The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
Fw 190 is not a Spitfire rival as the top speed of the prototype is quite disappointing in the early days.
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.
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
Fw 190 is not a Spitfire rival as the top speed of the prototype is quite disappointing in the early days.
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!
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
So were the Yaks, Zeros in 1944 etc.
As above, we might list many single engined planes that got shot in drowes. 'All others failed' is a sweeping generalization.
That would've be an awesome sight.
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...