes due to engine (eg supercharger improvements) where the thinner air produces a linear increase in airspeed. I suspect relative pressures at the relative full pressure altitudes would give an indication of density and therefore speed increase.


 
I agree. It is just difficult with little data available. I think the plane was quite fast.




> DonL
> First, only the FW 187 V1 and V2 were single seater, all other 7 aircrafts were twin seater also the three A0 preproduction serie!



No room in the front, pilot cockpit, armament area, radar operator cockpit, now we have to install bulky radios and increasingly bulky radar equipment. And can you imagine the vibration problem of installing tube technology next to 20 mm cannons for the radar operator! No wonder they stuck with the He-219.




> According to Mr. Hermann FW was always very accurate with all their project plans and calculations that were send to the RLM.



Engineering estimates always have uncertainties built in including round off errors, engineering tolerances, manufacturing tolerances, and testing tolerances (accuracies of wind tunnels, for instance). A previous post by a knowledgeable German poster stated that FW error estimate for engineering calculations was 4%, IIRC. This is probably typical. It certainly was not less than 2%.



> FW was the company who didn't make promises that they can't hold and didn't do high gloss marketing with special prototypes or spackled prototypes!
> All their calculation to the many aircrafts that goes in production were very accurate and the promised performances from their calculation were always reached from the production aircrafts.
> 
> So FW engineers believed they can built and develope a FW 187 two seater destroyer and nightfighter with the given datas, so I have no doubt that they can do this!



Wow, Germany did the incredible, invented perfect engineers.



> Some explanations:



Good post on what you said.






Shortround6 said:


> The ammo for the 7.9mm MGs was behind the pilot. The 20mm guns were drum fed and under the floor or In the bottom 'corners' of the fuselage. I don't know if the rear seater had spare drums to reload the guns with as was done on the Bf110. As far as cockpit size goes the Fw 187 had 4-5 engine instruments mounted on each cowling above the exhaust because there wasn't room in the cockpit.
> A big problem in trying to evaluate the Fw 187 is that the examples that did exist either used lower powered engines than intended or a rather experimental cooling setup. Trying to project performance forward to even bigger, heavier engines than were intended gets very complicated. The prototypes may have been overbuilt for their 740hp engines and needed no structural weight increase to use 100-1100hp engines. I am not sure the same could be said for going to the DB605. You not only have the weight if the engines but the bigger propellers, radiators, oil systems, etc. Increasing the gross weight of the plane buy several thousand pounds is going to compromise it's "G" rating with some structural beefing up. I am sure the Fw engineers could do the job. I also wonder if they really intended to use the exact same cockpit area on a proposed night fighter? There was no production tooling to "save". Adding 10CM in width or Height or both would not have been hard or extending the nose a bit. It was done on other planes and certainly was an option at the design stage. It does add a complication to simple performance estimates though.
> We are left with the FW estimates which are probably better than anyone on this forum could do ( with perhaps a few exceptions,I am not one of them) but they are still estimates.
> I do have the book quoted and while very interested a few details need a bit more clarification. Some ammunition load outs specified for some "paper" versions seem to be on the very generous side.



Good post. I think by the time all the modifications were done, it probably would not have performed much better than the Bf-110.


----------



## jim (Jan 31, 2012)

Timppa said:


> My choice for twin would be the layout of the Do-335 because of:
> 1. Least drag.
> 2. Least rolling inertia.
> 3. Engine failure does not lead to asymmetric thrust problems.
> ...


 
Mr Timppa
no doubt in theory this layout had the greatest potentional. However Do 335 was very complex construction ( causing unreliability)and heavy. Considering a combat weight of 9000kgr ( no bombs) with DB603A means Wing loading of 233 kgr/m2 and power loading of 2,57 kgr/ps. Not great numbers in comparison with single seaters. It needed C3 fuel or Mw 50 (and even better both) to have a competitive power loading. That means late 44 the earliest by which time the coming Ta 152 offered similar performance at almost half the cost and fuel consuption.
However if Do335A could be put in production in January 43 instead of Me 410A would be a brilliant attack aircraft on the eastern front,and NF in west. Even bomber destroyer in west since most propably would be able to dive away from escort fighters. But i dont believe 335 would ever be able to dogfight with single engines like P38 did ( not always succesfuly)


----------



## davebender (Jan 31, 2012)

There's another positive feature of a tandem engine arrangement which could be exploited.

Aerial refueling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Practical aerial refueling equipment and methods were created during the 1930s. However it was hazardous for most propellor driven aircraft due to risk of the fuel hose hitting a prop.

The Do-335 could fly using only the rear engine. Theoretically you could shut off the Do335 front engine and feather the prop which would allow safe aerial refueling. After fueling was completed the front engine would be restarted. Other tandem engine aircraft such as the Do-26 seaplane could do this also.

I have no idea if anyone would consider this for a WWII era combat aircraft but it offers interesting possibilities. They could top off with fuel immediately prior to entering enemy airspace.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2012)

Aeriel refuelling was being performed commercially by BOAC in the late 30's out of Gander Newfoundland enabling the Brit flying boats to cross the Atlantic


----------



## davebender (Jan 31, 2012)

Lufthansa flying boats employed mid ocean catapult ships to cross the Atlantic. The British accomplished the same thing by inventing a practical means of aerial refueling.

Is there any reason a tandem engine military aircraft couldn't employ the newly invented aerial refueling system?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 11, 2012)

Even 'failed' attempts to achieve the mark can be interesting: XP-67 first flight: Jan 6, 1944. First fighter a/c designed built by McDonnell, powered by 2 x Continental (  ) 1430 engines producing 1350 hp. exploited exhast gases to increase engine thrust:

I give you the MoonBat:


----------

