# 1940: Luftwaffe's ideal heavy fighter?



## tomo pauk (Aug 14, 2012)

Time to gather all of the Fw-187 fanboys into one place  - how would the ideal heavy fighter for the LW, in 1940, looked like if you were in charge? 
Two engines are mandatory, and 2 crew members are minimum (so the flying in adverse weather is easier, also the night flying combat). The emphasis is, as always in fighter debates, on performance (speed, RoC), punch, range, protection, maneuvrability, suitability for mass production, all while using the historically available bits pieces (no DB-603 here, nor MG-151, or something else not produced on large scale in Germany in 1940). Bomb carrying ability is also a plus, as is ability to switch onto engines of another type, in case there is such a need.
The fighter should enter the fray in the time of invasion vs. West, May 1940.


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)




----------



## DonL (Aug 14, 2012)

Eh?

You have given the answer in your own post.

You can't built a better heavy *fighter* (2 crew man) then the original Fw 187 with 2 x DB 601 engines, 4 x MG 7,92mm and 2 x 20mm FF at 1940.
To me as a hardcore fan, I would say in the whole world (1940), but that's only my very personal opinion.
The Fw 187 with 2 x DB 601 is near the absolute ideal heavy fighter from speed, agility, climb performance, punch, payload and range. 
From the viewpoint of the whole a/c and the focus to the fighter ability.
Also you could change the DB 601 engines to Jumo 211 engines.

To me it is a no brainer.


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)

*Spitfire Mk I.*
Loaded weight = 5,750 lbs.
RR Merlin II engine. 1,030 hp.
.18 lbs per hp.

*Fw-187A0 *
Loaded weight = 5,000 kg. 11,023 lbs. Or perhaps a bit lighter without liquid cooling system.
BMW 132J engine. 947 hp. Two = 1,894 total hp.
.17 lbs per hp.

I wouldn't recommend this option but I believe the Fw-187 would be competitive during 1940 even with BMW132 engines. You can hardly go wrong with the Falke airframe as long as it has engines producing at least 900 hp.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> *Spitfire Mk I.*
> Loaded weight = 5,750 lbs.
> RR Merlin II engine. 1,030 hp.
> .18 lbs per hp.
> ...


 
I would think that the radials would cut performance quite a bit, purely because of their much larger frontal area.


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2012)

> radials would cut performance quite a bit, purely because of their much larger frontal area


Might cut max speed by 20 mph or so. Acceleration and climb should still be good as long as you've got a good power to weight ratio.

Not that I would recommend radial engines. The Falke was designed for DB601 engines and that's what it should have.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> Might cut max speed by 20 mph or so. Acceleration and climb should still be good as long as you've got a good power to weight ratio.
> 
> Not that I would recommend radial engines. The Falke was designed for DB601 engines and that's what it should have.



I would suspect more than 20mph in top speed. The BMW 132 as 54in in diameter, which is about 60% wider than a DB 601/Jumo 211, and about 10% taller.

The extra drag will also cause a reduction in continuous climb.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2012)

Ok...here's a question...what about the Hs129?

I know it was designed around a GA role, but consider for a moment, if it were modified for fighter duty?

As it stands, it had a decent service ceiling though it's speed was less than 300 mph with the Gnome-Rhone radials (700hp each), but with improved powerplants, that max speed could change.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

No way.

Hs129 was designed for CAS. Best performance @ an altitude of 1,000 meters. Slow speed maneuverability (for accurate weapons delivery) and excellent armor protection against ground fire. Turning the Hs129 into a fighter aircraft would be like converting the twin engine A-10 into a twin engine F-15.

If you don't like the Fw-187 then Me-110 is your best bet. However the Me-110 will never be as good for daytime aerial combat.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

3 August 1937.
Dornier files patent number 728044 for rear prop shaft design useful for tandem engine aircraft.

Eventually this led to the Do-335 fast bomber during 1945. However there were many starts, stops and specification changes along the way.

Give Dornier a clear directive for a tandem engine (2 x DB601) fighter aircraft during 1937 and they might have something operational during 1940. It would be considerably smaller and lighter in weight then the historical Do-335. No weapons bay as this would be a fighter aircraft.

An intriguing possibility. However Focke Wulf had a Fw-187 prototype flying during the spring of 1937 and performance was so good that it's difficult to justify any other choice.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Falke was designed for DB601 engines and that's what it should have.


Feel that way about the FW190 as well?


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

400 liters. Me-109 internal fuel.
535 liters. Fw-190 internal fuel.
770 liters. Me-309 internal fuel.
1,100 liters. Fw-187A internal fuel. (1,300 liters planned for Fw-187B)

Fw-190 had a bit more endurance then Me-109 but it was still a short range aircraft. Not in the same league as the long range / endurance Fw-187 and Me-309.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> 3 August 1937.
> Dornier files patent number 728044 for rear prop shaft design useful for tandem engine aircraft.
> 
> Eventually this led to the Do-335 fast bomber during 1945. However there were many starts, stops and specification changes along the way.
> ...



IIRC, Do-335 was flying 750-760 km/h, and Me-410 was managing 620-630 km/h on the same engine HP. So maybe going for the hi risk / low risk would be the way? Hi risk involving a tandem configuration, low risk being a 'classic' twin (Fw-187 with 'proper' engines).
BTW, in order to solve the weapon firing time issue, we might go for an 8 LMG Falke (and the tandem), with, say, 600 rounds per gun? 

I've proposed this some time ago, basically the wing planform (but not the thickness) is from Do-17, and the engines are Jumo 211:


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

Fw-187 is zero risk as the initial prototype was flying during the spring of 1937 and it had few problems. Even the most inept program manager could get the Falke into mass production by 1940.


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 15, 2012)

Whilst undeniably an interesting aircraft I have always thought the Fw 187 was probably rightly rejected on the grounds that it had little scope for further development.
I'm happy for the Fw 187 fans to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it another case of shoehorning the smallest airframe around the then most powerful engines available?
(yes I know it didn't get the BD601 but even so....)

In contrast the Me 110 not only had room for the enormous quantities of electronic night-fighting kit - and a 3rd crew-man - that would be so useful to the LW later on but it made for (as best as I can tell) an excellent fast fighter-bomber.
Of course it was no nimble single-seat fighter....but then I suspect neither was the Fw 187 which, again as far as I can tell, had little room for a 2nd crew-man as it was nevermind hoping to fit radar kit etc etc.

In my opinion the Fw 187 with DB601s helps the LW survive the earlier years of the war - especially the BoB - with fewer losses, sees the RAF suffer heavier losses but is still not enough to decisively tip the scales......and in Russia and beyond I just don't see that it offers anything the LW need - the Me 110 being more useful in it's fighter-bomber role and of course capable of a very useful night-fighter role.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

- Two Jagdgeschwader to serve as bomber escorts.
- One Jagdgeschwader to serve in North Africa ILO the less effective Me-110.
- One Jagdgeschwader to serve in Sicily ILO the less effective Me-110.
- One Jagdgeschwader to serve in the Balkans ILO the less effective Me-110.
- Two Jagdgeschwader to serve in Norway ILO the less effective Me-110.
- One Jagdgeschwader to protect the Bay of Biscay ILO the less effective Ju-88C.
- Two Jagdgeschwader to protect German airspace against enemy day bombers.
- Two Jagdgeschwader to serve as long range recon aircraft ILO the Me-110.

Looks like about 1,500 long range figher aircraft to me and we haven't even considered roles the Fw-187 might have grown into such as light bomber and chasing down pathfinder Mosquitoes.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 15, 2012)

How does Fw 187 replace Me 110 in night fighter role? The answer is simple - it can't. If German choose Fw 187 in place of Me 110, they would be near defenceless against Bomber Command attacks until a proper two seater is introduced (which was historically easy to do by simply re deploying existing 110 units to Nachtjagd, since they already had training for bad wheater flying).

Given a fixed number of DB 601 engines, you either sacrifice a Me 110 for each Fw 187 built, which leaves with a huge gap in NF capability. Or you produce it alongside the 110, which brings up the same problem as the Germans had with the 110.. it was not performance, but the number available. There were too few 110s to compete with hordes of cheap, numerous single engine RAF fighters.

Third way is the sacrifice TWO 109s for each 187, which is downright silly IMHO. The 187 simply offers no advantage over the 109, the same dilemma as with P-38 vs P-51.. I am extremely doubtful that the 187 would have any greater range with the same engine.. 1100 liters total, thats 550 / engine, the 109 had 400 liters that is true, yet the 190 with 530 or so liter had exact the same range as 109, because of the increased drag from radial engine. A twin engine heavy has the same problem, simply it has more drag. 

But let's say for second that the Fw 187 with 550 liter / engine had 10-20% better range than existing and half the cost 109 with 400 liter / engine... nothing that 10 Pfenning light alloy drop tank cannot solve on the 109, however (700 liter / engine)...

IMHO the Fw 187 had the same problem as the Whirlwind or P-38. It really just do the same job as a SE fighter, at twice the price tag.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

German AI radar entered service during the fall of 1941. Until then the Fw-187A is as good a night fighter as the Me-110C.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2012)

DB601 engine production isn't fixed. Neither is non-production of the Fw-187. Those were choices made by RLM.


----------



## DonL (Aug 15, 2012)

> How does Fw 187 replace Me 110 in night fighter role? The answer is simple - it can't.



This isn't proved!



> 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:
> ...



This two a/c's were ordered from the RLM with plans from FW, so FW engineers think they can built a nightfighter FW 187!

But that isn't the point!
The Ju 88 and the DO 17Z/Do 215 B5 (KauzIII) could play this role more then equal to the Me 110!
Your statement that germany would be defenceless is simply bogus, also the FW 187 could play without discussion the nightfighter role till the introduction of the on board radar Lichtenstein (middle of 1942). Before the Lichtenstein radar the ground station Himmelbett play the eyes of the nightfighters and the FW 187 could fly at night and bad weather as good as the Me 110!



> Given a fixed number of DB 601 engines, you either sacrifice a Me 110 for each Fw 187 built, which leaves with a huge gap in NF capability. Or you produce it alongside the 110, which brings up the same problem as the Germans had with the 110.. it was not performance, but the number available. There were too few 110s to compete with hordes of cheap, numerous single engine RAF fighters.



First your statement for NF capability is wrong! (see above)
Second it was the *performance* of the Me 110 which suffered heavy losses, because the Me 110 wasn't an equal match to the Hurricane and Spitfire since BoB or any other single engined fighter at the west. This would be total different with the performance of the FW 187.

What was with Norway, North Atlantic, Mediterranean, Mediterranean Sea, North Sea and South England?



> Third way is the sacrifice TWO 109s for each 187, which is downright silly IMHO. The 187 simply offers no advantage over the 109, the same dilemma as with P-38 vs P-51.. I am extremely doubtful that the 187 would have any greater range with the same engine.. 1100 liters total, thats 550 / engine, the 109 had 400 liters that is true, yet the 190 with 530 or so liter had exact the same range as 109, because of the increased drag from radial engine. A twin engine heavy has the same problem, simply it has more drag.
> 
> But let's say for second that the Fw 187 with 550 liter / engine had 10-20% better range than existing and half the cost 109 with 400 liter / engine... nothing that 10 Pfenning light alloy drop tank cannot solve on the 109, however (700 liter / engine)...



The FW 187 offers many advantages over the Bf 109!
It was faster, had more punch, range and a much better payload.

The Fw 187 had a better aerodynamik then the Bf 109 and could cruise at higher speed with less ata of the engine. It *had* the 20% more range with equal fuel to the engines and it could carry through it's payload a 900 Liter drop tank.
With the planed FW 187 D version from FW, the FW 187 could carry 1290 Liter internal fuel plus 900 Liter drop tank, that's 2100 Liter fuel, a little bit different to 700 Liter!? 

Also the Bf 109 was at it's limit with the Bf 109F with it's development capacity, the Bf 109G was very *clearly* a step back! The Bf 109G was even at 1943 not realy competitive as Bf 109 G6 with it's two Gondulas at the defence of the Reich.

At 1943 the LW suffered badly because it's firstrate frontline fighter Bf 109G6 wasn't anymore competetive at the west and also the Bf 110 suffered heavy losses since the end of 1942/43 at Norway, North Sea, the Mediterranean and Mediterranean Sea and was retired at this frontlines. It wasn't anymore competetive to the Moussie and the Beaufighter.
At 1943 the Bf 110 only fly as night fighter or at th east.



> Whilst undeniably an interesting aircraft I have always thought the Fw 187 was probably rightly rejected on the grounds that it had little scope for further development.
> I'm happy for the Fw 187 fans to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it another case of shoehorning the smallest airframe around the then most powerful engines available?
> (yes I know it didn't get the BD601 but even so....)
> 
> ...



From the plans of the FW engineers, the development capacity of the FW 187 was better amd much more promising then the development capacity of the Bf 109 and the Me 110.
The nightfighter role isn't decisive because germany had alternatives with the Ju 88 and till 1943 with the Do 17/215 B5 (KauzIII, later with better engines DB 601 E, DB 605 or Jumo 211 series).
The Bf Me 110 was only an adaquate nightfighter till the end of 1943 and with the Ju 88 (C and G1, G6) germany had the best nightfighter (for germany) in stock, the Bf 110 wasn't needed in this role.

The FW 187 would be mostly an a/c against the west allies. At Norway, North Sea, Mediterranean, Mediterranean Sea, South England and very important at 1943, it would be the best possible fighter (without DB 603 and Jumo 213) at the defending of the Reich, which much more potential to be competetive against P47, P38, spitfire and later the P51, that was shown from the reached test flight data's and the estimated performance from FW engineers. 

For the rest please read my whole statemnet of this post.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 16, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> IIRC, Do-335 was flying 750-760 km/h, and Me-410 was managing 620-630 km/h on the same engine HP. So maybe going for the hi risk / low risk would be the way? Hi risk involving a tandem configuration, low risk being a 'classic' twin (Fw-187 with 'proper' engines).
> BTW, in order to solve the weapon firing time issue, we might go for an 8 LMG Falke (and the tandem), with, say, 600 rounds per gun?
> 
> I've proposed this some time ago, basically the wing planform (but not the thickness) is from Do-17, and the engines are Jumo 211:



Why not a single engined pusher or twin engine pusher with co-axial counter rotating props? This is the way Dornier were heading late in teh war.

But they had developed the Göppingen Gö 9 to test the feasibility of the fuselage mounted engine with prop driven by extension shaft.


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

I agree.

IMO development of the Do-215 into a proper night fighter aircraft for mass production makes the most sense. It was already used by the early war night fighter force including tests for development of AI radar. Perhaps most important of all, the Do-17 ended production at the beginning of 1941. So 1941 Germany has a Do-17 / Do-215 assembly line all tooled up and ready to go. 

Modify the Do-215 fuselage to optimize for night fighter performance and restart production. The plexiglass nose isn't necessary. Neither is the bulge on the bottom containing a bomb bay and defensive weapon position. That should improve aerodynamics a bit. Crew can be reduced to two. You can even consider tricycle landing gear which pilots preferred for easier taxiing at night. 1941 Germany had plenty of 1,340 hp Jumo 211F engines to power the new Do-215C night fighter aircraft. 

That takes care of the night fighter requirement. An upgraded Fw-187B powered by DB601E engines and armed with four MG151/20 will continue to dominate daytime air battles.


----------



## stona (Aug 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> Looks like about 1,500 long range figher aircraft to me



I know this is a fantasy thread but a slight reality check might be useful.

The total Luftwaffe establishment of ALL combat aircraft in June 1940 was 3,327

In 1939 the total fighter production (all types) was 1,856 and in 1940 this figure was 3,106. Even sacrificing the very useful Bf 110 there is simply no way you are going to get 1,500 of any "uber" fighter produced.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 16, 2012)

@ Stona 

please can you explain why this is for you a fantasy thread from the technical side?
We are talking about a full developed a/c with preproduction a/c's and all toolings for an assembly line mass production were ready at 1939!
What is here fiction or fantasy?

The Do17Z/Do 215B5 (Kauz III) was even in mass production at 1939.



> In 1939 the total fighter production (all types) was 1,856 and in 1940 this figure was 3,106. Even sacrificing the very useful Bf 110 there is simply no way you are going to get 1,500 of any "uber" fighter produced.



Your estimation isn't correct!
From the Bf 110 were produced from 01.01-1939 till 31.12.1940, 1240 Bf 110 modells with DB 601 engines.

The Production costs of the Bf 110C= 210.000,-RM (inclusive engines)
The Production costs of the FW 187 = 140000,-RM (inclusive DB engines)
The Production costs of the Bf 109E = 86.000,-RM (inclusive engine)

So it is not so much fiction or fantasy to produce something between 1300-1500 FW 187 till the end of 1940, if beginning the mass production early 1939.

If you have an other opinion, then please post with serious sources.


----------



## stona (Aug 16, 2012)

DonL said:


> If you have an other opinion, then please post with serious sources.



Total fighter production for 1939/40 was 5,962 so your _unreferenced_ Bf 110 figures are possible in this context.

Don't overestimate German production potential either. In 1939 planned production for all aircraft types was a staggering 26,665 aircraft and they actually produced 8,295.

My source is R J Overy "German Aircraft Production 1939-1942". You may have heard of him.

Don't be patronising. Many people here have plenty of references.

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 16, 2012)

My sources are:

Focke-Wulf Fw 187. Der vergessene Hochleistungsjäger von Dietmar Hermann und Peter Petrick
(Focke-Wulf Fw 187. An Illustrated History von Dietmar Hermann und Peter Petrick)

Messerschmidt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410. Die Messerschmitt-Zerstörer und ihre Konkurrenten von Heinz Mankau und Peter Petrick
(Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410: An Illustrated History von Heinz Mankau) 

Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918-1945 von Lutz Budraß

Die Luftwaffe im Kampf um die Luftherrschaft von Ernst Stilla
(The German Air Force in the battle for air supremacy by Ernst Stilla)
_Major influences on the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the defensive at the west and
over Germany in World War II with special reference to factors
"Air defense", "Research and development" and "human resources"._


As you can see from my above post, the FW 187 had less production costs and less needed man hours to produce.
So it is not unimpossible to produce 100-200 more FW 187 a/c's in the same timeline as the Bf 110, to me this not fiction or fantasy!


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

I've never seen a proposed production cost for the Fw-187. Is this an RLM estimate or a Focke Wulf estimate?


----------



## DonL (Aug 16, 2012)

No given from Dieter Hermann (Focke-Wulf Fw 187. An Illustrated History von Dietmar Hermann und Peter Petrick), from original documents from Focker Wulf after the Preproduction-Serie A0, estimated for mass production with DB engines


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

If production is established @ 100 aircraft per month you will get there in a couple years. It works the same way for any other newly introduced weapons system.

For comparison purposes....
The more expensive Ju-88A had an initital production goal of 300 aircraft per month. 
.....65 per month. Central Division (i.e. Junkers).
.....80 per month. Division I (Henschel, Arado and AEG).
.....70 per month. Division II (Heinkel and Dornier).
.....35 per month. Division III (Dornier Friedrichshafen)
.....50 per month. Division IV (ATG and Siebel).


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2012)

Then it's the price Focke Wulf is charging RLM.

That sounds pretty solid to me. Thanks for the information.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2012)

You are taking a narrow view of aircraft production.
Imagine the ramifications of cancelling or not adopting Bf 110 production and instead producing the Focke Wulf alternative. I don't think it is a viable alternative but that's another question!

The huge expansion of the Regensburg plant over several years may not have been on the same scale. Bf 109 production could have stayed at Augsburg. Any alteration in aircraft production has unexpected consequences as the effects spread through the industry like ripples on a pond.
This would have caused unpredictable consequences later in the war.

By whom and where would the Fw 187 be produced?
Could the company have expanded like Messerschmitt? Skilled labour was not available it had to be trained via various apprenticeship programs. Housing,schools,infrastructure must be built. This doesn't happen overnight. Messerschmitt started their huge expansion on the back of the Bf 108,Bf 109 and Bf 110 in 1936 nearly a year before the Fw 187 prototype flew.
There were well documented problems with the various prototypes.The first limited production run wasn't until 1939
How could 1500 of the type possibly have been ready in 1940.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 17, 2012)

On the production note, production can be simply outsourced to other companies, as happened with 109 and 110 production. Arado, Erla, Ago, Fieseler were all engaged Messerschmitt production in 1940, probably because Mtt AG's capacity was simply too small.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> On the production note, production can be simply outsourced to other companies, as happened with 109 and 110 production. Arado, Erla, Ago, Fieseler were all engaged Messerschmitt production in 1940, probably because Mtt AG's capacity was simply too small.



To produce 1500 of a new fighter which first flew in 1939 by 1940?

Those licensees were producing Bf 109s. Do you mean to not only abandon the Bf 110 but also to radically reduce production of the Luftwaffe's only competitive single engined fighter as well to get the precious Fw 187 produced?

There is only so much production capacity within the aircraft industry. This illustrates my point about adopting a broader view. All these types of decisions are inter-linked.

Let's get some perspective on the numbers.The Bf 110 first flew in 1936 and entered limited production in April 1938. It was already decided in November 1936 that production would be shared between Messerschmitt at Augsburg and Gotha. This is well before the Fw 187 first flew.
In September 1939 there were still less than 100 serviceable Bf 110s in three Geschwader (1.(Z)/LG 1,I./ZG 1 and I./ZG 76) involved in the Polish campaign.(Vasco) They'd missed Spain altogether.

You guys want to flick a switch in 1938/9 and have 1500 aircraft in service by 1940. It simply wouldn't have been possible. 

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

Who said they would be?

Fw-187 production would roughly parallel Ju-88 production but at 1/3rd the monthly rate (100 rather then 300)

69 Ju-88s produced during 1939.
2,208 Ju-88s produced during 1940.
2,780 Ju-88s produced during 1941.
3,094 Ju-88s produced during 1942.

*Projected Fw-187 production.*
23 during 1939.
736 during 1940.
927 during 1941.
1,031 during 1942.

Like everything else in WWII Germany, Fw-187 production would probably never catch up to rapidly expanding demand. However from 1940 onward there would be enough Fw-187s to make a significant contribution to the German war effort. Especially in areas like the Med and Bay of Biscay where aircraft endurance is so important.


----------



## DonL (Aug 17, 2012)

> How could 1500 of the type possibly have been ready in 1940
> 
> Who said they would be?



I said this and I have some very strong arguments for this thesis!



> To produce 1500 of a new fighter which first flew in 1939 by 1940?



Wrong timeline! First flight of the FW 187 was 1937 and the FW 187 V4 which was tested against the Bf 110B at Rechlin was at September 1938! At this time no single Bf 110C with DB 601 engines was produced, only Bf 110 prototypes with DB *600* were in production! 

The most Bf 110B were produced from Gotha and not from Messerschmitt Augsburg, because Gotha had first more experience with assemby lines through the Gotha Go 145 and second Messrschmitt was very busy with the *learning* of the assembly line production of the Bf 109! 

To understand my statement/estimation, it is very important to know some details about german aircraft companys their experience with mass production/ assembly lines between 1933-1939 and how much experienced human resources they had.


Some Datas
Man Power of german a/c companys 1935 and 1938/39

Company 1935 1938/39 
Junkers 9500 25.000 
Dornier 7.000 14.100 
Heinkel 7.600 18.300 
Focke-Wulf 3.200 *35.000 * 
Messerschmitt 1500 27.300

As you see FW was the largest company from man power 1938/39 from all german a/c companys (even larger then Junkers), because FW was next to Junkers the only company which built 3 different aircrafts at assembly lines which huge success at germany and to foreign countrys (Fw 44, Fw 56, Fw 58 ). In contrast to Messerschmitt FW was very successfull between 1933 till 1939 to make money and research experience with mass production of their aircrafts. FW produced roughly 3000 a/c's between 1934-1939 against something about 800 to Messerschmitt at the same time.
Also Gotha was very experienced in mass production through the Gotha Go 145 and for Gotha it would be a very minor problem to retooling in perhaps 4-6 month to the FW 187. Anyway the most decisive issue is, that FW wasn't producing any important a/c at 1939 for the LW (only trainers) compare to Messerschmit, which were noobs with assembly lines and mass production and had to produce 2 very important a/c's. If you want you can get a huge potential at 1939/40/41 of human resources, experience and capacity to produce the FW 187! 

Trainers can be produced from second rated a/c companys and the above facts are the main arguments why the RLM/LW wanted absolute FW to produce some important a/c! As I have described this in other threads this available resources were the main arguments for the FW 190 (together with the resources of BMW)!

To my personal estimation FW and Gotha can produce perhaps 1939 200 aircrafts and 1940 2000, if they will get the engines and the material, but there is no limit compare to the material on production capacity and human resources!



> Do you mean to not only abandon the Bf 110 but also to radically reduce production of the Luftwaffe's only competitive single engined fighter as well to get the precious Fw 187 produced?



No, abandon the Bf 110 and produce with as much material as will be available without reducing the Bf 109!



> There is only so much production capacity within the aircraft industry. This illustrates my point about adopting a broader view. All these types of decisions are inter-linked.



See my above statement!

Edit: What is realy important, FW had no major order from the LW and reached the largest man power 1939 without major help from the LW, till the FW 190 (only the trainers, since late 1939 the Bf 110, the FW 189 and the FW 200, which were niche aircrafts)!


----------



## spicmart (Aug 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Whilst undeniably an interesting aircraft I have always thought the Fw 187 was probably rightly rejected on the grounds that it had little scope for further development.
> I'm happy for the Fw 187 fans to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it another case of shoehorning the smallest airframe around the then most powerful engines available?
> (yes I know it didn't get the BD601 but even so....)
> 
> ...



The DeHavilland Hornet which had as slim and slender an airframe as the Fw 187 proved those seeming d restrictions can be overcome. 
Eric Brown stated that it was the airplane that he enjoyed flying the most. The FW 187 should have had similar capabilities.
Other fighters in this class are the Mitsubishi Ki-83 and Grumman F7F Tigercat.


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

301,018 RM. 1942 price for P-38 ($120,407). 2.5 RM per dollar.
140,000 RM. 1940 price for Fw-187A.
If Focke Wulf really can produce the Fw-187A for 140,000 RM then it's a fantastic bargain.

I look at it this way....
86,000 RM for Me-109E. Endurance allows about 15 minutes of combat over an area located about 125 miles from the airfield (i.e. SE England).

140,000 RM for a Fw-187A. Huge internal fuel capacity allows the aircraft to loiter at least two hours over combat area. 

Fw-187 costs 63% more.
Fw-187 endurance over combat area is probably close to ten times as long as Me-109E.
Fw-187 has superior aerial performance and superior firepower.
.....You pay 63% more for an aircraft that provides as much combat capability @ 125 miles as an entire squadron of Me-109s. That sounds like a bargain to me. I'd procure the Fw-187 even if it requires reduced Me-109 production. At least one third of Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader should be operating the Fw-187.


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

3,500 man hours to build Me-109 airframe.
5,400 man hours to build Fw-190 airframe.
…..Fw-190 airframe requires 54% more man hours to build.

27,970 RM. DB601 engine.
45,000 to 65,000 RM. BMW801 engine.
…..During 1942 you can purchase two DB601 engines for the price of one BMW801 engine.

It would be interesting to see man hour requirements to produce Fw-187 airframe. However I suspect Fw-187 would not cost much more then Fw-190A during 1942. 

Fw-187 powered by two DB601E engines should out perform the Fw-190A3 in every way except roll. Fw-187 engines are more reliable and don’t require C3 fuel. Fw-187 has a large endurance advantage over the Fw-190A3. Both aircraft have four 20mm cannon but Fw-187 has all four in the nose.

Makes me wonder if Fw-190 would enter mass production in this scenerio. Focke Wulf could build the Fw-187 in increasing numbers for the entire war. The expensive and problem plagued BMW801 engine program could be cancelled in favor of increased DB601/DB605 engine production.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> 301,018 RM. 1942 price for P-38 ($120,407). 2.5 RM per dollar.
> 140,000 RM. 1940 price for Fw-187A.
> If Focke Wulf really can produce the Fw-187A for 140,000 RM then it's a fantastic bargain.



Compare the 1939-40 costs:
P-38 $134,284 or 335,710 RM
P-39 $77,159 or 192,897 RM
P-40 $60,562 or 151,405 RM

to the BF109 of 86,000 RM or $34,400.

American s/e fighters were ~1/2 the cost of the P-38, which is the same approx ratio as the Bf109 to Fw187.

One can't compare cost in one country to cost in another country. For starters, labour costs are different.


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

Not a fair comparison as the P-38 wasn't yet in mass production. You are paying for a hand built P-38 prototype that probably lacks most military equipment such as weapons, protective armor, self sealing fuel tanks, radio equipment etc.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Not a fair comparison as the P-38 wasn't yet in mass production. You are paying for a hand built P-38 prototype that probably lacks most military equipment such as weapons, protective armor, self sealing fuel tanks, radio equipment etc.



Makes no difference as the P-38 was still approx twice the cost of an American s/e a/c even in 1942.

from Army Air Forces in World War II
Average cost per airplane is the weighted average on all programs approved during a designated fiscal year and represents the estimated cost of a complete airplane ready for flyaway, including factory installed ordnance and radio equipment. Costs exclude equipment installed at modification centers and airplane spare parts. Unit costs reflect renegotiation of contracts only to the extent of reductions in contract prices for future deliveries but do no reflect reductions in price effected by cash refunds.

You still can't compare American prices of an a/c to German prices of an a/c.


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

That only holds true if both aircraft are powered by V12 engines. American single engine fighter aircraft powered by R2800 engine cost almost as much as a twin engine P-38. Just as the single engine Fw-190 costs almost as much as a twin engine Fw-187. Large radial engines and airframes big enough to use them must be expensive.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> That only holds true if both aircraft are powered by V12 engines. American single engine fighter aircraft powered by R2800 engine cost almost as much as a twin engine P-38.



That may be almost true of the P-47. But what about the F6F? F4U?

Wiki lists the unit cost of the P-38 as $97k.
P-47 $85k
F6F $35k

No listing of F4U price.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Makes me wonder if Fw-190 would enter mass production in this scenerio. Focke Wulf could build the Fw-187 in increasing numbers for the entire war. The expensive and problem plagued BMW801 engine program could be cancelled in favor of increased DB601/DB605 engine production.



Really??? what a gift to the allies. Stop a 1580-1600hp for take off engine ( and more importantly max cruise at sea level of 1280hp and 1170hp at 15,000ft) for more DB 601s 

What are you going to do with the 300 Do 217 bombers built in 1941, put a third DB 601 in the nose? 

even the DB605 was only good for 1075 PS max continuous at sea level and 1080 PS at 5500 meters. 

And if you want to compare the DB605A to the BMW 801D (using 96 octane) the take-off goes to 1700hp, climb rating is 1440 (vs 1310 for the 605A) and max cruise at sea level is 1300 at 2300rpm at 1.2ata. Max cruise at 18000ft is 1215 at 2300rpm and 1.2ata. 

Good as a FW 187 with DB engines may have been I doubt it could replace Do 217s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> That only holds true if both aircraft are powered by V12 engines. American single engine fighter aircraft powered by R2800 engine cost almost as much as a twin engine P-38. Just as the single engine Fw-190 costs almost as much as a twin engine Fw-187. Large radial engines and airframes big enough to use them must be expensive.



Try looking at the cost per pound of aircraft. Those big american airplanes were actually kind of cheap. P-47 in 1943 went for about $10.00 a pound. It could carry 562KG worth of guns and ammo ( and the ammo boxes wouldn't even be full), how many of the "cheap" planes does it take to carry the same load? The later P-47s could carry 3 500lb bombs with ease. How many cheap 109s do you need? _THREE_ not looking so cheap for results or mission capability is it? 

TANSTAAFL

You want mission capability in terms of armament, speed, range and ceiling you pay for it. If you are satisfied with short range, light armament and medium instead of high altitude you can still get speed cheap. _GEE_, is one out four good or bad?


----------



## DonL (Aug 18, 2012)

There is no single reason to abandon the FW 190! I totaly agree with shortround6, I totaly support his arguments about the BMW 801. Also the the FW 187 and FW 190 would have other missions, the FW 187 would be at it's introduction heavy fighter, long range escort fighter and destroyer.

There are plenty enough a/c's to produce without the Bf 110, Me 210 and Me 410 (without all the production changes and problems with the Me 210). To my opinion there are no reasons to change significant any production lines to the FW 187 till the beginning of 1943 and the introduction of the Bf 109G. Here is discussion potential because of the bad performance of the Bf 109G and the need of a good fighter for high altitude at the defending of the Reich.


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> 3,500 man hours to build Me-109 airframe.
> 5,400 man hours to build Fw-190 airframe.
> …..Fw-190 airframe requires 54% more man hours to build.



And a Spitfire took many more man hours than either and yet the British aircraft industry easily out produced the German industry.
Again you have to broaden your view and look at the way the industry was organised. At almost every level the British were more efficient,not least of all in the hours they worked.

Don you see excess capacity in the German aircraft industry in the late pre war and early war years that simply coudn't be exploited. I agree that the potential to increase capacity to some extent was already there but the managment systems from top to botton which might have unleashed some of this potential were not.
Production plans in 1939-1942 were as fanciful as those of 1944-1945.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 18, 2012)

Not during peacetime but German production priorities must change when Britain and France declare war during September 1939. 

Ju-87.
Produced at moderate rate as standard light dive bomber.

Ju-88.
Produced on a large scale as standard heavy dive bomber and light level bomber.
.....Supplemented by He-111 in level bomber role.

Me-109.
Produced on a large scale as standard light fighter aircraft.

Fw-187.
Produced on a large scale as standard high endurance fighter and recon aircraft.



If built the Fw-190A would replace the Me-109 but is that smart in this scenerio? 

By 1941 Fw-187s will have the entire high altitude air superiority mission. Me-109s will provide local airfield defense and escort for CAS aircraft. In practical terms that means most Me-109s will be on the Russian front. Elsewhere most Jagdgeschwader will operate the Fw-187. 

Russian front Me-109s have an outstanding combat record. VVS rated Me-109 more dangerous then the Fw-190A. So where is the incentive to replace proven and well liked Me-109s with more expensive Fw-190As?


Do-217 bomber is a side issue with several possible solutions.
DB603 was the preferred engine for Do-217 so that's the program RLM should fund if this aircraft is to enter production. Better yet, put the Jumo 222 engine into mass production and build the Do-317 (i.e. Do-217 powered by Jumo 222 engines). Alternately He-177B (4 Jumo 211 engines) could enter production during 1941, eliminating Do-217 and He-111 level bombers.


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2012)

Ju 87 was never produced in what we could call large numbers in terms of wartime production.

The Fw 190 was the result of an RLM request for proposals for a new single engined fighter specifically to counter the Spitfire (if we are to believe Kurt Tank).

It succeeded well in this.

So serious was the threat of the Fw 190 following its introduction that on 13th November 1941 the Air Staff issued a directive halting all but "essential" RAF operations over Northern Europe. Operations began again at the beginning of February but were again suspended after the "Channel Dash" (Operation Cerberus) of 11 February 1942. Operations began again the next month,concentrated against ground targets. At the end of this period the RAF had lost 335 aircraft,a majority being Spitfire Vs. This was unsustainable and on 13th June 1942 Air Marshall Sholto-Douglas was ordered to curtail all operations. Only operations against coastal targets continued.

It doesn't matter how we spin the statistics,the RAF had suffered a serious rebuttal.

The balance of Air Power had turned decisively against the RAF,due to a very large extent to the arrival of the Fw 190 in September 1941 and yet you wouldn't have produced the best and most versatile German single engined fighter of the war at all!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 18, 2012)

5 March 1936.
Spitfire prototype first flight.

27 June 1936.
Spitfire prototype revealed to public at RAF Hendon air display.
.....As one would expect, the new aircraft had numerous technical problems which had to be solved before mass production could begin during mid 1938. 

Autumn 1937.
RLM specification for a new fighter to operate alongside Me-109. He-100 and Fw-190 competed for this contract.

4 August 1938.
Spitfire enters operational service with 19 Squadron at RAF Duxford.




> Fw 190 was the result of an RLM request for proposals for a new single engined fighter specifically to counter the Spitfire


How is that possible? The Spitfire wasn't even operational during 1937 when RLM requested a new fighter aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Aug 18, 2012)

1937 fighter aircraft will be powered by the new DB603 engine. (Prototype was running during 1937.)
.....Naturally this means DB603 engine program will be pushed to completion rather then cancelled.

1937 fighter aircraft will carry 600 liters of internal fuel. 50% more then existing Me-109.

With these changes 1937 fighter aircraft becomes significantly more capable then the existing Me-109. So there should not be a lot of discussion about the 1937 aircraft replacing the February 1934 specification Me-109.

Fw-190C has a good chance to win but it's not a sure bet. He-100 will be designed larger to meet the specification. A Heinkel version of Ki-61 powered by a DB603 engine might give Fw-190 some stiff competition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> Ju-88.
> Produced on a large scale as standard heavy dive bomber and light level bomber.
> .....Supplemented by He-111 in level bomber role.



You have it backwards, the Ju 88 supplemented the He 111 in the "level" bomber role. The He 111 was the Luftwaffe "strategic" bomber even it if doesn't get much credit. 



davebender said:


> Me-109.
> Produced on a large scale as standard light fighter aircraft.



already being done. 



davebender said:


> Fw-187.
> Produced on a large scale as standard high endurance fighter and recon aircraft.



Great except it will never be as cheap to make as the Fw 190. Unless things are very strange building a 9000lb twin is going to be more expensive than a 7000lb single engine plane. Contract prices, especially proposed contract prices can be all over the map. 

And if you think you can build a pair of 1200-1300 hp V-12s ( 24 cylinders) cheaper than a single 14cylinder engine in similar quantities you might be interested in a bridge I have for sale spanning the East River in New York. 



davebender said:


> Do-217 bomber is a side issue with several possible solutions.
> DB603 was the preferred engine for Do-217 so that's the program RLM should fund if this aircraft is to enter production. Better yet, put the Jumo 222 engine into mass production and build the Do-317 (i.e. Do-217 powered by Jumo 222 engines). Alternately He-177B (4 Jumo 211 engines) could enter production during 1941, eliminating Do-217 and He-111 level bombers.



The Jumo 222 is only a solution if you believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. It didn't work, end of story. The He 177B might have worked, you just get half as many as the number of DO 217s and He 111 actually built. Not a real advantage. 
A DB 603 in 1940-41 probably wouldn't be the "UBER" engine you think would be. How much of what DB learned on the 601N and E was used on the later 603? Or even how much of what was used on the 605A? 
An early 603 may very well run at 2500rpm instead of 2700rpm and use 1.3ata instead of 1.4 ata. It could very well be a 1500-1600hp engine instead of 1750hp which means no advantage over the BMW 801 at the time.

edit> as for even earlier?? _IF_ the 603 is held to the same piston speed as the 601Aa (2500rpm, 2625fpm piston speed) the long stroke 603 would have an rpm limit of 2222rpm. a 603 running at 2500rpm has a piston speed of 2954fpm. 
Didn't the DB605 have problems overheating the piston crowns? only going to be worse in a bigger cylinder.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1937 fighter aircraft will carry 600 liters of internal fuel. 50% more then existing Me-109.



Won't the 50% more powerful engine consume 50% more fuel, therefore leaving your new, larger aircraft with the same range, give or take a small amount, with only a slight performance advantage.

Good to know you have enough excess fuel to burn.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2012)

At cruise (at the same speed) the bigger engine should only burn enough more fuel to overcome the additional drag of the bigger air-frame + a bit more due to the larger amount of friction in the bigger engine. Using the the extra power ( take-off, climb and combat) will burn the the extra 50%. Range will _NOT_ go up 50% unless the air-frame is cleaner than the 109E. Not hard to do but then a cleaner air-frame with the existing DB 601 and 500 liters might go as far or farther than the the big engine plane.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 19, 2012)

Dornier 335 would have been a handful if it had been developed earlier!


----------



## davebender (Aug 19, 2012)

*Historical Version of Do-335A1.*
2 x DB603G engines. 1,900 hp each.
7,400 kg empty.
11,700 kg loaded
477 mph max speed. 413 mph sustained speed.
350 mph max speed with one engine.
2,330 range with drop tanks.
4,600 ft/min climb.
1 x M103 3cm cannon firing through prop hub. 2 x cowl mounted 151/15 or 151/20 cannon.
Optional. 2 x wing mounted 3cm Mk 103 cannon.
1,000kg bomb bay

Do-335 was a bomber complete with 1,000 kg bomb bay. Airframe was reinforced to the extent that it could carry very powerful cannon armament. That's fine for ground attack but not what you want for a fighter. 

A tandem engine fighter aircraft powered by DB601 engines should be about 3,000 kg lighter. Three 20mm cannon and no bomb bay. Might still look something like the historical Do-335 but it will be smaller and more nimble.


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> 5 March 1936.
> Spitfire prototype first flight.
> 
> 27 June 1936.
> ...



According to Tank (not always a man with a reliable memory) 

"After receiving the requirement for the new fighter...... in 1938 the project office submitted several alternatives,all based around the idea of a fighter somewhat more rugged than the Messerschmitt 109 [sic]."

Later.

"The Messerschmitt 109 [sic] and _British Spitfire,the two fastest fighters in the world at the time,_could be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe..... I felt that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place..."

After which good old Kurt goes on to explain the background thinking behind the Fw 190,describing it as a "Dienstpferd" or cavalry horse rather than a racehorse like the Spitfire and Bf 109.
It is clear that he at least thought he was designing an aircraft to compete commercially with the Bf 109 and militarily with the Spitfire.

Shacklady's "Butcher Bird" supports Tank's memory. Whilst saying that the RLM directive was given in September 1937 he also states,

"The experimental design effort was led by Oberingenieur Blaser_ and commenced during the summer of 1938_."

By mid 1938 rumours were rife in German circles about the performance of Supermarines new fighter.

It is also worth considering that without the development of the Fw 190 A series there would have been no Fw190 D series either. Too little,too late but the Dora was the best single piston engined fighter the Germans produced and also one of the best produced by anybody during the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Denniss (Aug 20, 2012)

davebender said:


> *Historical Version of Do-335A1.*
> 2 x DB603G engines. 1,900 hp each.
> 7,400 kg empty.
> 11,700 kg loaded
> ...


A-0 was equipped with DB 603A engines, the A-1 was planned with 603E but may have received the 603Aa as well. DB 603G was never built except prototypes. Cowl guns were 2cm ones, they may have used 15mm ones in prototypes. The wing-mounted MK 103 were planned for the B-version, I haven't heard or seen something about gunpods.


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2012)

According to Smith and Creek the only engine type ever fitted in the Do 335 was indeed the DB 603 A with the single exception of one prototype,V3 (CP+UC).

The performance figures are way lower than the ones in "davebender's" table

The first prototype to be fitted with armament was V9 (CP+UI). It had two 20mm MG 151/20 cowl guns and one 30mm MK 103 firing through the spinner. V5 (CP+UE) was the designated armaments test aircraft but due to delays with the MK 103 it followed V9.

V9 first fired the MK 103,a grand total of five rounds,the results being described rather cryptically as "nicht einwandfrei".

V5 fired 1400 rounds from MK 103s but there were constant problems and the weapon was not perfected before the end of the war. Unsurprisingly the proven MG 151/20s worked fine.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

> without the development of the Fw 190 A series there would have been no Fw190 D series either


Not necessarily true. Initial Fw-190 design proposals were powered by Daimler Benz engines. The Fw-190 could have been powered by the DB601 or, better yet, DB603 from the beginning.

However this is somewhat beside the point. Late war Fw-187s powered by 1,800 hp DB605AS engines or 2,000 hp DB605D engines would probably fly rings around a Fw-190D and the Falke has a lot more endurance. So if Germany builds 20,000 Fw-187s ILO 20,000 Fw-190s the Luftwaffe comes out ahead.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 20, 2012)

Ju 88 make a fine heavy fighter. So job sorted.

Fw 190 is not a Spitfire rival as the top speed of the prototype is quite disappointing in the early days.

It's simply developed as a fighter with a different engine.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2012)

I disagree. Ju-88 is too big to turn burn during daytime aerial combat even when powered by Jumo 213 engines. Mosquito and Me-410 are better but they also are too big to mix it up with enemy fighter aircraft during the daytime.

P-38 is superior to all of the above light bombers and Fw-187 would have been superior to the P-38 if placed into mass production.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Late war Fw-187s powered by 1,800 hp DB605AS engines or 2,000 hp DB605D engines would probably fly rings around a Fw-190D and the Falke has a lot more endurance. So if Germany builds 20,000 Fw-187s ILO 20,000 Fw-190s the Luftwaffe comes out ahead.



“fly rings around a Fw-190D”, not really, you know you need more than three times the speed of a straight flying plane to turn a ring around
Cimmex


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Not necessarily true. Initial Fw-190 design proposals were powered by Daimler Benz engines. The Fw-190 could have been powered by the DB601 or, better yet, DB603 from the beginning.
> 
> However this is somewhat beside the point. Late war Fw-187s powered by 1,800 hp DB605AS engines or 2,000 hp DB605D engines would probably fly rings around a Fw-190D and the Falke has a lot more endurance. So if Germany builds 20,000 Fw-187s ILO 20,000 Fw-190s the Luftwaffe comes out ahead.



Except the Germans can't build FW 187 on a one for one basis instead of the Fw 190D. some where between one to two or one and half to two. 10,000-15,000 Fw 187 instead of 20,000 Fw 190s. 
And once again you bring in the DB603 early. A 1941 DB603 would not have made the power the 1943 DB603 did but weighed almost the same.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2012)

The Basket said:


> Fw 190 is not a Spitfire rival as the top speed of the prototype is quite disappointing in the early days.



Did you actually bother reading any of my posts. It is admittedly my opinion but supported by not only by quotes from Kurt Tank but other references. What is the basis of your opinion?

When the Fw 190 entered service it quite simply swept the Spitfire V from the skies of continental Europe. The initial performance of the prototypes is irrelevant.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2012)

davebender said:


> Not necessarily true. Initial Fw-190 design proposals were powered by Daimler Benz engines. The Fw-190 could have been powered by the DB601 or, better yet, DB603 from the beginning.



Noone has ever produced any evidence that there was any an intention to produce the Fw 190 with anything other than a radial engine. If anyone can produce one of these "initial proposals" in contemporary documents I'd love to see them. It may be that one of the sketches submitted initially to the RLM included a Daimler Benz engine but the one accepted featured the BMW 139. The contract issued for the three prototypes by the RLM,incidentally the first use of the RLM number 190, included this radial engine.
There was never any chance of a Daimler Benz powered Fw 190.

Tank again.

"We chose an air cooled radial engine for the new fighter for two reasons. Firstly because such engines were more rugged and could survive more punishment than the liquid cooled types and secondly,because the BMW company was bench running prototypes of a new engine,the 1,550 hp BMW 139,which developed somewhat more power than any liquid cooled engine we had been offered."

And

"Some people have suggested that I had to fight some kind of battle with the RLM to get them to accept the idea of a radial engined fighter. That might make a good story but it is not history. In fact there was quite a large body of opinion in favour of such a fighter for the Luftwaffe."

When the Fw 190 was conceived there were two companies in Germany producing large radial engines. "Bramo" at Berlin-Spandau and BMW in Munich.

As for the possibility of developing the "Dora" without the preceding "Antons",that's ridiculous. The initial prototypes were bullt from A series airframes!

Surely the Fw 187 died because it didn't match an RLM requirement. Focke-Wulf's efforts to shoe horn in the extra crew man to meet the requirement was probably too late. There were many in the RLM who had already decided to continue with the Bf 110.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 21, 2012)

Fw-190D didn't enter production until August 1944. By that late date your argument hardly matters as RAF Bomber Command has flattened German hydrogenation plants that produce aviation gasoline.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 21, 2012)

stona said:


> Did you actually bother reading any of my posts. It is admittedly my opinion but supported by not only by quotes from Kurt Tank but other references. What is the basis of your opinion?
> 
> When the Fw 190 entered service it quite simply swept the Spitfire V from the skies of continental Europe. The initial performance of the prototypes is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


 
No I didn't bother.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2012)

The Basket said:


> No I didn't bother.



At least that's an honest reply 

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 21, 2012)

The very huge mistake was to waste the potential and experience of FW between 1938-1941!

To make a clean analyse about the german a/c industry you should all take a close look.

As I described FW had a great potential, because they were successful between 1933-1939 to gain money and experience to produce several different a/c's without major help from the LW.

Also Dornier, Junkers and Gotha were successfully "mass" producing a/c's. Heinkel was always a problem child because the company and it's development department danced on every single advertisement of any a/c. Heinkel could develop good a/c's and also produce a good quality but they didn't learn till 1943 to produce in quantity, because Heinkel has no interest getting experience to mass production. His devellopment department was the star and bad tongues about Heinkel claim no a/c from Heinkel except the He 111 was realy developed to the end, because the development department was always busy with the next project. 
BF /Messerschmitt were realy noobs in mass production compare to Junkers, FW, Dornier and Gotha with mass production, because they only had the Me 108 as their "only" produced a/c from 1936- 1940 with something about 600 a/c's in 5 years, before the orders from the RLM kicked in. To my opinion this was a mistake, to gave a newbie two huge orders about important war a/c's.

Also I see the story, that the FW 190 was an answer to the Spitfire as great myth!
The FW 190 was given to FW with *no* advertisement. It is untrue that there was was an advertisement or comparasion between the FW 190 and the He 100. The RLM realy know that one of it's important a/c company's has no order and nothing to produce then trainers!
The first wood models of the FW 190 were existing 1937, at this time it wasn't decided to built with the DB 601 or with a new radial engine.
After the takeover of Bramo from BMW (1938 ) and the existing development first of the BMW 139 and later the BMW 801 the decision was to the radial engine. The first prototype flew summer 1938! What all this have to do with the Spitfire is to me a myth.
At summer 1938 also the first prototype of the Bf 109E with DB 601 was flying and the germans couldn't realy estimate there fighter power potential under the terms of mass production. The FW 190 was a child to get the potential of the FW company and the BMW/Bramo company in mass production for a real important a/c. From FW the FW 190 could be produced since 1938, but the development of the engine wasn't ready.

So here was a lot of waste production capacity, because the trainers could be produced from second rated company's and so a Fw 187 mass produced from beginning 1939 would had enough manpower and experience.

So my statement that the RLM could get at least 1500 FW 187 from 1939-1940 (end) is still standing, because the limiting factor wouldn't be the production capacity (experience and man power), it would only be the material (engines and aluminum).

A mass produced FW 187 at 1939 would had more performance, a more experienced mass production from capacity and man power and more developmet potential at the fighter ability compare to the Bf 110 and later the Bf 109!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2012)

The Basket said:


> Fw 190 is not a Spitfire rival as the top speed of the prototype is quite disappointing in the early days.



Who cares about a prototype? A prototype is in development and not operational. 

When the Fw 190 became operational, it pretty much took control of the skies, and was superior to the Spit V. If I recall correctly, the only thing the Spit had an advantage over the 190 in, was turn radius.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 22, 2012)

DonL said:


> A mass produced FW 187 at 1939 would had more performance, a more experienced mass production from capacity and man power and more developmet potential at the fighter ability compare to the Bf 110 and later the Bf 109!



But the FW187 didn’t meet the RLM requirements, why the RLM should place an order for 1500 planes? There are certain rules for offer and order in bussiness.
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2012)

I guess DonL didn't read my posts regarding the perceived link between the Fw 190 and Spitfire,at least in Kurt Tank's mind either. The new specification was not issued as a reaction to the Spitfire in service and I certainly never suggested that. The Germans were well aware of the Spitfire and rumours about it were rife in German aeronautical circles. 
People did not operate in vacuums!
For example,in October of 1937, Hornchurch played host to a visit by senior Luftwaffe figures including the World War I ace Ernst Udet. It is recounted how during this visit, that before astonished RAF pilots, a senior RAF brass hat calmly ran over the finer points of the new, and secret, reflector gun sight with the German party.


If anyone can find the RLM number 190 before the contract issued for the three prototypes in 1938 let's see it. Focke-Wulf may have had models of prospective designs in 1937,and some may have featured in line engines,but these were not Fw 190s. The decision to build the Fw 190 with a radial engine was not taken until 1938,but there was never any option for a different type of power plant. 

The first Fw 190 prototype did not fly in the summer of 1938,that may be a typo. Fw 190 V1,Werk. Nr. 0001 and with the civil registration D-OPZE flew,with Hans Sander at the controls, on Ist June 1939. The second prototype (FO+LZ) didn't fly until October 1939.
The first prototype fitted the BMW 801 C engine was the V5k (k for kleine flugel,this aircraft retained the shorter wing of the earlier prototypes) which flew in the spring of 1940. 
Another oft repeated myth is that the Fw 190 influenced the design of the Typhoon but as you can see above the prototypes of the two types flew at almost exactly the same time,the Typhoon in February 1940, making them contemporaries.

As for problems with the type,these are well documented. In 1938 the RLM asked Focke-Wulf to speed up development of the Fw 190 because of problems with the Bf 109 as it was integrated into Luftwaffe fighter groups. No aircraft enters the hurly burly of service life without problems.

Focke-Wulf were not just building trainers before the war. The Fw 44 was a successful trainer. The Fw 56 probably influenced the Luftwaffe's decision to persue the dive bomber concept.It was flown by Tank's friend Udet,to demonstrate the concept. Focke-Wulf did not bid for the contract that resulted in the Ju 87. Then there was the Fw 58,Fw 159,Fw 189 and to top it all the Fw 200.

_Everyone seems to have forgotten that the Fw 187 did not meet the RLMs "zerstorer" specification. Not only that but Focke-Wulf did build an aircraft to meet that specification. This was the Fw 57. _This,along with the Hs 124 from Henschel,LOST to Messerschmitt's Bf 110.
Here it is.







Any attempt to convert the Fw 187 into a two seat Zerstorer was too late. The RLM,like an oil tanker,changed direction slowly and the Bf 110 was already in production.

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 22, 2012)

spicmart said:


> The DeHavilland Hornet which had as slim and slender an airframe as the Fw 187 proved those seeming d restrictions can be overcome.
> Eric Brown stated that it was the airplane that he enjoyed flying the most. The FW 187 should have had similar capabilities.
> Other fighters in this class are the Mitsubishi Ki-83 and Grumman F7F Tigercat.



Well, the Hornet was certainly an impressive fighter, as was the Bearcat, and the Fw 187 seems to have a legion of fans who can quote perfomance and production cost figures ad infinitum. Still, it seems to me the idea of a twin engine fighter that could compete with the best single engine opposition was always a holy grail that was never really achieved. Maybe the P-38 did it for the last year of the war, which confirms Kelly Johnson as a genius in my books but what else? The Bf 110 was never a match for contemporary fighter opposition. The Whirlwind was maybe, but the Typhoon could do it all better. Me 210s and 410s got chewed up when confronted by single engine opposition. The Fw 187 looks nice but never came close to being tested in serial front line production and I just can't see any reason to believe it would have been 'the one' that proved the concept when all the others failed. I'm sure the Hornet and Tigercat would have been great in the Pacific against an enemy that was struggling to keep up in the arms race, but if the realities of war had not applied they would have been facing aircraft equivelent to Bearcats, Furies and Spitefuls. 
None of this is to deny that the heavy fighter wasn't a useful beast as a bomber destroyer etc, but single engine fighters ruled the roost from the Eindecker to the jet age. There has to have been a reason for that.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2012)

Oddly enough I've just been having a quick flick through Mankau's Bf 110 tome. He comes to a similar conclusion regarding twin engined fighters or zestorer designed in the mid 1930s. 

The solution he offers is to abandon the Bf 110 altogether once the Fw 190 comes online and concentrate on producing more Fw 190s,an aircraft that proved itself very capable in the fighter,zestorer and fighter bomber roles.

It's difficult to argue against his conclusion.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 22, 2012)

Hi, Steve,
How does Mankau feels about a 1000-1200 HP fighter contesting the RAF over mainland Britain (nit just over Kent) in 1940? 
Further, discussion/comparison of the Fw-190 and Bf-110, for 1941, is a non issue? Same about Fw-187 and Fw-190? 



CobberKane said:


> Well, the Hornet was certainly an impressive fighter, as was the Bearcat, and the Fw 187 seems to have a legion of fans who can quote perfomance and production cost figures ad infinitum. Still, it seems to me the idea of a twin engine fighter that could compete with the best single engine opposition was always a holy grail that was never really achieved. Maybe the P-38 did it for the last year of the war, which confirms Kelly Johnson as a genius in my books but what else?



Hi,
maybe the appeal of the P-38 was to do what ever the best fighter could do, but do it 600 miles from the base? Something that it took 2 years for an single engined fighter to achieve?



> The Bf 110 was never a match for contemporary fighter opposition. The Whirlwind was maybe, but the Typhoon could do it all better.



Bf-110 was cold meat on the table, when flown on bomber speeds altitudes. So was the P-51. But an Bf-110, during BoB, flying at figher speeds altitudes? Comparison between Whirlwind and Typhoon is really humoruos, it took Hawker/Gloster/Napier until 1943 to make Typhoon a workable non self destructing plane; in 1941 Whirlwind was there, Typhoon was not.



> Me 210s and 410s got chewed up when confronted by single engine opposition.



So were the Yaks, Zeros in 1944 etc.



> The Fw 187 looks nice but never came close to being tested in serial front line production and I just can't see any reason to believe it would have been 'the one' that proved the concept when all the others failed.



As above, we might list many single engined planes that got shot in drowes. 'All others failed' is a sweeping generalization.



> I'm sure the Hornet and Tigercat would have been great in the Pacific against an enemy that was struggling to keep up in the arms race, but if the realities of war had not applied they would have been facing aircraft equivelent to Bearcats, Furies and Spitefuls.



That would've be an awesome sight.



> None of this is to deny that the heavy fighter wasn't a useful beast as a bomber destroyer etc, but single engine fighters ruled the roost from the Eindecker to the jet age. There has to have been a reason for that.



Single engined fighter and heavy fighter might apply for the same planes, if one wants his fighters have some real footprint. Check out US planes of ww2. As for single engined fighters ruling, you might want to check out the P-38, F-4/14/15/18/22, Tornado, Mig-25/29/31, Su-27, Tornado, Eurofighter, Rafale...


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Steve,
> How does Mankau feels about a 1000-1200 HP fighter contesting the RAF over mainland Britain (nit just over Kent) in 1940?
> Further, discussion/comparison of the Fw-190 and Bf-110, for 1941, is a non issue? Same about Fw-187 and Fw-190?




The Luftwaffe never wanted a twin engined fighter like the Fw 187. It was wed to the "zerstorer" concept and Focke-Wulf's offering was the Fw 57 (I suppose technically a "kamfzerstorer" with its turret) which lost out to the Bf 110. I'm sure that most RAF pilots would have been happy to see the 1800 hp Fw 57 over Britain.
The conversion of the Fw 187 into a two seater smacks of the same sort of desperation that Tank showed when trying to save the Ta 154 by developing it in a "Mistel" combination. Noone likes to see their project bite the dust,there are commercial consequences which don't disappear just because there's a war on.

A far simpler and very much cheaper method of deploying a competitive fighter over mainland Britain in 1940 would have been to develop the already existing drop tank technology for the Bf 109.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 22, 2012)

What was the thread title?

*Ideal heavy fighter of the LW 1940*!



> The Luftwaffe never wanted a twin engined fighter like the Fw 187



Any serious sources for this claim?

Destroyer Advertisement of 1936!
-heavy fighter
-long range fighter
-long range escort fighter

This advertisement comes from Wever and Wimmer far more experienced men then Göring, Stumpf or Jeschonnek!
The replacement of Wimmer with Ernst Uder was a big mistake, but also Udet thought that the Bf 110 could not achieve the whole advertisement and ordered the FW 187 prototypes and later the preproduction series FW 187A and the FW 187B. He was overruled from Göring!



> I guess DonL didn't read my posts regarding the perceived link between the Fw 190 and Spitfire,at least in Kurt Tank's mind either.



There was no link between the development of the FW 190 and the Spitfire, no serious source accept the reminds of Kurt Tank make such statements!



> The first Fw 190 prototype did not fly in the summer of 1938,that may be a typo. Fw 190 V1,Werk. Nr. 0001 and with the civil registration D-OPZE flew,with Hans Sander at the controls, on Ist June 1939. The second prototype (FO+LZ) didn't fly until October 1939.
> The first prototype fitted the BMW 801 C engine was the V5k (k for kleine flugel,this aircraft retained the shorter wing of the earlier prototypes) which flew in the spring of 1940.
> Another oft repeated myth is that the Fw 190 influenced the design of the Typhoon but as you can see above the prototypes of the two types flew at almost exactly the same time,the Typhoon in February 1940, making them contemporaries.



Sorry my claim about the first flight was a typo! Your statement is correct!
But the oldest drawing of the FW 190A dated 18.07.1938, also a 1:1 blank was existind in summer 1938 and the decision was made to use a radial engine.

All this has nothing to do with the thread title and your claim that it is impossible to produce 1500 heavy fighter (FW 187) till the end of 1940.
As I showed, your claim is wrong.

The issue twin engined heavy fighter:

The FW 187 proved it's performance capacity at several testflight's and the three preproduction a/c's were stationed at Norway Denmark and Bremen. The FW 187A with Jumo 210 engines as preproduction a/c was as fast as the Bf 110C2 with DB 601 engines.
Also the FW 187 V6 was the prototype to get the world speed record to Focker Wulf. The FW engineers estimated that the FW 187 can be faster then Me 209 world record plane. There is no doubt on the aerodynamik excellence of the FW 187.

The FW 187 was between the lines (that makes it special), it was larger then the Westland Whirlwind and was developed and built from the scratch to the 35Liter 1000PS engine advertisement of the LW (DB 601 and Jumo 211). It carrys a lot more internal fuel then the Whirlwind and had a very good payload and a wing loading near the same as the Bf 109, with a better rolling and much more speed. This was shown from the comparation testflights at Rechlin September/Oktober 1938.
To my informations the Whirlwind couldn't carry the RR Merlin without major reconstruction!
The FW 187 was not significant smaller then the P38 but had a lot less weight with the same engine power and a much better wing loading.
So the FW 187 promise a much better performance with near the same payload and internal fuel then the P38, with the benefits of two seats.



> Oddly enough I've just been having a quick flick through Mankau's Bf 110 tome. He comes to a similar conclusion regarding twin engined fighters or zestorer designed in the mid 1930s.
> 
> The solution he offers is to abandon the Bf 110 altogether once the Fw 190 comes online and concentrate on producing more Fw 190s,an aircraft that proved itself very capable in the fighter,zestorer and fighter bomber roles.
> 
> It's difficult to argue against his conclusion.



That depends on the mission. If you want a LW for Barbarossa, Mankau's conclusion is right, with the hint side that the FW 190A wasn't mass produced before 1942 and at that time the FW 187 would be mass produced at the third year with DB 601E engines.

If you want a long range or long range escort fighter and this missions, you are in need of a twin heavy fighter at 1940, also 1942.
The LW hadn't a single engined long range fighter till the Tank 152H*10* with an internal tank volume of 1000 Liters.
At 1940-1943 there is no possibility to have such a fighter because at this time the Jumo 213 and DB 603 realy kicked in at mass production and performance! And I have told enough of the performance of the FW 187!


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 22, 2012)

stona said:


> The Luftwaffe never wanted a twin engined fighter like the Fw 187. It was wed to the "zerstorer" concept and Focke-Wulf's offering was the Fw 57 (I suppose technically a "kamfzerstorer" with its turret) which lost out to the Bf 110. *I'm sure that most RAF pilots would have been happy to see the 1800 hp Fw 57 over Britain.*
> The conversion of the Fw 187 into a two seater smacks of the same sort of desperation that Tank showed when trying to save the Ta 154 by developing it in a "Mistel" combination. Noone likes to see their project bite the dust,there are commercial consequences which don't disappear just because there's a war on.
> 
> A far simpler and very much cheaper method of deploying a competitive fighter over mainland Britain in 1940 would have been to develop the already existing drop tank technology for the Bf 109.
> ...



Sorry for not being 100% precise; by a '1000-1200 HP fighter' I was pointing out towards the single engined fighter's abilities.
I do agree that a drop tank for the Emil in BoB would've posed a major boost for the LW, and a threat for the RAF.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 22, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Steve,
> How does Mankau feels about a 1000-1200 HP fighter contesting the RAF over mainland Britain (nit just over Kent) in 1940?
> Further, discussion/comparison of the Fw-190 and Bf-110, for 1941, is a non issue? Same about Fw-187 and Fw-190?
> 
> ...


 
Hello Tomo,
Re your comments, my reputation as a P-38 hater should be firmly established by now. But without rehashing all my previous rantings on the subject, no the P-38 did not do whatever the ‘best fighter could do’. The ‘best fighters’ were 109Gs and Fw190s in the ETC. The P-38 had the range to get to them when contemporary single engine designs did not, but in combat it struggled until the L models arrived – by which time single engine designs were doing the same job for much less cost.
The BF110got chewed up in the BoB. The Bf109 did not. For much of the time they were used for the same role so clearly the 110 was inferior to it’s single engine opposition. Regarding my comparison between the Whirlwind and the Typhoon, I’m happy for you that you smile so easily but my point was that when the Whirlwind was withdrawn from service it was replaced by the Typhoon, not an improved Whirlwind or some other twin engine design. 
I mentioned that 210s and 410 got chewed up by single engine opposition and you noted that so did Yaks and late war zeros. How is that relevant? Yaks and Zeros took a hammering at different times in the war because they faced superior opposition, but they also had their periods of ascendency. Name me a twin engine fighter that dominated single engine opposition for any period during the war? The only example I can think of that comes close would be the P-38 in the Pacific against Japanese Zeros and Oscars that were well behind contemporary German fighters in those areas where the lightning held an advantage.
If my comment that all attempts to create a competitive twin engine design during the war were ‘what ifs’ or failures is a sweeping generalisation, please list the successes. No, wait – I’ll do it for you:
1.	P-38
2.	Daylight. 
I think the twin engine heavy fighter was a useful concept for most air forces, particularly in areas like bomber destroyer and night fighter, but the reality of the twin engine fighter that could match it with the best single engine opposition in combat just didn’t happen.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Who cares about a prototype? A prototype is in development and not operational.
> 
> When the Fw 190 became operational, it pretty much took control of the skies, and was superior to the Spit V. If I recall correctly, the only thing the Spit had an advantage over the 190 in, was turn radius.


 
The quote was in reference to the idea the 190 was developed as a rival design to the Spitfire or that the 190 was influenced by the Spitfire. Both I believe to be false. Since the 190 was a mid to late 1930s design and the Spitfire only a few years younger and a single flying prototype, Tank would have very little to go on design wise or even performance wise.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 22, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Maybe the P-38 did it for the last year of the war, which confirms Kelly Johnson as a genius in my books but what else?


 
What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
The Genius of its designer!?


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 22, 2012)

spicmart said:


> What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
> The Genius of its designer?


 
You mean, what was it about the P-38s design that made it better than any of the other twin engine fighters of the war? Good question. Im sure there are plenty of Lightning buffs out there with thoughts to offer


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2012)

The Basket said:


> The quote was in reference to the idea the 190 was developed as a rival design to the Spitfire or that the 190 was influenced by the Spitfire. Both I believe to be false. Since the 190 was a mid to late 1930s design and the Spitfire only a few years younger and a single flying prototype, Tank would have very little to go on design wise or even performance wise.



Ooops my apologies...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Ah, which twin engine fighters?

The single seat ones?

Or the two and three seaters?

Single seat twin engine production fighters with decent ( much over 1000hp) engines were few and far between for most of the war. 

And I like the Whirlwind  

The Lighting was "designed" to be a long endurance interceptor and was adapted for it's other roles. For some reason this design for one purpose and adapt for others seems to work a lot better than designing for 2-3 or more roles to begin with. 

Most of the "multi-role" multi seat twin engine fighters wound up with bigger wings and bigger fuselages which meant more drag than the Lighting and most of the mass produced ones (over a few dozen) used lower powered engines (especially considering altitude). Japanese Ki 45, anything Italian with twin engines, anything French with twin engines. Russian PE-3? Bristol Beaufighter had more powerful engines down low but was about as streamline as Buckingham palace and so on. 
By the end of the war some rivals showed up in small numbers and the Hornet and F7F had the power to go with their bigger size.


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The BF110got chewed up in the BoB. The Bf109 did not. For much of the time they were used for the same role so clearly the 110 was inferior to it’s single engine opposition.



I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109. It was hardly such an inferior plane, the existing types were about as fast as the 109 or the Spit, carried heavier armament and had slightly greater range, and more important: the ability to extend that range with external tanks. The British tested this aircraft, and in most ways it was very similar in handling to the 109, rolling ability was practically the same, the turning radii being slightly greater at 1000 feet compared to 885 feet. Even that 1000 feet was quite similiar to later Fw 190 actually...



CobberKane said:


> I mentioned that 210s and 410 got chewed up by single engine opposition and you noted that so did Yaks and late war zeros. How is that relevant? Yaks and Zeros took a hammering at different times in the war because they faced superior opposition, but they also had their periods of ascendency.



I think its the same case the Zero. 210s and 410s were indeed "cheewed up" in 1944, but during the same period SE 109s and 190s were chewed up as well by superior opposition. 



CobberKane said:


> Name me a twin engine fighter that dominated single engine opposition for any period during the war? The only example I can think of that comes close would be the P-38 in the Pacific against Japanese Zeros and Oscars that were well behind contemporary German fighters in those areas where the lightning held an advantage.



Like I said, the actual combat record of the 110 was pretty impressive in 1939-1940.



> If my comment that all attempts to create a competitive twin engine design during the war were ‘what ifs’ or failures is a sweeping generalisation, please list the successes. No, wait – I’ll do it for you:
> 1.	P-38
> 2.	Daylight.
> I think the twin engine heavy fighter was a useful concept for most air forces, particularly in areas like bomber destroyer and night fighter, but the reality of the twin engine fighter that could match it with the best single engine opposition in combat just didn’t happen.



I agree more or less that SE fighters were overall superior in tactical performance. Still TEF should not be written off so easily. Usually TEF were far more versatile than SEF.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 23, 2012)

There is one inherent flaw in the conventional twin engine design - it will always be playing catch-up to single engine designs in rate of roll. A twin engine design might achieve the same or better power to weight ratio and the same wingloading figure and therefore match single engine fighters in climb, acceleration, speed etc. But when it begins a roll a twin engine fighter must overcome the inertia of those two heavy engines hung on either side of its rotational axis. Roll rate is very important for a fighter as every aerobatic manouver except a loop involves a roll. The slower the roll rate, the more time you are vulnerable before you can change direction. Inversely, having a faster roll rate means you will be into your turn while the guy on your tail is still waiting to get the wings over far enough to follow.
I'm not suggesting that every single engine fighter could out-roll every twin engine fighter but I suspect this may be one reason why twin engine designs, even ones with competitive power to weight ratios and similar speed and climb, tended to struggle against single engine opposition in combat.


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2012)

I never said that the Luftwaffe/RLM didn't want a heavy fighter. I said it was wed to the zerstorer concept. The Fw 187 did not meet the RLM's "advertisement" for a zerstorer. If someone asks for an apple and you offer them an orange there is a good chance that they will not accept it. Focke-Wulf's attempt at a zerstorer was the Fw 57 which was rightly rejected because it was a terrible aeroplane. I believe that the addition of the second seat was a vain attempt by Focke-Wulf to make the Fw 187 fit the specification better.

Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.

I'm aware of some early Focke-Wulf proposals for what was to become the Focke-Wulf 190. The RLM number 190 was first applied on the contract for the first three prototypes and these were to have a radial engine. Anything else is just a concept. Aviation history is littered with paper covered in design proposals that never made it off the drawing board.

Finally a couple of simple questions that none of the FW 187 supporters have answered. 
If the Fw 187 was such a remarkable machine,and it was undoubtedly a good design,why didn't the RLM leap at the opportunity it presented and put it into production?
What do you see in the Fw 187 that all the men of the Luftwaffe and RLM did not.......or vice-versa?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Aug 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> You mean, what was it about the P-38s design that made it better than any of the other twin engine fighters of the war? Good question. Im sure there are plenty of Lightning buffs out there with thoughts to offer


 
Yes, I thought you (or anyone else) can tell me.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 23, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109. It was hardly such an inferior plane, the existing types were about as fast as the 109 or the Spit, carried heavier armament and had slightly greater range, and more important: the ability to extend that range with external tanks. The British tested this aircraft, and in most ways it was very similar in handling to the 109, rolling ability was practically the same, the turning radii being slightly greater at 1000 feet compared to 885 feet. Even that 1000 feet was quite similiar to later Fw 190 actually...
> 
> Tante, are you serious? Everything I've ever read about the Bf110 has told me it was badly outclassed when it met modern single seat fighters, particularly in the BoB and over Europe. Suggesting it was the equal of Hurricanes and Spitfires smacks of revisionism. Galland thought it was a dog, Bader thought it was easy meat and I remember a quote from the leading 110 ace of the BoB (nine kills I think); "You had to be good and lucky to survive in a Bf110" Like you said, twin engine fighters had their uses but hoding up the 110 as an example of one that could compete with single engine designs in combat? C'mon!


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109.



You will not find a bigger fan of the Bf 110,nor a man more knowledgeable about it than John Vasco and yet even he concedes that.

"The Western campaign of May/June 1940 exposed the shortcomings of the aircraft."

The most successful Bf 110 unit of the BoB was the bomb carrying ErPr.Gr. 210 with its Ds and Es. It was the only Bf 110 unit which was itself escorted and it success in a fighter bomber capacity pointed the way to the future use of the type,particularly on the Eastern Front.

By 1941 the Bf 110 had effectively disappeared,as a day fighter,from the skies of Western Europe. There must be a reason for this and if as you suggest,it was the best of the four main fighters engaged in the BoB I'm struggling to find one.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 23, 2012)

I suggest reading this post: Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Me110: Ill-used in BoB

The relevant part:



> The blatant failure of the Bf 110 in air to air fighting in the BoB is often repeated in literature. Christer Bergström in his book ”Luftstrid över kanalen”(1), 2006, has analyzed the victory and loss statistics in the BoB and presents a different picture to the usually repeated "Bf 110 fighter BoB disaster" scenario.
> 
> The confirmed aerial victories achieved by Bf 109 units amounted to 815 while the Bf 110 units gathered 407 confirmed victories.
> A comparison between confirmed victories and operational losses due to air battles gives at hand that in the period 8 August to end of October 1940:
> ...



Worth pondering on IMHO.



stona said:


> By 1941 the Bf 110 had effectively disappeared,as a day fighter,from the skies of Western Europe. There must be a reason for this and if as you suggest,it was the best of the four main fighters engaged in the BoB I'm struggling to find one.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



I think the reason is that most of them were needed in the newly formed Nachtjagd, where most 110s units went for the lack of any other suitable aircraft (Jumo engined 109s were also pressed into this role, though obviously were not super-fitting for such task).


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Hello Tomo,
> Re your comments, my reputation as a P-38 hater should be firmly established by now. But without rehashing all my previous rantings on the subject, no *the P-38 did not do whatever the ‘best fighter could do’*. The ‘best fighters’ were 109Gs and Fw190s in the ETC. The P-38 had the range to get to them when contemporary single engine designs did not, but in combat it struggled until the L models arrived – by which time single engine designs were doing the same job for much less cost.



Hi, Cane,
For the starters, I don't believe in 'haters' of any plane 
Re bolded part, yes, P-38 was able to do, at least in 1942 to end of 1943, what ever the best single engined planes were capable to. From escorting bombers, intercepting enemy planes (both above home turf and above enemy held territory, type of the plane notwithstanding), mixing it against SE oposition. Opposite was not true (SE fighters doing whatever P-38 was capable to do); Zero and Yak-9D were firmly in 350 mph speed capability, 109, 190 and Spit lacking the combat range.
If you could provide firm evidence that P-38 struggled, or suffered vs. Luftwaffe, please post your data.



> The BF110got chewed up in the BoB. The Bf109 did not. For much of the time they were used for the same role so clearly the 110 was inferior to it’s single engine opposition.



Bf-109 was able to fly above S. England, do some fighting, and then scoot back to France since the fuel gauge is disturbing the pilot. Not the case for 110*. Then we need to look at the tactics - Bf-110 suffered far more for flying at bomber speeds and altitude (ie. slow and at 15000 ft, give or take) - not a bright prospect for an heavy fighter. You can note that, once the USAAF escorts abandoned such an escort (close escort), their scores soared, while B-17/24 losses dwindled. Then we return to the fact that Bf-110 wan NOT an ideal heavy fighter, it was simply too big heavy (yet faster than anything SE, bar Spit 109), and as such it should be flown above in front of the bombers, at higher speeds, so it's able to dive at defenders. Again, close escort rules forbade that, with known consequences. 
Btw, what were the accomplishments of the Bf-109 units in the BoB? Like none, maybe?



> Regarding my comparison between the Whirlwind and the Typhoon, I’m happy for you that you smile so easily but my point was that when the Whirlwind was withdrawn from service it was replaced by the Typhoon, not an improved Whirlwind or some other twin engine design.



RAF did not have on it's disposition, say, 7 single engined and 4 twin engined fighters, capable to carry 4 cannons, while being of high performance, to replace Whirlwind. The only plane to do that was Typhoon. In my book, having only one choice means that there is no choice.



> I mentioned that 210s and 410 got chewed up by single engine opposition and you noted that so did Yaks and late war zeros. How is that relevant? Yaks and Zeros took a hammering at different times in the war because they faced superior opposition, but they also had their periods of ascendency.



210 and 410 were planes with outdated wing profiles, bomb bay, movable MGs, tailored for the crew of two, and simply too big - hardly a recipe for a competitive day fighter. I mean, 3500 HP, yet under 390 MPH?? Same power in a push-pull configuration yields what, 450-470 mph, but Germans were too late to employ such a design.
Zeros Yaks are very relevant - proving that it's not enough to design produce a SE fighter, it need to be very good if one does not want to send his trained pilots to die. Same as 210 410.



> Name me a twin engine fighter that dominated single engine opposition for any period during the war? The only example I can think of that comes close would be the P-38 in the Pacific against Japanese Zeros and Oscars that were well behind contemporary German fighters in those areas where the lightning held an advantage.



Why not to name a single engined fighter, from early 1942 to late 1943, that was able to, say, escort the bombers some 500 miles, then dominate the P-38 (from SL to 40000 ft), and then return to it's base? 



> If my comment that all attempts to create a competitive twin engine design during the war were ‘what ifs’ or failures is a sweeping generalisation, please list the successes. No, wait – I’ll do it for you:
> 1.	P-38
> 2.	Daylight.
> I think the twin engine heavy fighter was a useful concept for most air forces, particularly in areas like bomber destroyer and night fighter, but the reality of the twin engine fighter that could match it with the best single engine opposition in combat just didn’t happen.



Reality was the P-38. 
British missed the train with Whirlwind (tailored for the wrong Rolls Royce engine type), Gloster's TE fighter (too bad no Merlin there), but scored with Hornet. German Bf-110 was a very useful machine, yet messed up by low numbers wrong tactics in BoB, 210 410 were woo big, Fw-187 was not given a chance with DB-601s, Do-335 was great, but too late. Soviet Pe-2I/3 was again a tad too big for engine power.

*added: seems like 110 was not suffering too much, as noted in the above post


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I think the reason is that most of them were needed in the newly formed Nachtjagd, where most 110s units went for the lack of any other suitable aircraft (Jumo engined 109s were also pressed into this role, though obviously were not super-fitting for such task).



You could take Theo Boiten's view,particularly regarding the expansion of the night fighter force,as opposed to Christer Bergstrom's.

"...The defensive Nachtjagd was being expanded rapidly by the end of 1940. Many units flying the twin engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 C Zerstorer aircraft were converted to night fighting duties after the types debacle during the Battle of Britain."

The most obvious specific debacle would be the failiure of the Bf 110 to protect the bombers of Luftflotte 5 on 15/10/40. 12 and 13 Groups had themselves a field day,shooting down 16 bombers and 7 of the escorting Bf 110s. 

It is fair to say that the Bf 110 formed the backbone of Germany's night fighter force for the rest of the war. It was a good aeroplane,of that there is no doubt.

They were also needed in the East where they performed very well in more of a fighter bomber role.
This new role was also found for the Hurricane,another aircraft which,for entirely different reasons,was becoming uncompetitive as what we would today call an air superiority fighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2012)

Me110: Ill-used in BoB - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

This is thread Tante Ju took his quote from. Juha's comment in Post #7 should be read.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 23, 2012)

spicmart said:


> What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
> The Genius of its designer?



Well, Kelly Johnson's CV is as an impressive one 
Part of the success of the P-38 was it's size - people at Lockheed wanted a plane that would be just big enough to mount 2 engines, pilot, lethality package fuel (plus accessories). 2 engines of 1000 HP (initially) were chosen since the one engine that was to deliver 1500 HP* (as it would be needed in an single engined fighter that would be able to do things required) was not present in late 1939s in the USA.
As noted elsewhere, other nation's TE fighters were either too big, or were using dead end engines - Lockheed was right about plane's size choice of powerplants for their P-38.

*turbo R-2600, maybe (ducks for cover  )?


----------



## spicmart (Aug 23, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Well, Kelly Johnson's CV is as an impressive one
> Part of the success of the P-38 was it's size - people at Lockheed wanted a plane that would be just big enough to mount 2 engines, pilot, lethality package fuel (plus accessories). 2 engines of 1000 HP (initially) were chosen since the one engine that was to deliver 1500 HP* (as it would be needed in an single engined fighter that would be able to do things required) was not present in late 1939s in the USA.
> As noted elsewhere, other nation's TE fighters were either too big, or were using dead end engines - Lockheed was right about plane's size choice of powerplants for their P-38.
> 
> *turbo R-2600, maybe (ducks for cover  )?





Thank you for a least giving an answer. 
While the P-38 had the luck of being at the right time in the right place (engine and design wise) as you stated I cannot see why the P-38 design per se (without engines) should be superior to any of its counterparts (Fw 187, Ki-83, DH Hornet, F7F) which are all of similar size (with the exception of the Tigercat of course but which had the right engines to make it not less than competitive). 
I have yet to see an explanation for the alleged superiority of the P-38 design (against TE oppsition) including late war models which had impressive performance and a rate of roll matching or surpassing those of SE fighters thanks to boosted ailerons.
A feature sometimes mentioned to illustrate the awesomeness of the late P-38s.
At that time the late war versions of the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were equipped with these ailerons. 


Cheers


----------



## DonL (Aug 23, 2012)

> I never said that the Luftwaffe/RLM didn't want a heavy fighter. I said it was wed to the zerstorer concept. The Fw 187 did not meet the RLM's "advertisement" for a zerstorer. If someone asks for an apple and you offer them an orange there is a good chance that they will not accept it. Focke-Wulf's attempt at a zerstorer was the Fw 57 which was rightly rejected because it was a terrible aeroplane. I believe that the addition of the second seat was a vain attempt by Focke-Wulf to make the Fw 187 fit the specification better.



So you know what Wever and Wimmer wanted? The men who initiated the Ural Bomber and at 1936 the He 177, and both with a strategic plan for the LW? And the advertisement at 1936 was from Wever and Wimmer!
I'm with you that the Bf 110 won 1936 but as I told in my posts before, Bf wasn't able to get a real production on the way (we are not talking of a mass production, we are talking simply of any production). Bf were noobies with the production issue and very busy with the Bf 109! The initiation of the Bf 110 production took at least 3 years with major help from Gotha and that brought the FW 187 in game. 

It's clearly documented from original documents that Udet didn't believe that the Bf 110 could achieve all requirements from the advertisement of 1936, he had real doubts of the fighter ability's of the Bf 110 and with the lacking production of the Bf 110 and the DB 600/601 engine, he ordered the prototypes of the FW 187 after the flight of the V1!
The comparation flights of the FW 187 V4 at Rechlin September/Oktober 1938 against the Bf 109B and the Bf 110B are documented!
The FW 187 clearly outclased the Bf 110 at speed, climb and rolling with absolute the same armament as the Bf 110 with nearly the same internal fuel and payload and also outclased the Bf 109B at speed and rolling and was equal at climb and turning!
After that Udet ordered the preproduction series of the FW 187A and also ordered the FW 187B (with DB 601 engines) as first mass produced model.
Göring canceled this order of the FW 187B and overruled Udet!



> Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.



Do you want to joke with me?
The drawing dated 18.07.1938 and the 1:1 blank were the reasons of the order of the three prototypes from the RLM!
Focke-Wulf FW 190 A. Die ersten Baureihen: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann,Ulrich Levernez,Eberhard Weber: Bücher
from Dietmar Hermann!



> Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.



There is nothing to discuss, because the development of the FW 190A is very well documented from original documents from FW and the RLM!
Focke-Wulf FW 190 A. Die ersten Baureihen: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann,Ulrich Levernez,Eberhard Weber: Bücher Dietmar Hermann!
The mandate to develope a second fighter next to the Bf 109 was given to FW exclusive 1937, the decission to built with a radial engine was at the beginning of 1938 and the order of the three prototypes was at summer 1938 after the drawing dated 18.07.1938 and the 1:1 blank were shown to the RLM! So you should explain, how a team which was developing a fighter since the end of 1937 to summer 1938 has any link to the Spitfire! That's are facts from original documents and to say it clear:


> Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others


this is total equal to me, or you show me primary sources, because Mr. Hermann has shown primary sources in his book!



> Finally a couple of simple questions that none of the FW 187 supporters have answered.
> If the Fw 187 was such a remarkable machine,and it was undoubtedly a good design,why didn't the RLM leap at the opportunity it presented and put it into production?
> What do you see in the Fw 187 that all the men of the Luftwaffe and RLM did not.......or vice-versa?



That' very easy to explain, the FW 187 wasn't as popular *at and after* the war as for example the He 100 and didn't achieve a world speed record. Many primary sources were forgotten!
Dietmar Hermann had done the research which his very good connections to FW, to find primary sources of the FW 187 at the FW company itself or from former FW engineers at private. Also he had done the research to the official documents of the RLM and the Luftwaffe about the FW 187. The FW 187 wasn't at any time any propaganda a/c and only the insider of the RLM/LW and the pilots from Norway and Denmark knew real facts about the FW 187! 
He was the first who formed a complete picture of the FW 187 with primary sources and the personnel reviews of the pilots.
Also the performance of the testflight's of the FW 187V are from primary sources next to the performance of the FW 187A's at Norway.
Today there are several possibilitys to estimate the performance potential of an a/c with the right software, if you have clear data's from primary sources. This analys was done with the primary source data's of the FW 187 and so you can get a good picture of the possible performance, also this analys is very equal to the estimations of the FW engineers which were working on the FW 187!

1. Göring denied the Fw 187 and he played the big decider after the dead of Wever, because he was jealous of the success of Wever, Wimmer and Milch, so he introduced himself back as the great chief and decider! 
2. Also Stumpf and Kesselring stated that Görings attitude to work and his attitude to facts was nil and also his whole attitude was more like a child which lived from old memorys and making decision under the influence of alcohol or don't make decisions because he hadn't any desire to make decisions.
3. Also I want to mention that Göring was a Junkie since the end of the Twentys, who get regulary a clean morphine shot, that's from primary sources
4. Some Officers also Kesselring and Stumpf claimed that Göring had some very special relationship to the ZG's with Bf 110, some said he loved the Bf 110 and prefered it over the Bf 109!
5. The pilots at 1940/41 at Norway preferd the FW 187A's over the Bf 110C. 
As Göring get knowledge about this issue he ordered the FW 187's to Denamark 
6. After the debacel of the Bf 110 at BoB and Norway some Officers mentioned to Göring, that this had not to be happened, if the FW 187 would be in production. After that Göring gave the direct order that nobody ever mentioned the FW 187 to him and ordered the FW 187A's back to Bremen


----------



## davebender (Aug 23, 2012)

Having superior weapons is a great deterrent to hostile nations. Hence the large scale deception to convince Britain and France the He-100/He-113 was operational and in mass production.

During 1939 the Fw-187 was clearly superior to all other fighter aircraft. If Germany managed to get a Jagdgeschwader of Fw-187 operational by the summer of 1939 it has the potential to deter Britain and/or France from declaring war during September 1939. How soon could the Fw-187 enter mass production if Germany gave the program top priority?


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 23, 2012)

WOW, so now the Fw 187 could have prevented WW2!!!
Dave, you've come up with something so far out there, I don't have a effing clue how to respond.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2012)

davebender said:


> Having superior weapons is a great deterrent to hostile nations. Hence the large scale deception to convince Britain and France the He-100/He-113 was operational and in mass production.
> 
> During 1939 the Fw-187 was clearly superior to all other fighter aircraft. If Germany managed to get a Jagdgeschwader of Fw-187 operational by the summer of 1939 it has the potential to deter Britain and/or France from declaring war during September 1939. How soon could the Fw-187 enter mass production if Germany gave the program top priority?


 
So, will having a production Fw 187 in 1939 stop Germany invading Poland?


----------



## davebender (Aug 24, 2012)

That's a bit of a stretch. WWII was actually multiple wars fought for various reasons in widely separated locations around the planet. Germany had nothing to do with most of these conflicts.

Late 1930s was an era when bomber barons had many European populations afraid of air attack using poison gas. Civilians in Britain and France were purchasing gas masks in large numbers. Hence anything which makes the Luftwaffe stronger (or appear to be stronger) could have a deterrent effect all out of proportion to actual military capability. That could alter Anglo-French decisions to attack Germany during September 1939. 

Personally I doubt Germany could produce enough Fw-187s by the summer of 1939 to make a difference but DonL appears to be the forum Fw-187 expert. I'm hoping for a production estimate.


----------



## DonL (Aug 24, 2012)

I have given my estimation.

I'm neither convinced of the He 100 (equal the D with normal cooling or the water evaporation cooling) nor to cut anything at the Bf 109E mass production. 
According the RLM would order the FW 187 to be mass produced end of 1938 with Focker Wulf and Gotha, to my opinion earlier isn't possible, perhaps 150-200 aircrafts will be delivered end 1939, operation ready at April 1940. 
At 1940 something about 1500 a/c's could be produced, depending how much material and engines are available.
Without fail the 1250 Bf 110 which were produced 1939/1940 could be reached, with more material and engines the numbers above.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2012)

Man, this alternative history is getting rather strange, are we discussing some science fiction novel?

" WWII was actually multiple wars fought for various reasons in widely separated locations around the planet. Germany had nothing to do with most of these conflicts."

Let me see if I have this right. 

Germany had nothing to do with the Spanish civil war?
Germany had nothing to do with the the war in North Africa?
Germany had nothing to do with the war in the Balkens?
Germany had nothing to do with some of the fighting in Iraq?
Germany was just defending itself against Poland?

Granted Germany had little or nothing to do with the fight in the Pacific but it didn't have to declare war on the US right after Pearl Harbor either.

"That could alter Anglo-French decisions to attack Germany during September 1939"

Yep, the Fw 187 in numbers could have caused the British and French to renounce their treat obligations to Poland and cowardly hide while the Germans rolled over yet another country.


----------



## DonL (Aug 24, 2012)

I also disagree with this strange political appraisements!

I wanted to discuss the optimal heavy fighter for the LW 1940!
And as I wrote no FW 187 ZG would be also under optimal circumstances realy operational ready at 1939!

That's a fact from all sources I have read about tooling, mass production and training.

Edit: A mass produced FW 187 from beginning 1939 would had only direct influence at BoF, Dünklirchen and BoB.
But I have my doubts that this influence at BoB, my personal estimation are 350-400 a/c's would be that large, because the supply on trained pilots was a real problem at BoB for the LW. So I think the casualties of pilots and a/c's for the RAF would be higher and less for the LW but at the end there would also be a strategic retreat for the LW!


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 24, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Thank you for a least giving an answer.



No problems 



> While the P-38 had the luck of being at the right time in the right place (engine and design wise) as you stated I cannot see why the P-38 design per se (without engines) should be superior to any of its counterparts (Fw 187, Ki-83, DH Hornet, F7F) which are all of similar size (with the exception of the Tigercat of course but which had the right engines to make it not less than competitive).



Against the counterparts you've stated, there was nothing special P-38, as an airframe, was offering. It's wing was tick, twin boom design with short central nacelle was preventing easy addition of second crew member more fuel, twin booms do restrict field of view. 
You can note that 3 of the 4 you've stated are far younger designs, too.



> I have yet to see an explanation for the alleged superiority of the P-38 design (against TE oppsition) including late war models which had impressive performance and a rate of roll matching or surpassing those of SE fighters thanks to boosted ailerons. A feature sometimes mentioned to illustrate the awesomeness of the late P-38s.



From early 1942 'till 1945, P-38s were not encountering TE oposition worth speaking about. Prototypes aside.
I've adressed the TE designs of the other countries their capabilities earlier in the thread.



> At that time the late war versions of the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were equipped with these ailerons.
> 
> 
> Cheers


----------



## davebender (Aug 24, 2012)

That's about what I figured. Fw-187 production would parallel historical Ju-88 and Me-110 programs. 1939 production less then 100 total aircraft as most of the year would be for training factory workers and fixing glitches in the production process. Large scale production would begin during 1940. Exactly how large depends on how many manufacturing centers are allocated to the Fw-187 program.


----------



## DonL (Aug 24, 2012)

Translation issue


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> That's a bit of a stretch. WWII was actually multiple wars fought for various reasons in widely separated locations around the planet. Germany had nothing to do with most of these conflicts.



Sometimes I really wonder about you...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> Having superior weapons is a great deterrent to hostile nations. Hence the large scale deception to convince Britain and France the He-100/He-113 was operational and in mass production.
> 
> During 1939 the Fw-187 was clearly superior to all other fighter aircraft. If Germany managed to get a Jagdgeschwader of Fw-187 operational by the summer of 1939 it has the potential to deter Britain and/or France from declaring war during September 1939. How soon could the Fw-187 enter mass production if Germany gave the program top priority?



Superior to "all other fighter aircraft"?

Sorry, But I have to call bullshit on this...


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

So the reason that the Fw 187 wasn't adopted by the RLM/Luftwaffe was Goering?

Goering had his manifest shortcomings,I'm no fan of the man,but that is far too simplistic an answer. If others in the RLM/Luftwaffe had seen the world beating,war winning aircraft you perceive it would have been produced.
I'm well aware of and greatly respect Hermann's research but a balanced view can be obtained by reading the opinions and conclusions of other researchers. Noone has a monopoly on the tuth. 

And Davebender,the US was involved in every theatre of WW2,if not by a physical,military,presence then by its economy. Soldiers on the ground might ultimately occupy the opposition's capital,but they won't get there if they've nothing to fight with.

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 25, 2012)

> Superior to "all other fighter aircraft"?
> 
> Sorry, But I have to call bullshit on this...



This isn't bullshit from the data's that existed from primary sources.



> If others in the RLM/Luftwaffe had seen the world beating,war winning aircraft you perceive it would have been produced.



Then please name the "others" which can overrule Göring! Udet was chief of the technical department. He, is officers and engineers ordered the FW 187 V's after the flight of the V1 at 1937. The technical department ordered also the preproduction series after the FW 187V4 flights at Rechlin 1938 and wanted that a FW 187B with DB 601 would go in production.

So the officers and engineers of the technical department were pro FW 187, but the FW 187 in production means, no further production of the Bf 110!


----------



## davebender (Aug 25, 2012)

Could be true but I don't fully trust post-war statements by German leaders when it comes to assigning blame for mistakes. Blaming someone dead is especially easy as the man cannot defend himself.

Hitler was everyone's favorite scapegoat. Albert Speer tried hard to blame delayed production of the Me-262 on him. However there is no serious discussion of Speer's decision not to produce the Jumo 004A engine which was ready during 1943. Speer also offers no serious explanation for non production of the Jumo 222A engine, delayed production of the DB603 engine and the Me-210/Me-410 fiasco which began the same month he became Armaments Minister.

Udet and Goering both blame Milch for production of the He-177A rather then the 4 engine He-177B. Goering was Milch's boss during 1938 when that decision was made. If Goering always wanted the He-177B as he claims then why didn't he over ride Milch's decision?

Dr. Tank preferred Daimler Benz engines. RLM pushed development of radial engines during the late 1930s. Focke Wulf appears to have bent over backward in an attempt to use the non-existant (as of 1938) BMW801 engine for their new fighter aircraft in order to acquire a lucrative production contract.

The military industrial complex is ruled by politics and that's never going to change. Nor is shifting of blame when something goes wrong.


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

DonL said:


> but the FW 187 in production means, no further production of the Bf 110!



Now we may be getting somewhere!

Davebender,it's not often I can say this but I agree to a large degree with your post above. It's partly why I said that the "blame Goering" is far too simplistic.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

DonL said:


> This isn't bullshit from the data's that existed from primary sources.



I think BS was called because noone has any idea how the Fw 187 would have perforemed in combat. Extrapolating from the performance figures of half a dozen prototypes ( I assume you would ignore the Jumo powered "production" run of three) is an excercise needing caution.

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2012)

DonL said:


> So the officers and engineers of the technical department were pro FW 187, but the FW 187 in production means, no further production of the Bf 110!



The Question is if the Fw 187 could really do the same job in 1939/40 as the Bf 110. 

The question of radio fit ( required radio needed separate operator) , desired combat duration ( second crew man reloaded the 20mm cannon) and questions of field performance ( did the Fw 187 require a longer airstrip?) all factor in as much as top speed, climb and turning ability. Granted the field performance might be the first to be waived but it was a definite limit in several air forces until the bullets actually started flying. 

I don't know what part of the requirement for the Bf 110 required space for an occasional 3rd crew member but that bit required both a bigger fuselage and bigger wing than even a strict two seater. Air forces were seldom purchasing aircraft that failed to meet requirements, no matter how far fetched or out of touch with reality those requirements were.


----------



## davebender (Aug 25, 2012)

What job are you referring to? 

The Me-110 was an aircraft in search of a purpose. It found that purpose during 1940 when the German night fighter force was created from scratch. But what was the purpose during 1937 when the Fw-187 was rejected in favor of the Me-110?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> Speer also offers no serious explanation for non production of the Jumo 222A engine,



Did he really need to?

The thing barely worked.


----------



## davebender (Aug 25, 2012)

The Jumo 222A engine was a large program which consumed a considerable amount of development money. Not to mention a huge factory complex constructed from scratch to produce the engine. How can a serious discussion of WWII German armaments production avoid discussing such a large program?


----------



## cimmex (Aug 25, 2012)

Don’t forget at this time there was still peacetime production and peacetime thinking in Germany. After several very quick and rather easy victories there was a general opinion: “we’ll win the war with the existing weapons and there is no need at all to spend money in new equipment”
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> What job are you referring to?
> 
> The Me-110 was an aircraft in search of a purpose. It found that purpose during 1940 when the German night fighter force was created from scratch. But what was the purpose during 1937 when the Fw-187 was rejected in favor of the Me-110?



It was designed as a "destroyer". According to Luftwaffe doctrine it was supposed to clear a path for the bombers, and provide long range reconnaissance. 
The original concept was (whatever DonL thinks) for the aircraft to be capable as a "light" bomber and was put out to tender in June 1934. The RLM's further requirement for a high speed bomber in early 1935 meant that the Bf 110 became more of a pure "zerstorer".

The Vultee report hit the nail on the head.

"The Messerschmitt Me 110 [sic] long-range fighter is an aircraft designed for blitzkrieg production as well as blitzkrieg warfare." 


Clearing a path for the bombers,against a well organised and determined defence,equipped with competitive single engined fighters proved a bridge to far for the Bf 110.One area in which the type did well in the BoB was as a fighter bomber,attacking precision targets.

It did,as you say,form the backbone of the Nachtjagd for the rest of the war and proved quite capable as a fighter bomber on the Eastern Front. The Fw 187 couldn't have performed the first role and we'll never know how it would have done in the second.

It was the success of the Bf 110 in these unintended or secondary roles that militates against its cancellation in favour of another twin engined type.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 25, 2012)

> It was designed as a "destroyer". According to Luftwaffe doctrine it was supposed to clear a path for the bombers, and provide long range reconnaissance.
> The* original concept was (whatever DonL thinks) for the aircraft to be capable as a "light" bomber and was put out to tender in June 1934*. The RLM's further requirement for a high speed bomber in early 1935 meant that the Bf 110 became more of a pure "zerstorer".



This is simply bogus!

The original concept *RüstflugzeugII/III* was a heavy fighter to *escort* Bombers!

The Priorities:

speed (400 km/h at 6 km altitude)
range (2000 km)
climb (15 min auf 6 km)
turning

Don't tell something what isn't true the intention of the destroyer/zerstörer was to escort bombers.

Also it's rather suspicious to ask after the combat performance of the FW 187!
The three preproduction aircrafts were in combat from 1940 till 1942 at Norway Denmark and Bremen, also combat was simulated at Rechlin with the V4!

There is nothing that the Bf 110 can do, that the FW 187 can't do (the nightfighter role *with onboard radar since mid 1942* is debatable). And to me it is near ridiculous to question that perhaps the FW 187 hadn't the estimated performance. The FW 187A0 at Norway performed better from hard facts and the opinion of the pilots with Jumo 210G engines against the Bf 110 C1/2 with DB 601 engines. That's a fact you can't ignore and there nothing to discuss.

@ shortround 6

I will email to Mr. Hermann of the radio issue, but I think the Fw 187 could take the same radio equipment as the Bf 110.
The FW 187 is in "need for a longer landingstrip" compare to the Bf 110.

The nozzle retraction speed for a FW 187B with DB 601E engines and 6000kg full loaded (fuel and ammo) would be 152km/h.
The landingspeed would be 139km/h at 5000kg.

That's roughly the same nozzle retraction- and landing speed of a FW 190A.
So why should one a/c rejected for this, but you are developing an otherone with the same datas?


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

No, The layout of the Zerstorer as a strategic reconnaissance aircraft and bomber was well established by the time of the Rustungfleugzeug II of 1932.It is not known whether the idea of using the basic aircraft type for three roles came from within the RLM or from one of the tendering companies.
It is in 1934 that Messerschmitt and Robert Lusser (who has now left Heinkel) meet with the RLM to discuss the Zerstorer concept. This is after the Luftwaffe has decided that the original concept would be slower and heavier than the bombers it was supposed to protect. Following these meetings Messerschmitt submits Memorandum P 1035 to the RLM which offers a pure zestorer design and versions as a strategic reconnaissance aircraft and a bomber. The variants differ fundamentally only in the design of the fuselage. Henschel's engineers came up with versions where only the nose section changed! It is at this point,1934,that the Zerstorer has effectively been seperated from the Kamfzerstorer. The first of these concepts,offered in P 1035 went on to become the Bf 110.

I cannot emphasise enough that the Fw 187 was not competing against the Bf 110.The competing types were the Fw 57,Hs 124. The difference both dimensionally and conceptually between these three is because the Luftwaffe and RLM had not finalised the type and hoped to find the best from the three alternatives offered.

The reason that the RLM isued a requirement for a high speed bomber in early 1935 was that it was well aware of problems with the bomber-destroyer concept and now wanted specialised types. This played into the hands of Messerschmitt and his Bf 110.
It is only in November 1935 that the RLM finally decides that the Bf 110 will be developed as a Zerstorer and orders the high speed bomber mock up (Bf 110 V4) to be developed as the Bf 161 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft.
At this time the RLM notes that it considers the Bf 110 Zerstorer version to be capable as a high speed bomber and even supplies BFW with additional technical requirements for that role. The bomber role had not gone away.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Aug 25, 2012)

You overlook totaly the "development" of the Rüstflugzeug III at 1934!

This was exactky a typ to escort bombers as Heavy fighter. 
At 1937 the Bf 110 was named Heavy fighter at the order program of the RLM!

And we are here in this thread discussing *the ideal heavy fighter for the LW 1940*!

The Fw 187V4 outperformed the Bf 110B in every role except turining at Rechlin 1938.

What is your intention stona? Do you want suggest the Bf 110 performed better then the FW 187?

From 1939 till 1943 the Bf 110 was in the role of the heavy fighter at BoF, BoB, Norway and Malta and I have explained very exactly, that first the FW 187 could play the nightfighter role till the onboard radar, because it could be flown at night and bad weather equal to the Bf 110, and the eyes of the nightfighters till mid 1942 was the groundstation Himmelbett, also there are alternatives with the Do 215B5 Kautz III.
Second the Fw 187 had a good payload so it's able to carry also bombs under the fuselage (the project from 1942 (DB 605)was explicit with 1000kg bombs), third the performance of the FW 187 A0( Jumo 210G) was equal to better as the Bf 110 C1/2 (DB 601a).

So it is a no brainer, that the FW 187 would be in the same league or better as the Bf 109E with DB 601a engines as a two seater heavy fighter.
The estimations and plans from Focker Wulf were very exact for all there projekted a/c's the whole war, which were given to the RLM!
All estimation of the FW 190 A 3-9 /F/G D-9 and Tank 152 were reached in reality from production airecrafts.
Also modern software and calculations confirmed the estimations of Focker Wulf about the FW 187!

Fw 187B with DB 601a engines
empty: 4300kg
loaded: 5700kg 
4 x 7,92 MG + 2 x 2cm FF
estimated speed at 5km 615km/h at SL 525km/h
climb performance ~ 4,5 to 5 min to 5km
1110 Liter internal fuel.


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

Tell me which RLM specification the FW 187 met.
It is not a Zerstorer. Even with the second crew position it does not meet that designation.
Unlike Focke-Wulf BFW was entirely dependant on RLM contracts and obviously didn't develop the Bf 110 in a vacuum. I wonder what the relationship between the team designing the Fw 187 and the RLM was? 

You are correct that to produce the Fw 187 the Bf 110 would have to have been abandoned. There was competition for engines. On 18 October 1940 the retro fitting of DB 601 N engines,to Bf 109 Es, was stopped in order to fit them to new built Bf 110s and Bf 109 Fs. This was reversed on 6th November when,for two months, the new Bf 110s were to get DB 601 A engines and the Ns were to be fitted in the Bf 109 Es (and as replacements for a couple of zerstorer groups). 
Throw another twin engined fighter into the mix,competing for Daimler Benz engines,and you will come up short. 

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 25, 2012)

An interesting concept was evaluated in Japan, where Kawasaki built test flew the Ki-64. Tandem engine configuration, but with front props, using Japanese produced version of the DB-601A, with surface cooling. With 2300 Hp on board (with basically 2 in line engines), it was estimated to be as fast as 690 km/h - maybe never achieved, since the plane caught fire during the 1st flight.

www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Imperial Japanese Aviation Resource Group - Kawasaki KI.64 "Rob"


----------



## davebender (Aug 25, 2012)

> Throw another twin engined fighter into the mix,competing for Daimler Benz engines,and you will come up short.


Oct 1935.
RLM reduces funding for Genshagen engine factory from RM 50 million to RM 20 million. The reduced size production facility is expected to produce 220 engines per month.

Fixing this problem requires nothing more then simple math and common sense. 100 Fw-187s (per month) require 200 additional engines plus spares. Genshagen engine factory funding must be restored to the full RM 50 million. 

Or you could stick your head in the sand and wonder why there aren't enough DB601 engines to support Fw-187 airframe production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Jumo 222A engine was a large program which consumed a considerable amount of development money. Not to mention a huge factory complex constructed from scratch to produce the engine. How can a serious discussion of WWII German armaments production avoid discussing such a large program?



And the Americans funded an expansion or new factory for the Continental IV-1430, Wright dumped more than a few million into the R-2160 Tornado, probably over a million went into the 0-1230 and H-2340 and the navy was funding the liquid cooled X-1800. The entire US hyper engine program was a complete bust. The XP-49, XP-54, XP-55, XP-56, XP-58 aircraft came to nothing and only the XP-49 was flown at all with the intended engines. 

We can discuss the Jumo 222 program all you want. The program was a bust and the engine didn't work. It had plenty of company. At some point good managers stop throwing good money after bad.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2012)

Well, I suppose Göring could have put the 222 into production.

And they could have put those engines in the airframes designed for the 222.

And they could have ended up with a Vulture/Manchester type situation. Engines catching fire, planes having inadequate performance, etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2012)

The first 3 Fw 187 airframes were single seaters. Whatever use they were in proving systems or aerodynamics they are not competition for the 110. It appears that the FW 187 was designed as a private venture and not as a response to an official requirement. It was later adapted to the two seat configuration in an attempt to compete for the Zerstorer role. As such it may have been coming in late and trying to disrupt an existing program. 

One chart in Hermann Petrick's book on the 187 lists a landing speed of 139kph for the Fw 187 V1 at 3850kg, tested or calculated or misprint I don't know. 
Another chart shows 130kph for a gross weight of 5000kg for the V-4 and 0- series. The maximum speeds in the chart are calculated. Is the landing speed? Range and endurance are listed as at maximum speed????


----------



## DonL (Aug 25, 2012)

I had said this in more then one thread!

The Ju 288 with the Jumo 222 was the pigeon on the roof.
An advertisement of a 1500 PS engine, developed of the existing engines, would be the bird in hand!
Sometimes it is better to have the bird in hand.
The Ju 288 was too ambitioned for 1938 and the coupled engines of the He 177 to get a heavy strategic bomber in a dive was......ridiculously! 

But we are talking of the ideal heavy fighter at 1940 for the LW! Wanted is an a/c which will be equal to a FW 187?!

Edit:


> The first 3 Fw 187 airframes were single seaters


Wrong the first two, the V3 was two seated!
The first order was from von Richthofen at 1936 as a direct deal to built an escort fighter, this was in agreement with Wimmer.

Landingspeed of the Fw 187V4 was 130 km/h at 4100- 4200kg kg!

No, endrance was Reichweite 1.450 km at Marschgeschwindigkeit (1.1 ata)
With Sparleistung 1800km (0.8 ata)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2012)

I actually rather like the Fw 187, I just have a little trouble believing some of the proposed/calculated performance figures. Or believing that the special cooling system could be made to work in combat as well as was hoped. 

Could the special DB 601s be built on the same assembly lines as standard DB 601s? 

Would each "improvement" in the DB series need a corresponding special engine for the Fw 187 that was not interchangeable in any other airframe or would later Fw 187s give up on the special cooling systems and use standard engines and normal radiators with their higher drag?


----------



## DonL (Aug 25, 2012)

Ähm,

shortround6 you are mixing data's

The flight of the V5 at october 1939 with the special "Dampfheißkühlung" was 635 km/h at *SL* (1000m what is near SL)

Here we are talking about a "normal" FW 187 with *normal* cooling -> equal to a Bf 110C!
The estimations of FW were with totaly normal DB 601a production engines without any special cooling, only with the reduced drag from the normal Jumo 210G to the DB 601a.

The Bf 110C4 gained 90 km/h from the Bf 110B to the Bf 110C4.
The Fw 187 was aerodynamacly more efficient then the Bf 110, so the estimated gain from 545km/h (V4) to 615 km/h (FW 187B with DB 601A engines at 5 km altitude) is more then realistic!

The A0 as preproduction a/c reached 525km/h with normal Jumo 210g engines full ammo and fuel.
The A0 based on the V3 and was a little bit more conserative on the cooling side then the V4


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> Oct 1935.
> 
> Fixing this problem requires nothing more then simple math and common sense. 100 Fw-187s (per month) require 200 additional engines plus spares. Genshagen engine factory funding must be restored to the full RM 50 million.



Pie in the sky.

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2012)

DonL said:


> This is simply bogus!
> 
> The original concept *RüstflugzeugII/III* was a heavy fighter to *escort* Bombers!



The Luftwaffe's Tactical Guidelines for the Rustungsflugzeug II (1932)

Role:a) two seat fighter
b)reconnaissance
c) light bomber
No Engines: 1
Crew: 2 men

The Luftwaffe's Tactical Guidelines for the Rustungsflugzeug III (1934)

Role: Heavy fighter
No. Engines: 1-2
Crew: 2-4 men

I can't be bothered to type out the entire specifications (armament,ordnance capacity,speed,endurance etc) but neither of these looks anything like the Fw 187. The aircraft that got accepted was a compromise between the two requirements worked out by Lusser and Messerschmitt at Bayerische Flugzeugwerk in consultation with the RLM.
Ago,Dornier,Gotha,Heinkel,Focke-Wulf and Henschel all had a look at building a Zerstorer,two of them at least definitely built prototypes 

Fw 187 may well have been a competitive heavy fighter had it been produced,despite your quoting of figures actual and theoretical we will never know,but it simply wasn't what the RLM was looking for.

I wonder if the two seat Fw 187 was an attempt to match the Luftwaffe "Heavy Fighter tactical Technical Requirements" of 1936.

Role: anti bomber escort and strategic reconnaissance,attack from behind,above and behind,below and behind.
Day/night capable
Take off and landing often at night

Secondary Role: strikes against enemy ground defences

Type: enclosed canopy,multi seat


In the quest for production capacity everyone has forgotten that Focke-Wulf built the Bf 110 too.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm under the impression the Fw-187 was designed during 1935. So 1935 specifications are what counts. If there are no 1935 specifications then we need to look at 1934. In any case 1932 is far too early.

What is so pie in the sky about investing an additional RM 30 million into DB601 engine production? During 1935 to 1937 Germany ordered 5 Hipper class heavy cruisers @ RM 85 million each plus 2 Bismarck class battleships @ about RM 190 million each plus dozens of destroyers @ RM 13 million each. Not to mention equipment and refurbished training facilities for 36 Heer divisions. Factories for DB601 engine production were a drop in the 1935 Wehrmacht budget of RM 4 billion (per Richard Gaettens).


----------



## cimmex (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> investing an additional RM 30 million into DB601 engine production? During 1935 to 1937 Germany ordered 5 Hipper class heavy cruisers @ RM 85 million each plus 2 Bismarck class battleships @ about RM 190 million each plus dozens of destroyers @ RM 13 million each. Not to mention equipment and refurbished training facilities for 36 Heer divisions. Factories for DB601 engine production were a drop in the 1935 Wehrmacht budget of RM 4 billion (per Richard Gaettens).



This was not an order from Germany but from the KM. Like in all nations the government distributed a certain amount of money to the armies, separated in Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and other divisions. The RLM can not take money from the KM to fund a aircraft motor project. Do you really think the Navy will give money to any Army project in the USA?
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> I'm under the impression the Fw-187 was designed during 1935. So 1935 specifications are what counts. If there are no 1935 specifications then we need to look at 1934. In any case 1932 is far too early.(per Richard Gaettens).



The Luftwaffe didn't really have a clear practical idea what it was after,as reflected in both the multiplicity of prototypes ordered and the constant issuing of updated "Tactical Technical Requirements". If Focke-Wulf had started designing any aircraft in 1935 they would ignore the newer requirements issued in 1936 at their peril. There were also frequent development conferences between the various manufacturers and the RLM.

The pure Zerstorer concept dates to a study of tactics in an _offensive _ air war by Luftwaffe command staff in 1934. It decided on a twin engined,multi seat aircraft,about the size of a light bomber with heavy armament. The guns would be fixed or rotating and the mounts or turrets would cover the air ahead of and above the aircraft and also have a limited lateral arc of fire. They would fly in close formation ahead of an attacking bomber force to clear a path. It is all very theoretical and vague but this is by no stretch of the imagination what some posters concept of a heavy fighter reflects. It is what,in theory,in 1934,the RLM wanted. What this aircraft would actually look like they clearly had no real idea.

Aircraft designs have to evolve. When the British Air Ministry decided,in April 1935 that it wanted a minimum of 6 and preferably 8 machine guns (spec 10/35) in the wings of its new fighters Supermarine adapted their design to incorporate them and Hawker,who were already building the wing for the "Hawker monoplane" altered the wing to comply and deleted the two proposed fuselage guns.
Incidentally it was at this early stage that it was recommended that production of both what was to be the Spitfire and Hurricane be prepared,before the prototypes had flown and more than a year before either actually went into production. The Air Ministry even had a plan to fall back on the Gloster F7/30 "If by some mischance they both should fail."
The British knew exactly what they wanted. 

The two aircraft that we can be sure were developed as a result of the RLM's 1936 update were the Me 210 and Ar 240. Both these aircraft also had to incorporate the later update to requirements of October 1938.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2012)

During the same time frame RLM funded two modern facilities for the production of Jumo 211 engines and funded two more at the start of WWII. Consequently Germany was awash in Jumo 211 engines by 1942 and actually had to scale back production. 

Why not build the Kothen engine plant for Daimler-Benz rather then for Junkers? That should balance out engine supply and demand and it won't cost RLM a single additional pfennig.

*Main Jumo 211 production facilities.*
Junkers Engines - Jumo 211
Magdeburg. 24,267 engines July 1937 to Aug 1944.
Kothen. 20,911 engines 1938 to Feb 1944.
Leipzig. 17,032 engines 1942 to Aug 1944.
Stettin. 4,714 engines produced during 1942.
.....Stettin produced almost 400 engines per month. Twice the size of 1939 Genshagen all by itself!


----------



## cimmex (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why not build the Kothen engine plant for Daimler-Benz rather then for Junkers? That should balance out engine supply and demand and it won't cost RLM a single additional pfennig



Because the Jumo was a reliable bomber engine and at this time the RLM first aim was to built bombers. Offensive power was the doctrine. Fighters always were seen as defensive weapons.
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Because the Jumo was a reliable bomber engine and at this time the RLM first aim was to built bombers. Offensive power was the doctrine. Fighters always were seen as defensive weapons.
> Cimmex



Yes,and this was the reason behind the zerstorer concept.

By 1934 the Luftwaffe was already planning for offensive operations. This came up at the Nuremberg trials as well. One of the charges faced by several defendants was "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances." This is rather wide of the topic 

Steve 
Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2012)

So was the DB601 but WWII Germany didn't have enough DB601 engine production capacity to allow use of Daimler-Benz engines for bomber aircraft. Do-17, Do-217, He-111 and even the Ju-88 all had variants or prototypes powered by DB601 engines. Production cost wasn't an issue either. RLM paid slightly more for a Jumo 211 engine then for a DB601.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 27, 2012)

Common thinking was: Jumos are bomber engines, DBs are fighter engines. Even in 1944 when the first rumours of the Fw190D arrived the fighter pilots they disliked the plane because of its bomber engine.
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Common thinking was: Jumos are bomber engines, DBs are fighter engines. Even in 1944 when the first rumours of the Fw190D arrived the fighter pilots they disliked the plane because of its bomber engine.
> Cimmex



Sort of. 
They were disappointed that the Jumo 213 only developed 1,750 hp which was less than they erroneously believed they got from the BMW 801 of the Anton. It didn't help that Tank himself visited III./JG 54 at Oldenburg and told them that the Dora was only an "emergency solution" until the Ta 152 came on line.
It is only fair to say that after the experienced pilots had flown the D-9 they changed their opinions of this superb aircraft.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

There was more than a little bit of empire building in the 3rd Reich. Who was "in" and who was "out" varied at times. 
To get a really good idea of what was going on engine wise we need a time line of which engines (which models) were _available *WHEN*_ AND when they were _PROMISED_ AND how _LATE_ they may have been. 

DB and Jumo started work around the same time (corrections welcome) the Jumo 210 worked fairly well, The early 211 may have been down a bit in performance but I have read a little about how it was regarded. The DB 600 seems to have been a bit of a disappointment. Reasons aren't usually given. Just vague comments like "unsatisfactory" or "disappointing". 
Both engines were evolving and even 1940-41 versions used different fuel systems (Jumo may have lead with fuel injection?) and supercharger impellers and volutes than the 1936-37 versions. Betting which company would have the superior product in 1941/42 back in 1937 may have been very difficult. How many times was DB late with promised improvements? Or planes had to operate at reduced power levels while problems with "production" engines were sorted out?
I am not saying Junkers did a better job overall, I don't know, but DB seems to have had enough problems that giving them the lion's share of the business might not have been the smart thing to do.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> DB seems to have had enough problems that giving them the lion's share of the business might not have been the smart thing to do.



I'm not particularly familiar with the technicalities of the various engines but having read the minutes of various meetings at the RLM pertaining to actually getting engines working in airframes I think that is true.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

One Kurfurst's web site he has a list of aircraft equipped with the DB 601N engine as of Jan 1st, 1941. it comes to 499 engines _in USE._ 
The specification sheet on the same page is dated 1939. I don't know if they were producing the engine in small numbers while waiting for the 601E because of the 601N's need for 96 octane fuel or what the reason was but 500 in service engines over a year after the spec sheet is published says something about promises and deliveries.

Not to pick on DB alone, plenty of allied engine makers promised more power/earlier delivery than they actually achieved. Russians spent the entire war trying to get some of their engines to run right. 

Good engines or good engine specifications at the end of the war don't tell us how the company was performing before the war. 

Did Jumo engines have a longer overhaul life?


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2012)

Why not let German aircraft designers decide which engine works best rather then dictating engine choice? I think men like Dr Tank and Professor Messerschmitt had a better grasp of aircraft engines then bureaucrats at RLM.


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why not let German aircraft designers decide which engine works best rather then dictating engine choice? I think men like Dr Tank and Professor Messerschmitt had a better grasp of aircraft engines then bureaucrats at RLM.



But not of cooling them or providing enough oil pressure,particularly in the case of Messerschmitt 

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why not let German aircraft designers decide which engine works best rather then dictating engine choice? I think men like Dr Tank and Professor Messerschmitt had a better grasp of aircraft engines then bureaucrats at RLM.



If they had a better grasp of aircraft engines they _SHOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNING AIRCRAFT ENGINES._

Airframe design and engine design were two different specialties. You also don't have the time to figure out which one is best by experience. It can take 4-6 years to get a new engine into production and 1-3 years just for a major revision. 
You have to make educated guesses as to which paper or prototype engine has the best chance of success several years down the road. 

Letting airframe makers get too involved leads to things like the DB 606/610 and the surface cooling fiascoes. The airframe makers want the lowest drag and weight and don't always understand what the _ achievable_ state of the art is in bearing technology, supercharger technology, or combustion chamber design. The engine makers themselves managed to screw up some of those. Expecting the airframe makers to understand the complexities of aircraft engine design *and manufacturing* is just too glib an answer. They had enough to do figuring out what air foils to use, what was needed for control surfaces and how it should be assembled.

It was the "bureaucrats" job in every country to sort out the "probable" from the "barley possible" to the "what were they smoking" proposals. 

See the Douglas XP-48 and the Tucker XP-57 for a couple of the last category, and they got type numbers. One wonders what the "bureaucrats" turned down


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 27, 2012)

What was wrong with the XP-48 it would have been a world beater with its projected 525 mph top speed. Which is amazing with only 525 hp does that mean the Spitfire Mk1 would go 1,000 mph


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

Don L will be happy to know that the Fw 187 wasn't a completely dead duck,even as late as 1942!

I stumbled accross the minutes of an RLM development meeting of 18 August 1942.

"Topic of heavy fighter/high speed bomber/night fighter using one standard type.
The Me 110,Me 210 with DB 601 and/or DB 603,Ar 240,Fw 187,He 219 and Ju 188 are discussed. The Ar 240 is dropped ( because it has the same performance as as the current Me 210).
_In its current form the Fw 187 does not have sufficient range and payload and,due to its cockpit design,is ruled out as a nightfighter._

That's not my opinion but the opinion of the RLM in 1942.

There follows discussion of the pros and cons of the various types. The Me 210 is ruled out by Milch because it would need an entirely new canopy as a nightfighter. Friebel seems to have missed the point of the discussion and suggests the Me 210 as a Zerstorer and the He 219 as a nightfighter. Milch favours the Ju 188 as,unlike the He 219 which is only 20 Km/Hr faster,it could be built using existing facilities. At the end of all this the minute concludes,unsurprisingly,with.

"A decision is not reached." 

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2012)

Sounds like people attending the meeting were only interested in night fighter aircraft. No suggestion at all that it might be nice to have a long range day fighter with heavy firepower for operations over the Med, Bay of Biscay, Norway, intercepting enemy bombers during the daytime etc.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 4, 2012)

In August of 42 Germany had yet to experience any serious daylight bomber raids from the Allies.
The 1000 bomber raid on Cologne in the night of late May, and the night firebombing of Hamburg in late July was probably pretty fresh on their minds.

They probably felt a immediate need for more and better nightfighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2012)

If they were looking for a common airframe for all three roles and a particular airframe cannot perform one of the roles, it is _OUT_, no matter how _NICE_ it would be to have a second airframe for that role.


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

Well the topic was for a heavy fighter/high speed bomber/and nightfighter using one type for all three roles. 
This harks back (with the obvious exception of the nightfighter) to those earlier requirements of 1932/34.

The minutes are too long too type here but though no decision was reached the Me 210 was clearly the favourite in a Zerstorer role,but doesn't appear to be considered as a nightfighter.Friebel may not have been alone in missing the point of the meeting.

By this time "Zerstorer" and "heavy fighter" have become interchangeable terms. The original intention of a multi crewed turret fighter clearing a path for the bombers is long gone.
The He 219 was considered an ideal nightfighter but too "luxurious" (not my translation,maybe "extravagant") to be a zerstorer!

Interestingly at a meeting with Milch a month later (9/9/42) an Oberstleutnant Peterson reports to the Generalfeldmarschall that Messerschmitt will deliver 210 Me 210s with DB 603 engines by mid January 1943. These were presumably to be Zerstorer because Milch responds that the_ Me 410 _is being considered primarily as a day bomber against England and that major airframe modifications for its use as a heavy fighter are unacceptable.

This is typical of the stop/go and on/off nature of RLM procurement.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2012)

Here we go again. Mediocre in every role and world class at nothing. That's not the way to win a war.


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

Some aircraft at this time performed multiple roles very well. The de Havilland Mosquito springs to mind.

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 4, 2012)

davebender said:


> Here we go again. Mediocre in every role and world class at nothing. That's not the way to win a war.



The Ju 88 was the answer. Frankly I cannot get why they even bothered with smaller Zestorers. The Ju 88 was already in production better in every role - just fit the DB 603s destined for the 410s and you are set.


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2012)

Ju-88 is a possible answer for the night fighter role. It cannot compare with the Fw-187 as a long range day fighter. So there you go. If one aircraft must be eliminated then eliminate the Me-110. Ju-88 will be the night fighter. Fw-187 will be the long range day fighter and photo recon aircraft. 

This plan fits historical German aircraft engine availability very well. Fw-187 would get DB601 engines historically reserved for Me-110 program. Germany was awash in Jumo 211 engines so there is no problem with increasing Ju-88 airframe production.


----------



## davebender (Sep 6, 2012)

Notes.
Price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK
Fw-187 price is historical Focke Wulf proposal for production aircraft.
RM 27,970 for one DB601 engine during 1941.

*1941 Airframe price*. Without engines.
Me-109 RM 58,000. About 2,150 kg empty weight.
Fw-187 RM 84,060 About 3,700 kg empty weight.
…..44% more expensive then Me-109.
…..72% heavier then Me-109.
Me-110 RM 155,800. About 4,500 kg empty weight.
…..169% more expensive then Me-109
…..109% heavier then Me-109

Why is the proposed Fw-187 production cost so cheap? Was the Focke Wulf proposal too good to be true? Was RLM paying too much for the Me-110?


----------



## zoomar (Sep 11, 2012)

I think the Fw-187 is a beautiful aircraft, but it was designed as a single seater with the smallest possible airframe. With development it would have been in the P-38's league as a long-range fighter with a secondary ground attack capability and, given the British planes's powerplant problems, clearly superior to the Whirlwind. I've always considered the RLM's decision to require it be revised to be a two-seater a back handed way of killing it, because it pushed it into completion with larger multipurpose zerstorer-type planes. The Fw-187 would never have been as effective as a night-fighter as the Bf-110 or Ju-88, nor could it have carried the ground-attack stores of these planes or the Me-210/410.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

> RLM's decision to require it be revised to be a two-seater a back handed way of killing it


I agree. 

RLM couldn't veto the Fw-187 based on performance so they killed it using administrative means. A method anyone who has worked for the government is familiar with.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

The Fw187 as a escort and long range air superiority fighter and bomber destroyer.
The Ju88C as a heavy fighter, fighter-bomber, train buster, precision bomber, light tactical bomber, and bomber destroyer


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

> Ju88C as a heavy fighter, fighter-bomber, train buster, precision bomber, light tactical bomber, and bomber destroyer


If you have the Fw-187 then Ju-88 doesn't need to be anything except the precision bomber it was designed to be.

During 1940 Germany created a night fighter force. At that time Ju-88 would be one of several contenders for the new role.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

The Fw187 was severely compromised by the airborne radar and having more eyes in the sky was better than one set. Plus the radar needed a dedicated crew member, the pilot couldn't fly and read by himself. The Ju88G is absolutely necessary in the night fighter role. 
As a train buster the Ju88 could mount heavier armament than the Fw187, same with bomber destroying until the R4M rocket. As a fighter-bomber the Fw187 was not nearly as well equipped to handle bombs or increased armor against ground fire. Both compromised its aerodynamics, which were its major advantage. Sure it could be enlarged, but that also compromises the advantages of it...but it could be adapted to be something like the Mosquito if properly enlarged, but we have the Ju88 for that role. Its best to specialize the Fw187 as a fighter only, because the Ju88 OTL was much more successful in all those roles than the adaptations the Fw187 experienced during later testing.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

AI radar did not exist during 1938 so it had no part of RLMs decision not to produce the Fw-187.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

I know, I was just saying that it couldn't perform the role better than the Ju88C or G and was really only outstanding as a long range escort fighter or air superiority fighter, and decent as a bomber destroyer, but couldn't mount the heavier armament later without increasing in size. I wasn't referring to any decision in 1938, just the roles the Fw187 was good at.


----------



## davebender (Sep 11, 2012)

Four MG151/20 cannon will fit in Fw-187 nose. If that isn't enough firepower then the pilot isn't hitting the target.


----------



## wiking85 (Sep 11, 2012)

When the armored B17's show up the need for 30mm cannons will become critical. Can the Fw187 handle that and enough ammunition?
Can even the 20mm ammo have enough stocks in the Fw187


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> Four MG151/20 cannon will fit in Fw-187 nose. If that isn't enough firepower then the pilot isn't hitting the target.



Will they? It was never tried. 
V3,the first armed prototype had two cannon.The A series added four MG 17s,definitely not what I would describe as the armament of a heavy fighter. The nose of V3 had to be wider than the previous prototypes to accomodate the four machine guns. I'm sure the bulges did nothing for the performance.
Four rifle calibre machine guns and two cannon is similar to the armament of contemporary _single engined _British fighters

The RLM didn't think it could carry heavy enough armament and it never,unlike even the Me210/410,mounted any rearward firing armament,yet another thing that the RLM wanted that Focke-Wulf could not produce.

Despite a brief flicker of hope in 1942 the Fw187 was,as demonstrated by history,a dead duck in 1939. 

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Sep 12, 2012)

Why shouldn't it be able to mount four MG151/20. Just look at the DH103 Hornet with the same armament and similar proportions.
I think with some minor modifications the Fw 187 could do it.


----------



## DonL (Sep 12, 2012)

@ stona

We all know your biased opinion about the FW 187!

The Bf 110 had exact the same armament 4 x MG and 2 x FF till the G serie (1942-1943)and this was doubled to the Bf 109!



> Will they? It was never tried.



It is a little annoying how do you disqualify german engineers from FW, which gave the plans with 4 x 2cm guns to the RLM.



> The RLM didn't think it could carry heavy enough armament and it never,unlike even the Me210/410,mounted any rearward firing armament,yet another thing that the RLM wanted that Focke-Wulf could not produce.



Why should an aircraft with the speed between 615km/h to 725km/h (depemds on the engine) is in need of any rearward firing armament?
Had the Moussie any rearward firing armament?



> Despite a brief flicker of hope in 1942 the Fw187 was,as demonstrated by history,a dead duck in 1939.



We all know your opinion but this thread is ideal heavy fighter of the LW 1940!

And not your wild biased argumentation to a destroyer aircraft which was produced till the BF 110E ( sept 1940) only as heavy fighter, also the permanent deny of the performance of the FW 187 which are documented from primary sources and FW engineers (speed, payload etc.)

History demonstrated only the stupidness of the RLM at 1938 to not built the FW 187 instead to the Bf 110.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2012)

That is the problem with most comparisons of "future" Fw 187s. With "minor" modifications it could do quite a lot. Most online posters (but not all) never want to consider the "cost" of the minor modifications in terms of performance. I am not sure that the guys at the Fw factory did all the time either  

There was one proposal for a FW 187 version in 1942 or so ( I am not looking at the book) for four 20mm guns. The plane certainly had the power with two DB 601s or 605s to lift the guns. a slightly bulged fuselage would have taken care of the space. minor cost in in performance? the kicker is the 500 rounds of ammo specified per gun? miss print? copied form the 7.9mm MG box or column without thinking? 2000 rounds of 20mm ammo is going to be in the 400KG area (+ if you really count the links?) Now you not only have the weight of the guns but an extra 300kg in ammo over two guns with 200 rounds apiece.


----------



## DonL (Sep 12, 2012)

@ Shortround6

The weight is totaly logic!

THe FW plans of a FW 187 as long range fighter ( 4 xMG and 2 x 2 cm) with DB 601E talked about 6000-6100kg full loaded weight.

The heavy destroyer FW 187D with DB 605 (4 x 2cm) the plans talked about 6700-7000kg loaded weight and the DB 605A was *not* heavier then the DB 601E. The cooling was a littlebit heavier, but where do you thinking came the ~ 800kg more weight of the heavy destroyer?

Armament, armour and equipment!

To me the numbers in the book are logic and also you can see the same weight ad at the BF 110 till the G2!


Edit: And I don't favour the FW 187 as nightfighter and heavy destroyer, this issue comes from other people!
I see the FW 187 as zoomar has described it (except I agree with the second seat), but with the payload to carry a lot of internal and external fuel or do ground attacks.

The payload of the FW 187 with big engines would be better then the FW 190 and the FW 190 could carry a lot.

For the nightfighter and heavy destroyer role germany had enough alternatives (Ju 88 and Do 215)


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2012)

I repeat,was it ever tried? Answer no. 
It is dangerous to think simplistically about bulging a fuselage to accomodate weapons without considering the weight of the entire weapons system (not just the weapons themselves) or the space required for ammunition feeds or cartridge/link disposal. 
The DH 103 was a much more "modern" aeroplane and was designed to be cannon armed and carry rockets and bombs. The capabilities were not added or increased as an afterthought. The two aircraft are only superficially similar.
I've seen a series of drawing proposing armament installations for the Me 410,some of which are clearly not practical.

Why did it need rearward firing armament? Because that's what the customer wanted. The same reason Focke-Wulf built a version with two crew. 

The de Havilland Mosquito was not built for the RLM and originally was not going to be armed at all. It,unlike the Fw 187,was conceived as a bomber and was big and veratile enough to cope with the multiple roles it eventually carried out so successfully. The Fw 187 was considered incapable of this by the organisation that really mattered,the RLM,on more than one occassion. 

It might be your ideal"heavy fighter" in 1940 but as I said,it was a dead duck in 1939. It couldn't do what the customer wanted in 1939 or 1942. Whether the customer was right or wrong is an entirely different matter. 

History is not was,it's is.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Sep 12, 2012)

> It might be your ideal"heavy fighter" in 1940 but as I said,it was a dead duck in 1939. It couldn't do what the customer wanted in 1939 or 1942. Whether the customer was right or wrong is an entirely different matter.



That is not the intention of the thread. We are talking not about the RLM and it's stupidness, we are talking about the ideal heavy fighter 1940 for the LW.

Also the argument is totaly absurd because the Bf 110 couldn't do any other role then the FW 187 only with much less performance.
Please name one single role that the FW 187 couldn't play but the Bf 110 from 1939 to 1942?

The BF 110 get a bomb hook late 1940, is there any reason why the FW 187 couldn't get a bomb hook?
As I told a hundred times till mid 1942 (introduction of the Lichtenstein radar) no nightfighter except Do 215 prototypes for radar testing didn't flew with onboard radar.

So where is the big role the customer wanted that the Bf 110 could fill and the FW 187 couldn't ?


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2012)

There's a couple listed above. BFW's development team worked with the RLM to develop the Bf 110. I don't know that Focke-Wulf did as it developed the Fw 187. I've never seen minutes of any meetings with the RLM regarding the type whereas I have for meetings involving BFW staff developing the Bf 110.

Unlike Focke-Wulf,BFW was entirely dependant on RLM contracts for its commercial survival. The tense relationship between Milch and Messerschmitt made this cooperation more important than ever in the mid 1930s.

Messerschmitt and Milch's relationship had soured as early as 1931 when Milch,in his capacity as CEO of Lufthansa,cancelled the M 20 airliner. Milch was unimpressed with structural failiures of the type but his decision nearly ruined BFW. On 1st June 1931 BFW filed for bankruptcy at Augsburg district court,something Messerschmitt never forgave Milch for.
The arguments and emnity created between men like Siegfried Gunther,Fritze Hille,Ernst Heinkel and others on the one hand and Messerschmitt's supporters like Prof. Georg Madelung (his father in law!) and political supporters like Rudolph Hess read like an episode of Dallas. 

It is only Germany's rearmament programme under the NSDAP and the intervention of wealthy financier named Seiler with Milch,now RLM secretary, in July 1933,that saves BFW from oblivion.

You seem to think that I believe that the Bf 110 was a better aircraft than the Fw 187 in 1936/7 but infact I do not. You can not seperate the decisions from the political in fighting and personalities of the day. BFW,if not Willy Messerschmitt himself,played that game better than Focke-Wulf at the time.

What sort of bomb load could the Fw 187 hoist and was it ever tried on any of the A series aircraft?

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

I agree. Daimler-Benz management failed to kiss RLM butt and look what happened to their DB601 and DB603 engine programs during 1935 - 1940. In Germany I think this sort of childish behavior was most pronounced in the brand new Luftwaffe.


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2012)

I think the problem exists everywhere but was exacerbated in nazi Germany by the way political patronage was excersised. This meant that politically well connected men got promoted beyond their ability and into areas they didn't properly understand.

I'm not saying this didn't happen elsewhere,the "old boy" and club networks were still working very well in Britain. There was dead wood at the British Air Ministry. It was worse in Germany and the well connected incompetents were far more difficult to remove or "retire" when the you know what hit the fan in the late thirties.

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

Hitler seemed to want his subordinates, and government departments infighting and competing with each other. The cream rises to the top, he believed, also that meant that they would be less likely to unite and challenge his power.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

The Luftwaffe was created from scratch. For the first several years everyone was working beyond their ability. It cannot be avoided.


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Luftwaffe was created from scratch. For the first several years everyone was working beyond their ability. It cannot be avoided.



Why so? Just because something is new doesn't mean that it's managers are stretched beyond their ability. It should be a challenge or opportunity that competent managers/officers embrace.

Whilst I agree that inter departmental competition seems to have been a feature of nazi government I disagree that the cream rose to the top.Simplistically loyalty was prized above ability.
Take a look at the remnants of the nazi leadership at Nuremberg. With the exception of very few (Speer,Goering) most were revealed as rather average men and some were no better than loyal thugs. "The banality of evil" is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt to describe Eichmann at his trial but could just as well be applied to the whole sorry bunch.

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Luftwaffe was created from scratch. For the first several years everyone was working beyond their ability. It cannot be avoided.



The Luftwaffe wasn't created from scratch, most of it's Generals had WW1 combat experience, and the clandestine Luftwaffe had been carring on training and experiments all thru the 20's and early 30's .


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 12, 2012)

I said Hitler believed the cream rises to the top, I in no way, said I agreed.


----------



## davebender (Sep 12, 2012)

Look in a toilet after you've done your business. That isn't cream rising to the top. Government often works the same way.


----------



## zoomar (Sep 13, 2012)

DonL said:


> @ stona
> History demonstrated only the stupidness of the RLM at 1938 to not built the FW 187 instead to the Bf 110.



No it didn't. In my opinion, it was a mistake not to develop and produce the Fw-187 as the relatively light twin-engined high-performance single seat fighter it was originally designed to be, but production of the Bf-110 was definitely not a mistake. The Bf-110, while no better than any other heavy two-seat fighter of the era, was very amenable to adaptation and was a fine fighter-bomber, long range intruder, and night fighter for the early 1940's. There is no way without almost complete redesign the Falke could have fulfilled all the roles that the Bf-110 fullfilled. The bastardized two-seater Tank was forced to develop added a second, largely useless, crewmember and didn't even provide the plane with rear defense. Since it was basically still the same small airframe, the Fw-187 could not have matched the 110 in armament suites, offensive stores, and probably even radar adaptability without a major loss of performance. True, with DB 601s and above the Falke might have been better, but we really have no idea how well the basic airframe could absorb the additional power and maintain the types original good handling.


----------



## DonL (Sep 13, 2012)

@ zoomar

I disagree



> True, with DB 601s and above the Falke might have been better, but we really have no idea how well the basic airframe could absorb the additional power and maintain the types original good handling.



The FW 187 was constracted and developed *from the scratch* to the DB 601 and Jumo 211. It was developed to the RLM advertisement of a 35Liter 1000PS engine. Only of the shortcomings of this engines the V1-V4 and the three A0 a/c's were built with Jumo 210.
Source: Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History from Dietmar Hermann



> The Bf-110, while no better than any other heavy two-seat fighter of the era, was very amenable to adaptation and was a fine fighter-bomber, long range intruder, and night fighter for the early 1940's.



All this roles could be filled from the FW 187 (two seater). Till mid 1942 (introduction of the Lichtenstein radar) no LW nightfighter was flown with onboard radar. Also even the Bf 109 had a bomb hook, so where is the argument that it isn't possible for the FW 187.
The airframe of the FW 187 is near the same size as the P38, only the concepts are different, because of the small aerodynamik fuselage of the FW 187 and it was much lighter then the P38, but all this has nothing to do with the payload:

FW 187: Length: 11.12 m (36 ft 6 in); Wingspan: 15.30 m (50 ft 2 ⅓ in); Height: 3.85 m (12 ft 7 ⅔ in); Wing area: 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²)
P38: Length: 37 ft 10 in (11.53 m); Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m); Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.91 m); Wing area: 327.5 ft² (30.43 m²)

Where are here the big differences ?



> There is no way without almost complete redesign the Falke could have fulfilled all the roles that the Bf-110 fullfilled.



To all what Mr. Hermann wrote from primary sources this statement is wrong! Only the nightfighter role is debatable, all other roles could be filled from the FW 187 without redesign but with much better performance.

Rear defense for an a/c which has a speed fromn 615km/h till 725 km/h is totaly absurd.



> Since it was basically still the same small airframe, the Fw-187 could not have matched the 110 in armament suites, offensive stores, and probably even radar adaptability without a major loss of performance.



Only with the the radar adaptability I agree all other arguments are wrong from primary sources. The FW 187 had absolute the same armament as the Bf 110, perhaps it could carry less shells through the smaller fuselage but for a heavy destroyer and nightfighter the german LW had enough alternatives through the Ju 88 or Do 215.

The payload of the FW 187 with DB 601 E or DB 605A is at 1000-1500kg (full loaded and can be carried under the fuselage) depending which armament and what armour.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 14, 2012)

stona said:


> The DH 103 was a much more "modern" aeroplane and was designed to be cannon armed and carry rockets and bombs. The capabilities were not added or increased as an afterthought. The two aircraft are only superficially similar.


 
Is that so, how do you know? There were some planes that were competitive right until the end due to them being developable. The Spitfire and Fw 190 most notably come to mind which capable of adapting to heavier armament and equipment. Actually there are quite a few planes that were still competitive at the end of the war and they mostly derived from older designs (obsolete?).
One might think that the FW guys who did the engine installations for the 190 series right were foresighted enough to build a plane with enough development potential. This of course is just mere speculation. 
But you cannot say if they are just superficially similar or not unless you have the respective blueprints and know how to interpret them for guessing its capability for development.
The Fw 187 should have been more upgradeable than the Whirlwind though that really was made as the tiniest possible airframe for a certain engine. If Tank really just wanted to design a racer to beat the speed records of the day (I read it before somewhere) he would have chosen a design with the Whirlwind's dimensions.
As for the four 20mm cannons, the DH 103 had them installed in the lower fuselage, having there muzzles in the position where the 187 had a window to look down. So close the window and install the guns.
If this is hampered by the wing spars so a change to a midwing configuration might work out which shouldn't have been too big a deal. A layout which can be found on the competitors in the twin engined fighter section: F8F Tigercat, DH 103 Hornet and Mitsubishi Ki-83.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Is that so, how do you know?



Because it was not built to an Air Ministry specification,the specification was written around the design. The fact that it first flew in 1944 and was designed with the benefit of lessons learned from other de Havilland products,most obviously the Mosquito,makes it more "modern" than an aircraft conceived in the mid 1930s. De Havilland were not making retro designs.

What has the development potential of other types got to do with it? Some designs could be developed some could not,at least to any extent. We'll never know how "upgradeable" the Fw 187 would have been because it was never produced. Everything relating to this aircraft's development is conjecture. Saying "close the window and install the guns" is just far too simplistic. "...a change to a mid wing configuration...._which shouldn't have been too big a deal",_you're kidding,right?

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Sep 15, 2012)

stona said:


> Saying "close the window and install the guns" is just far too simplistic. "...a change to a mid wing configuration...._which shouldn't have been too big a deal",_you're kidding,right?


 
I was thinking about the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu's conversion from mid-wing plane to the low- wing Shiden-Kai . Why shouldn't the reverse be possible? I guess there are planes whose original designs were altered a lot more in order to become useful craft. 
Yes, it may be simplistic but does it my make my argument less valid (than your assumptions) in estimating the Fw 187's potential to become the equal of any twin the allies had? The facts are provided by other members.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Yes, it may be simplistic but does it my make my argument less valid (than your assumptions) in estimating the Fw 187's potential to become the equal of any twin the allies had? The facts are provided by other members.



True because we're both guessing.Everything about the potential development of an aircraft that never entered service (in a meaningful way) and of which only a very few were built has to be conjecture. 
I am well aware of the problems which confronted the development of many other aircraft and the hoops that people jumped through and compromises that were made to make them work. There is no reason that the Fw 187 would be different. 
There is a tendency generally (not just here!) for people to want to "just" bolt this engine on this aircraft or "just" stick these cannons in the wing of that aircraft,but history tells us that it is rarely as simple as that.
If it was the A+AAE at Martlesham Heath or the various Luftwaffe operations at places like Rechlin wouldn't be needed.
Steve


----------



## DonL (Sep 15, 2012)

You should read the book about the FW 187 stona!

And the FW 187 V5 was flying from mid 1939 till 1942 with DB 601 engines without problems.
This a/c reached the famous 635 km/h at sea level (september 1939 from primary sources) with the Dampfheißkühlung, what was an experimental water pressure cooling with very small conventional coolers.

I had told this a hundred times, that the FW 187 was developed from the scratch to the 35Liter 1000 PS engines (DB 601 andd Jumo 211) and had shown from real testflights, that it was no problem to absorb the bigger engines.



> Because it was not built to an Air Ministry specification,the specification was written around the design. The fact that it first flew in 1944 and was designed with the benefit of lessons learned from other de Havilland products,most obviously the Mosquito,makes it more "modern" than an aircraft conceived in the mid 1930s. De Havilland were not making retro designs.



I'm not convinced, first the FW 187 wasn't first hand developed to an special advertisement. Wimmer and von Richthofen gave their agreement to built it as a single seat twin engine fighter, Udet was convinced from this a/c but wanted a second seat.
From all testflights we know, the FW 187 didn't lost it's characteristics with the second seat, neither the aerodynamic nor the agility were affected. And it is accepted from the Allies that the german a/c's had in general the better aerodynamik through the reasearch of the University of Göttingen. And with all respect how do you wish to know that the FW 187 was an outdated design at 1944 or retro?



> What has the development potential of other types got to do with it? Some designs could be developed some could not,at least to any extent. We'll never know how "upgradeable" the Fw 187 would have been because it was never produced. Everything relating to this aircraft's development is conjecture. Saying "close the window and install the guns" is just far too simplistic. "...a change to a mid wing configuration....which shouldn't have been too big a deal",you're kidding,right?



Simply said!
All german designs that were developed to the 35 Liter 1000PS engine advertisement of the RLM (also the FW 187) were very much "upgradeable"! Bf 109, Ju 88, Ju 87, He 111, Do 17, Bf 110. Please name only one german a/c what wasn't "upgradeable" except the He 100 with it's small fuselage. (What was the main reason why the He 100 was rejected next to the water evaporation cooling).
I can't see that the Hornet was the better design compare to a developed Fw 187 from 1939 to 1944!


----------



## cimmex (Sep 16, 2012)

I wonder why the Ta154 was a totally different design when the Fw187 was such a wonder fighter...
Cimmex


----------



## DonL (Sep 16, 2012)

That's incorrect.

After Mr. Hermann Book:
http://www.amazon.de/dp/392769746X/?tag=dcglabs-20

many experiences from the FW 187 were integrated to the Ta 154. Without the FW 187 the Ta 154 couldn't be developed this fast.
In his book he makes it very clear how much the Ta 154 benefits from the FW 187.

The fuselage of the Ta 154 is very simular to the FW 187 but larger, because it was developed from the scratch as nightfighter with a much more powerfull armament. (4 x 30mm)

1. The Ta 154 was develpoped as nightfighter with onboard radar
2. It was built from wood not metall, after Mr. Hermann this needs an other design, especially where wood and metall were linked together.
3. The Ta 154 was developed from the scratch to bigger engines with a dry weight of +900kg


----------



## stona (Sep 16, 2012)

DonL said:


> From all testflights we know, the FW 187 didn't lost it's characteristics with the second seat, neither the aerodynamic nor the agility were affected.



Really,where is that from? they added another seat,extra armament and weight and got exactly the same performance?

Ask yourself _why_ Udet or whoever wanted a second seat? I'd suggest it's because Tank had ignored the current RLM requirements and a second seat might be a way of at least having the aircraft considered.

By 1944 when the Hornet was built everything had moved on.Material sciences,aerodynamics,everything. It was a different world. We'd gone from biplanes to jets. There was no aircraft designed in the 1930s that wasn't on the verge of obsolescence. The best carried on for a few years.





DonL said:


> Please name only one german a/c what wasn't "upgradeable"



All aircraft are upgradeable to some extent. Even the Hurricane accepted a more powerful engine and better armament. It is a futile argument because it is a question of degree. How many aircraft designed in the 1930s could remain competitive towards the end of the war? Take a look at the German aircraft the allies were interested in after the war,the ones they bothered to take away with them to investigate. Not one on your list of the most successful German designs. Times had changed,what possible use could a twin seat,two engined,propeller driven,lightly armed and small fighter have been in 1945?

Good to see the Bf 110 on there 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Sep 16, 2012)

Well I know they DID take a few Me 109 Ks with them, so there's that. Naturally they were more interested in _new_ technology, such as jets.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 16, 2012)

@ stona, 
did you read Dietmar Hermann's Fw 187 book as DonL suggests? It's a nice read.

Hawker's Typhoon evolved into something we call the Sea Fury and the LaGG-3 into the La-9/11 and there are other examples.
What I want to say is that arguably all aerial designs could be developed into something that can match similarly dimensioned planes of foreign nations. Of course if given that they receive the engines that fit their potential, so force of development might succeed. 

If one take a look it's *more the norm than not* that a truly great aircraft had its roots in a previously mediocre design that has been constantly improved just because it had the right genes .
The other possibility is to construct a completely new aircraft which is normally based on existing designs.

What would likely make an evolved Fw 187 a match for the Hornet?

As far as I know the FW guys always seem to put special emphasis on the torsional stiffness of their combat aircraft's wings (mostly two massive spars in contrast to Messerschmitt's preferred one-spar designs) and thus enabling them to a high roll rate and agility, both being vital to ACM as we know. Stiffness should not allow the wing to bend too much.
And Tank always struck me as a foresighted guy if you take e.g. his horse comparisons concerning airplanes.

According to aforementioned Mr. Hermann who happens to have written a recommendable book about the Ta 154 also the 154's wings were of 20% sturdier built than its stable mate Fw 190 (ergo high torsional stiffness and roll rate).

A pilot who had flown the Ta 154 stated that it flew like a single engined plane rather than a twin, that it matched or even surpassed the 190 and 152 (!) in turning and because of this it was in a different league than its competitors, among them the Bf 110 that lost out to the larger Ju 88 in terms of manoueverability. 
This is an amazing statement, speaking of ACM of TE vs. SE fighters.

Even if there is a possibility that this statements might perhaps be a little bit exaggerated the truth should not be too far off either. And it does show the soundness of the Ta 154 design which had many features of the 187.
But even the Ta 154 could not hope to equal the projected performance of the smaller Fw 187 as this one is a cleaner design aerodynamically. Ergo this makes the 187 even better and one can assume that it had very good flight characteristics and performance matching or surpassing those of SEs.

As far as improved aerodynamics in the later years of war are concerned it should almost match the Hornet's which had a low drag laminar flow wing however. 
But it should be possible for Focke Wulf to incorporate such an airfoil in the Fw 187. The projected Ta 152 with Jumo 222 was to have a laminar wing design.

So if we take all this into account and apply it to the Fw 187 then this leads to the conclusion that there is a *great* plausibilty that it could be developed to become at least a worthy opponent to the Hornet (1944 and later) with similar versatility.


One question:
Have the Germans fielded a similar kind of radar so that it could be installed internally in the Fw 187 airframe at that time?
Anyway the night fighter Hornet had a second crewman in the rear fuselage operating the radar I guess. This also should be doable with the 187 airframe I guess.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

The Fw 187 died right here.

Minutes of a meating with Milch 8/18/42.

"The He 219 production model has been discussed in a development meeting. It is worth considereing at this point which combat zerstorer will eventually be dropped. To this end performance data of the Bf 110,Ar 240,Fw 187,Me 210 and Me 210 with DB 603 G will be compared.
_The Fw 187 offers no advantages whatsoever as a zerstorer_
The Fw 197 and Ar 240 would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Bf 110 production has ceased. Due to their performance,consideration of these three types can be set aside."

Zerstorer,in the context of discussions in late 1942 has nothing to do with the original concept. It almost invariably refers to a bomber destroyer. Meetings over the next months bemoan the lack of armament on the Bf 110s (and other aircraft) in service. A lot of effort was going into up-arming all Luftwaffe aircraft.

In the end it matters not one jot what any of us think today about the potential or otherwise of these various aircraft. What matters is what Milch and the RLM thought of them at the time.

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Sep 19, 2012)

stona said:


> In the end it matters not one jot what any of us think today about the potential or otherwise of these various aircraft. What matters is what Milch and the RLM thought of them at the time.




Simplicity is a matter of view. One side's reflections and viewpoints can be considered as simplistic by the other side and vice versa. 

The question here is which would have been the ideal heavy fighter (not Zerstörer) of the Luftwaffe in 1940, and there it is where the Fw 187 stands out. 
As a heavy fighter I consider a plane that could take on enemy fighters (SE and TE) on equal terms while having good enough range.
According to the data provided by fellow members, namely davebender and DonL, and reading my own books about the matter the Fw 187 very well could do that.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

spicmart said:


> According to the data provided by fellow members and reading my own books the Fw 187 very well could do that.



So why wasn't it produced in large numbers at any time?

1940 is pretty irrelevant because the Luftwaffe didn't want a heavy fighter,as defined by various contributors to this thread,at that time. If the organisation that orders and pays for aircraft doesn't want one like the one you are hoping to produce then you won't sell it to them.

That seems a more relevant question than hypothetical discussions about what it could or couldn't have done.

There are many what ifs. Some at the British Air Ministry were still prevaricating over future Spitfire orders in 1939.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Sep 19, 2012)

stona said:


> 1940 is pretty irrelevant because the Luftwaffe didn't want a heavy fighter,as defined by various contributors to this thread,at that time. If the organisation that orders and pays for aircraft doesn't want one like the one you are hoping to produce then you won't sell it to them.
> 
> That seems a more relevant question than hypothetical discussions about what it could or couldn't have done.




Sorry if I may have been repeating the points that other members already posted...

So is this whole thread completely superfluous then?
I thought if we're looking for something "ideal" that it never can be based solely on facts, in this case historical ones.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

spicmart said:


> Sorry if I may have been repeating the points that other members already posted...



Not really. Several people extol the virtues of the Fw 187 and I myself do not consider it to have been a bad aeroplane.

With hindsight it may or may not have been the ideal fighter for the sort of operations that the luftwaffe was volunteered for in 1940. We'll never know how it would have done against contemporary single engined types because it was never put to the test. Taking the data from a handful of prototypes and pre-production aircraft and extrapolating that into a game changing aeroplane is an excercise fraught with danger. There is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

It was never put to the test because it wasn't an aeroplane which the RLM/Luftwaffe was looking for in the lead up to WW2. It was considered for other roles on several ocassions later,right up until August 1942, but was rejected every time

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

IMO that's about five years too late.

Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Tank then took the design directly to Wolfram von Richthofen, chief of the development section of the Technischen Amt, the research and development arm of the RLM. Richtofen was not so convinced that bomber performance would remain superior to fighters, and gave the go-ahead for the construction of three prototypes, but on the condition that they replace the DB 600, which was in extremely short supply, with the less-powerful 515 kW (700 PS) Junkers Jumo 210.


RLM refused to let Focke Wulf purchase DB601 engines. That was the kiss of death for the Fw-187. They killed the He-112B and He-100 using similiar bureaucratic methods.

Stating there weren't enough DB601 engines doesn't wash either. Daimler-Benz was in business to make a profit. If allowed to sell engines to paying customers they will expand engine production.


----------



## johnbr (Sep 19, 2012)

You have to love the RLM me first Germany last.


----------



## stona (Sep 20, 2012)

Unfortunately for Focke-Wulf, Daimler Benz did what the RLM wanted. The ancestor of the DB 600 series engines had been built to an RLM requirement and the initial contract for the engines was from the RLM,not an aircraft manufacturer.
This disconnection between aircraft and engine manufacturers would cause problems throughout the war.
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Sep 20, 2012)

The fairy god mother could flick her magic wand and new engines would be flying of the assembly line in an instant for the Fw187.


----------



## stona (Sep 20, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Well I know they DID take a few Me 109 Ks with them, so there's that. Naturally they were more interested in _new_ technology, such as jets.



No they didn't,not one.

Both the British and Americans had tested captured Bf 109s of various types during the war but neither was interested in 1945. No Ks were ever taken to or tested in Britain or the USA.

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Sep 20, 2012)

There is a well known picture supposedly presenting a Bf 109 K-6 (but that apparently really is a K-4) that iirc has been taken on an airforce base in the US. I have no stakes in this discussion (I simply don't care or think it matters if they did or not), just passing along what I read. Feel free to correct me.









Just funny how the RLM gets panned for any debatable decision around here. I don't know where you work, but name an organization that makes 100% correct decisions all the time. Even with todays information technology, giving us much easier access to information, we can't do it. The He 112, He 100 would've been a waste of DB60xs, one in the short and the other in the long run, even with 20/20 hindsight that should be clear. The RLM settled for the Fw 190 instead and that was a very wise decision. Cancelling the Fw 187? Debatable. But the RLM was sure they needed a larger, more conventional and more developed fighter: The Bf 110. MAYBE they were not entirely correct. But that is far from being obvious truth, it's still very speculative and debatable. The Fw 187 would've been a decent escort. Would it change the outcome of the BOB? Hardly. MAYBE it, too, could've been converted into a decent nightfighter. VERY debatable since even the Bf 110 was borderline too small.


----------



## stona (Sep 20, 2012)

It's Bf 109 G-10/U4 from Wiener-Neustädter Flugzeugbau (WNF).Its WNr has been lost but it was in the 610000 series.

The fake US applied camouflage doesn't help. It was originally FE-123,captured at Neubiberg. It was taken by truck to Cherbourg and shipped to Newark. It was then either trucked or possibly trained to Freeman field. It and FE-122 another G-10 W.Nr. 611943,were taken at the same time and place. FE-122 eventually became Yellow 13 of Planes of Fame. Both were in poor condition,barely airworthy. As far as is known neither ever flew in the States.
FE-123 was restored to static display condition (with that awful camouflage) at Freeman Field. The photo you posted is one supposedly taken at Patterson Air Force Base but I wouldn't know. There is a good colour picture taken from the other side.

The people panning RLM decisions are doing so with the benefit of hindsight. At the time decisions had to be taken without that luxury. They managed to produce some good aeroplanes despite the inevitable mistakes. Mistakes are more likely under the pressure of losing the aerial war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Sep 20, 2012)

*"fraught with danger"*

Why so?


The title of this thread lets one assume that hypothetical scenarios and aircraft can be included in this discussion.

It's a matter of preference if one goes for a discussion style based solely on hard (dry) facts whatsoever or for one that gives interesting scenarios (imho) of what could have been.

With the former we can debate about the political, economical, etc, circumstances that lead to the failure and rejection of Fw 187 program.
With the latter we can talk about the topic from a viewpoint as regards technical and operational properties and assumptions of the possibilities and potentials of this certain aircraft.
All this of course on available data and statements as a base for preliminary estimates. 

Maybe there is room for both approaches without to simply discard the plane as irrelevant just because it never had the chance to prove itself or because noone wanted it at the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2012)

It may work differently in different countries and at different times, but in the US once you get to 1940 or so the engines were "GFE" Government Furnished Equipment. Curtiss and Bell ( and North American) bought very, very few Allison engines. The Government bought the vast majority and then "issued" them to the airframe makers. No the engines may have gone straight form Allison's loading dock to Curtiss's or Bell's loading dock but make no mistake, the engines were US government property. Pretty much the same for P&W and Wright. They did have commercial sales but if the Navy wanted 200 F4Fs with R-1830 engines the Navy contracted with with P&W for 200 plus engines ( an allotment of spare engines being contracted for at the same time) at teh rate of XX number of engines per month and/or the contract to be completed in YY number of months. IF P&W has enough capacity to build additional engines to sell at the same time to the Army or foreign countries or commercial customers, all well and good. _BUT_ failure to deliver the Navy engines on time could result in severe penalties. 
This is for pre-war factories, factories built after FDR's announcement of a 50,000plane air force in 1940 were built with government money and equipped with government owned machine tools. Who do you think got the final say in where the engines from those plants went? 

In some cases French and British orders could only be accommodated by US armed services _agreeing_ to take later deliveries (usually of improved models) so currant production could be used for the "new customers". It is not a case of highest bidder gets the engines or "just build an addition on the factory" which was done but the addition could take months to build and not really affect production for a year or so. 

In Germany who was buying the engines? _IF_ the RLM was buying every engine DB could make ( or 90 something percent) then the RLM decided what airplanes got the engines. IF the RLM was buying _COMPLETE_ aircraft and the airframe maker was responsible for contracting with DB then it is a different story.


----------



## stona (Sep 21, 2012)

I am sure that the RLM decided which engines went to which aircraft. It was the RLM that assigned quotas of engines to the manufacturers of different aircraft types. There was certainly not a free market operating for aero engines. 

Whether the ministry owned the engines at this point I'm not sure. I believe the manufacturer was paid the contract price of the aircraft after acceptance,including the engine. This is from memory and I stand to be corrected.

Steve


----------

