1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

They probably didn't develope them because in comparision to the MG151/20 both were too big, too heavy, and had too slow a ROF.
The Flak 30-MG C/30L rof 280 rpm-350rpm, the Flak 38 -450rpm, the MG151/20- 700rpm. Plus the MG151/20 was about 2/3rds the weight of the Flak 38.

They tested one He-112 with the Flak 30-MG C/30L in Spain, installed weight with 100 rounds was 180 kg, and almost 13 feet overall length.

Just too big and heavy for the times, I think they just decided to stick with rifle caliber weapons till a more practical 20mm was developed.
 
Why did the Luftwaffe develop the 3cm Mk101 cannon for use on the Me-110? Two 20mm Flak38 weight less and would be a lot more practical for shooting at aircraft.
 
davebender said:
Why did the Luftwaffe develop the 3cm Mk101 cannon for use on the Me-110? Two 20mm Flak38 weight less and would be a lot more practical for shooting at aircraft.
Click to expand...
Maybe they wanted a 30mm. They were the people wanting to shoot down bombers, maybe they knew more about what was required.
Or just blame it on your usual fall guy, Milch.
 
The British put a 40mm gun in a turret on a Wellington, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

A Flak 38 weighs AT LEAST 7-8 kg more than a Hispano and that is without a belt feed mechanism. It fires at 80% the rate of fire of the Hispano. The rounds are little (if any) more powerful, and the complete round is a bit heavier.
 
The MK 101 was intended for anti-armor, -shipping or -building role, something that won't work with a 2cm gun.
 
MK 101 was intended for anti-armor, -shipping or -building role, something that won't work with a 2cm gun.
Click to expand...
The 2cm KwK38 was effective against light armor. That's why it was the primary weapon of most German recon vehicles (armored cars, 3/4 tracks and Panzer II). It also fired a HE round even more powerful then 2cm mine shells fired by the MG151/20.
 
Why are you bothering in suggesting arming a Me 110 with whatever weapon the Luftwaffe would end with a IDEAL fighter for 1940 or any period ???
No matter what it was armed with in 1940 it would be used primarily against other fighters, the Me 110 was sadly lacking in that ability, no matter how it was armed.

As for putting a Flak 38 or KwK 38 in a Me 109, even the MG 151/20 breech was beyound the pilots ankles, The Flak/KwK 38 are both significantly longer in the breech and barrel than the MG 151/20. Where are you going to put the pilot?
 
The Fw 187 was so cramped and compact that to read the engine instruments the pilot looked out the side windows and read them on the inside engine cowlings.
It didn't remotely have the spare space to carry anything the Me 110 could, any big weapons would take something else's space, like fuel.
Of course just redesign it, how hard could that be ?
 
davebender said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because it was way too heavy - 2cm MG C30 weighted above 64 kg... it was a heavy gun. At this weight, two MG FFs are a better solution. Three times the rate of fire at less weight...
 
Last edited:
What does that have to do with putting even heavier weapons on the Fw 187, the Fw loaded weight was less than the Me 110 empty weight. The Fw 187 seems to be your favorite aircraft, and you're forever crying about the fact it went nowhere beyound only about 6-7 prototypes.
Get over it, maybe it went nowhere because that same smallness that enabled it to have such spectacular performance, meant that it had no growth potential.
 

I disagree to Dave's argumentation about the armament at 1940 because all was in the flow and development and I don't think it is that easy to accelerate things that much as Dave had suggested.
But there is no serious argumention that a FW 187 couldn't be armed with 4 x 151/20 at 1943.
If you want to argue about the FW 187 please read some serious sources! For example:

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History

And to your argumentation about the growth potential, this are the original datas of the FW 187 at 1942 from Focker Wulf to the advertisements of the RLM of a nightfighter/destroyer and high altitude fighter:


So please do some research about the FW 187 before you make your statements.

Also there were built 6 prototypes and 3 preproducction aircrafts!

The FW 187 has much much more potential then the P38 from speed, climb performance, wing loading and roll performance and only the latest versions of the P38 had more range performance as the FW 187 with 1300L internal fuel. Also the FW 187 was production ready 1939!

Edit:
Get over it
Click to expand...

There is no single reason or agumentation to get over it!
It was the best german fighter from the potential till the Ta 152H and the FW190 D9.
To my opinion the FW 187 woukd be better from it's performance at constant development as the FW 190 D9!
 
Last edited:
Calculated performance is always outstanding.

They built 9 Fw 187s, 6 prototypes, 3 preproduction models. The last prototype had 2 DB 601 installed, and when they managed to get the usually troublesome evaperative cooling system to function they managed to get 394mph out of it, no armament, just a bare bones prototype. How many more time did they manage to get that kind of speed out of it ?

The 3 preproduction samples had Jumo 210, about 700+ hp, 329 mph top speed, armed, tested by the Luftwaffe, and then sent back to the factory.

My or your opinion of the aircraft 70 years later means nothing. What the RLM thought of it at the time is what matters. Maybe they made a mistake, it certainly wouldn't have been their first one.
 
Oh man!

excuse me!

But no single FW 187 had ever an evaporative cooling system! That shows your knowledge about this a/c!

The 635 km/h at SL clocked october 1939 was with Dampfheißkühlung!
Edit: With full armament


Your argumantation is a kind of myth but not the truth!

The quote is original from me and the citated books!

Edit:

My argumentation based on primary sources from Focker Wulf engineers and original estimated flight manuals of the FW 187 from Focker Wulf engineers!
 
Last edited:
Maybe you need to look a little closer yourself Fw 187 V6 had a evaporative cooling system.

Don't get personal with the insults, just because I don't agree with you. You tried the same nonsense in the U-boat XXI thread, and it's getting old.

I got over my fasination with German super weapons forty years ago.
 
Maybe you need to look a little closer yourself Fw 187 V6 had a evaporative cooling system.
Click to expand...

No!!!

No single FW 187 had ever an evaporative cooling system! That is proved from primary sources!

The 635 km/h at SL clocked october 1939 was with Dampfheißkühlung and the V5! The V6 never flew, it was the prototype for the world record and never flew!

Primary source! Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History

You should consult primary sources or serious sources but no wiki!

Don't get personal with the insults, just because I don't agree with you. You tried the same nonsense in the U-boat XXI thread, and it's getting old.
Click to expand...

I have done no harm, I have only citated primary sources! Also at the XXI discussion!
If it doesn't at your radar it is not my problem!
I got over my fasination with German super weapons forty years ago.
Click to expand...
Primary sources are primary sources get with it or not!
 
I've consulted several different sites, all agree there was a Fw 187 V6, not one makes the remark it never flew, ( which I find strange for a aircraft you say never flew) 3 agree it had the DB 601, and 2 note that that the V6 had the evaporative cooling system.
Many sites out there were just copies of the Wiki site, these were not.

But I have a feeling no matter what I come up with online, i'm never going to meet you requirement of "primary sources".
 
I think part of the problem is bad translation of the cooling system and how it works, many people using the term "evaporative" when they shouldn't. The plane did not use conventional radiators and did use panels in the wings. I think ( and could be wrong here) that it rather depends on what proportion of the coolant was allowed to turn to steam/vapor. I believe the Merlin at times had some of the coolant vaporize and had a "separator" that sent a line of liquid and vapor to the header tank where the vapor condensed back to a liquid. The total amount of vapor was very small. RR had had their fill of steam cooling with the Goshawk engine. RR and Curtiss and a few others had used "surface radiators" on race planes to reduce drag. This was successful but expensive in initial construction and in maintenance.
The German system ( to me anyway) seems to be a combination. A bit more liquid is allowed to vaporize (but nowhere near all), the vapor is separated out and sent to the surface radiators/condensers ( or what ever you want to call them) where it condenses back to a liquid. It is collected and sent back to the header tank where it is mixed with the liquid coolant returned from the engine. (clarification wanted?)

In some race planes a true "evaporative" system was used. The plane was fitted with a large coolant tank and after the liquid reached the boiling point the "vapor" was allowed to escape to the air. With enough coolant the plane can fly long enough for record runs.
The Fw 187 and He 100 did not vent the vapor ( at least not on purpose) and flight times were not restricted by the coolant supply as in a "true" evaporative system.

I would note that the presence of surface cooling panels is NOT a sure indicator of what kind of cooling system a plane has. I would also note that some low performance ( and a few high performance planes) of the 1920s and 30s did not have oil coolers. they simply mounted the oil tank with one or more surfaces exposed to the air stream.
 
With regards to the He100, the system was a leaky steam evaporative system. All the tests flights accounted for the consumption of water and alcohol up thru the V-8 aircraft with the initial liquid quantities provided for consumption for maximum flight time. Starting with the V-4 thru the series I,II and III aircraft were fitted with an auxiliary retractable radiator to be used on the ground and if required on the climb out. In normal flight it was retracted. The He119 employed a similar system but the radiator did not completely retract out of the airflow.

The Ki-61 evaporative test bed employed something similar to the He100 and the Heinkel may have resembled this configuration had development continued to the 10.8m wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
17
Views
857
Snautzer01
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
622
spicmart
S
Hornet Deck Load for the Doolittle Raid
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register