1940: Luftwaffe's ideal heavy fighter?

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

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?
 
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.
 
RLM's decision to require it be revised to be a two-seater a back handed way of killing it
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Ju88C as a heavy fighter, fighter-bomber, train buster, precision bomber, light tactical bomber, and bomber destroyer
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
@ 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
@ 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)
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Engineman
E
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
506
spicmart
S
Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
MiTasol
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register