1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

Hello, cimmex,
Isn't that picture a hoax?

If is not too hard, maybe people could propose something along the opening post (SINGLE engined job, made from the stuff already in production).

As for the Germans having problems with guns, in 1940, that is not the case - stuck in 8 LMGs, forget the MG FF, and you're set.

Why?

What's wrong with using MG FF cannon for early aircraft and upgrading to MG151/20 when that weapon enters mass production?

In the historical Bf-109E, once the 60 rounds per cannon are expanded, you're left with just 2 LMGs. Not such a great thing when over enemy-held land? Plus, with far to differing trajectories, using the cannons with LMGs in the same time wastes either one type of weapon/ammo or another.
With 8 LMGS, each with 500 rds, there are no such issues.

I have no quarrels about one MG-151 replacing a pair of the LMGs, once the cannon is available.

For the FW 187 it is a no brainer!

I have written it often, the FW 187 was designed from the scratch for the 35L 1000PS engine (advertisement of the RLM from 1935-36)

The first flight of the most advanced Prototype FW 187 V4 (twin seater) was october 1938.
If the the RLM had choosen the FW 187 as longe range fighter/ Zerstoerer (twin seater) instead of the Bf 110 at the end of 1938 there would be enough time to launch the production at the begin of 1939 after a few tests with the DB 601a. The real production begin of the Bf 110 was 1939.
Also there was the possibility to spread the production to other a/c companys with no production aircraft for the LW

The FW 187 could stay as it was developed, twin seater, with 4 x 7,92 MG's and 2 x 20mm cannon (same as Bf 110 C); 1100L fuel and 2x DB 601Aa engines.
Estimated:
FW 187 "B0" (2x DB 601Aa) empty: 4200kg full load: 5500kg; Wing loading: 180-185 kg/m²; Speed: 610-620 km/h, range 1300-1400km.
This would be the best fighter at 1940/41 and with the same/or little bit more numbers (FW 187 is smaller and cheaper) of production as the Bf 110, it would had a very mighty word at BoF and BoB.

Design a "bigger" fighter. around 210-220 sq ft of wing area. 500-600 liters of fuel internal. Inward retracting landing gear. Ditch the slats. The 109F was not a particularly low drag airframe for it's size and it was a huge step ahead of the 109E. It shouldn't be that hard to to get 109E performance with the bigger airframe even with the same engine.
The bigger plane with the extra fuel will allow longer range/duration. It will operate from either worse air fields or have lower accidents. It may allow the carriage of more under wing/fuselage stores. It may offer more room in the wings for anti bomber armament in later models with better engines.

Click to expand...

To me it is the description of the He 112B....C....D...etc.
Heinkel He 112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The He 112 was significant larger with a lot more internal fuel as the Bf 109 and from all I have read from experts the design was very good also the wing design.
The He 112 was in need of a more powerfull engine then the Jumo 210 to show it's full potential. To me it was the right direction and the KI 61 has to my opinion much more in common with the He 112 then with the He 100.

To my opinion the He 100 is a dead horse and very much overrated because of the philosophy to join the smallest possible cabin/fuselage with the "biggest" engine.
This philosophy has not much room for development and space for a perhaps more powerful engine with the need of more space for cooling.
The He 100 was an extreme of this philosophy but to my opinion the Bf 109 suffered also from this philosophy but on a less extreme way.

It's speculative but the problems of the DB 605 weren't only problems of DB, much problems are from the too less space of the Bf 109 cabin/fuselage and the big compromises to fit the DB 605 and it's cooling to the Bf 109 cabin.
Here I think the He 112 would be the better choice through it's larger space and perhaps a He 112 with DB 605 engines had performed better then the Bf 109G and with less problems at the engines (DB 605).

The FW 190 is to me stronger in need of a powerfull engine then the He 112 and with a DB 601a it would be to my opinion no equal fighter at 1940, because the engine had too less power to fligh the FW 190 near it's performance. So I don't think that a FW 190 would be a good fighter at 1940 without a 1500PS engine.

I realize this is historical but I don't understand the purpose. Why not just put four 20mm cannon in the Fw-187 nose / fuselage sides?

Messerschmitt Me 110dj_f4.htm
The Mk101 3cm high velocity cannon was designed for the Me-110. I assume it would be an option on the Fw-187 also with a similiar optional mount (field kit?) under the nose.

I agree with the other guys Dave!

With four MG FF 20mm you have too less ammo for a long fight time. The FF 20mm is important for the impact, but two are realy enough at 1940 and compared with four 7,92mm MG's it's a very powerfull and balanced armament.

riacrato said:

Griffon was also significantly heavier than Merlin, still Spitfire-airframes could cope with it.

Click to expand...

Oh I know the FW could cope with the DB603 if modified (the Ta152 is exactly that afterall the FW190c did it 1st as you said) but in the 1940 time-scale I think the DB601 engined FW190 makes more sense......and Dave gets to indulge his interest in an alternate reality where it is also DB engines in large scale production and not just Jumo 211's.

I always thought the FW190C with turbo charger looked especially nice mean.

Put four 7.92mm machineguns on target and it will indeed be a long fight. Put four 20mm cannon on target and the enemy will be dead before he even knows he's under attack.

That is fine for the first two targets engaged. what happens to target #3? and #4?

The 110 carried 2 spare drums for each cannon, total 180 rounds per cannon. The rear gunner/radioman changed the drums, not a good system but better than 60rpg.

Of course with the MG/ff cannon you have to almost on top of the target so that surprise might be a bit harder to pull off.

The MK 101 was a good anti-tank gun but a lousy air to air weapon. It weighed as much as 6 1/2 MG/FFs and had a rather low rate of fire making long range hits rather difficult. A 300mph plane moves 110 ft between shots.

GregP said:

I WOULD say the he 100, but I don;t think the plane was ready for production or combat as it existed at the time.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that the series II and series III delivered aircraft were the initial production aircraft. The aircraft was designed from the outset to be modular for mass production. Heinkel missed the boat, he should have secured license production of the DB601M which would have mitigated one excuse for not approving its production.

riacrato said:

Griffon was also significantly heavier than Merlin, still Spitfire-airframes could cope with it.

Click to expand...

The DB603, according to Wiki, is much the same weight as a Griffon. But it is significantly longer - about 20"/500mm. That may be the biggest problem.

DonL said:

To my opinion the He 100 is a dead horse and very much overrated because of the philosophy to join the smallest possible cabin/fuselage with the "biggest" engine.
This philosophy has not much room for development and space for a perhaps more powerful engine with the need of more space for cooling.
The He 100 was an extreme of this philosophy but to my opinion the Bf 109 suffered also from this philosophy but on a less extreme way.

Click to expand...

I think you will find the cockpit more spacious than the 109. With regards to its development potential the aircraft would accept the DB601N and the DB601E with a slight lengthening of the fuselage. The first armed model the V-4 on 369 liters could cruise to over 1000km.

A larger wing of 10.8m was in the planning which would have given the aircraft the looks of the Ki-61 and an extra set of wing guns and larger wing evaporators as the experimental Ki-61 had installed. An often overlooked feature of this cooling system is that it is more forgiving of battle damage than a pressurized glycol system.

A lot of good information on the He100 has come to light recently on the Deutsche Luftwaffe Cockpitinstrumente Homepage Titelseite Instrumente Gerätebrett Baumuster site.

tomo pauk said:

Hello, cimmex,
Isn't that picture a hoax?

If is not too hard, maybe people could propose something along the opening post (SINGLE engined job, made from the stuff already in production).

As for the Germans having problems with guns, in 1940, that is not the case - stuck in 8 LMGs, forget the MG FF, and you're set.

Click to expand...

Sure, it is a fake picture. It is a mix of an existing Flugwerk 190 and the Red 7 of EADS, but looks nice IMO. I like the fuselage armament with both MG17 and MG131 too.
cimmex

Four 7.92mm machineguns won't solve this problem. Germany needs to pull out all the stops to get a belt fed 20mm cannon into mass production.

Britian was in the same fix in 1940. The First 400 Beaufighters used drum feed cannon and the rear seater changed the drums. Keeping up with four guns was usually too much and rarely were all four guns ready at the same time after the first drum loads were used. Beaufighters had 3 spare drums per gun.

It is fine to say that some technical aspects should have been speeded up but when somebody says "what could have been done with historical bits and pieces" it means taking the guns as they were. A larger drum is a much better possibility. The Japanese used a larger drum (?) and Hispano Suiza advertised larger drums in their pre war literature although I don't think anybody took them up.

Adapting the drum feed guns to belt feed can take some doing. It was done but it was not easy. Until you have the engine power to lift heavier guns with large ammunition loads there is little incentive to rush the bigger belt feed guns into production.

Depends on the starting date.

Germany had automatic 20mm and 37mm cannon during WWI and they appear to have lost little expertise between the wars. Large scale German rearmament began during 1935. If the newly created Luftwaffe makes belt fed 20mm aircraft cannon top priority the MG151/20 might be in mass production five years later. Perhaps they will also make a belt fed version of the powerful 2cm Flak38 for aircraft use.

Could you please research some of this stuff.

The Germans had at least one MG 151/15 in Spain in 1938. They were working on it. The MG/FF was an interim weapon when the earlier MG 204 wasn't coming along as planed.

the "powerful 2cm Flak38" wasn't quite good enough for anti-tank work and too heavy for a good air to air weapon.

42.7kg MG151/20 cannon.
57.5kg 2cm Flak38.
75kg MG213 revolver cannon.
176kg 3cm Mk101 cannon.

The 2cm Flak38 was considerably lighter then other aircraft cannon developed by the Luftwaffe.

davebender said:

42.7kg MG151/20 cannon.
57.5kg 2cm Flak38.
75kg MG213 revolver cannon.
176kg 3cm Mk101 cannon.

The 2cm Flak38 was considerably lighter then other aircraft cannon developed by the Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

What aircraft was armed with thw 20mm Flak38 ?

1930s Germany experimented with 2cm Flak30 (Predecessor of Flak38) mounted on He-112B prototypes. I have no idea why this wasn't pursued. You could certainly fit a pair of Flak38 in Me-110 nose.