Dec 1941. Long range day fighter.

[GrauGeist]

1. No the leading engineer has mounted a weight to the rudders, because of fail calculations, which was totaly unnecessary (Amazon product ASIN 0764318713View: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764318713?keywords=Fw%20187&qid=1456105951&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
)

And Blaser's efforts with the weight caused the rudder to tear away in flight

V2 saw an adjustment to the vertical stabilizer design to prevent any future problems.

2. There was no single issue about the landing gear!
(Amazon product ASIN 0764318713View: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764318713?keywords=Fw%20187&qid=1456105951&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
)

V2 crashed during summer trials, 1937 due to landing gear failure - double-check your little book

3. To my knowledge and any source I have read, there were NOT any plans of a three seater, that is totaly crap. Also the Fw 187 was only planed with DB engines.
(Amazon product ASIN 0764318713View: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764318713?keywords=Fw%20187&qid=1456105951&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
)
DB 601 V, DB 601, Db 605 etc. The Jumo 210 engines were only installed, because of the shortage of the DB engines for war efforts.

It had been suggested, as a nightfighter option, it was never done. The idea of the Fw187 being a bomber, a dive bomber, heavy fighter and all sorts of other ridiculous things, is not unusual to the RLM's way of thinking.

Anyway, the original design called for DB600 engines. The RLM discouraged the use of the DB600 engines because they were earmarked for the Bf109 and Bf110, He111 and several other types.

The DB601, which was a direct fuel injected DB600, wasn't in full production until the end of 1937. V6 was the only 187 to have Daimler-Benz engines (DB600) even though Kurt Tank conducted studies regarding other powerplants: DB series and even the BMW801.

 

[parsifal]

Im no expert, but there are a great many people from this forum that do not agree with your appraisal of this type.

My personal view is that it was a type with great potential, but there were problems with it, else the LW would have accepted it into production.

its not that I dismiss your claims, its just that I prefer the collective wisdom of this place that does not share your optimism for this prototype

 

[Starfighter91]

And Blaser's efforts with the weight caused the rudder to tear away in flight

V2 saw an adjustment to the vertical stabilizer design to prevent any future problems.


V2 crashed during summer trials, 1937 due to landing gear failure - double-check your little book


It had been suggested, as a nightfighter option, it was never done. The idea of the Fw187 being a bomber, a dive bomber, heavy fighter and all sorts of other ridiculous things, is not unusual to the RLM's way of thinking.

Anyway, the original design called for DB600 engines. The RLM discouraged the use of the DB600 engines because they were earmarked for the Bf109 and Bf110, He111 and several other types.

The DB601, which was a direct fuel injected DB600, wasn't in full production until the end of 1937. V6 was the only 187 to have Daimler-Benz engines (DB600) even though Kurt Tank conducted studies regarding other powerplants: DB series and even the BMW801.

1. Wrong the weight on the rudders, was flying away through the speed in a dive, and without the weight the rudders were perfect, read the primary source about this flight!

2. There was no issue with the landíng gear after primary sources!

3. Wrong the Fw 187 was suggested as nightfighter 1938 as two seater, because it has the license as heavy weather or blind sight fighter.

4. Wrong, the only Fw 187 which flew with DB engines was the V5 and it flew with DB 601 V41 engines with a steam seperater and 1100PS. This plane clocked 629 km/h at sea level, with a hot steam cooling (not exactly a evaporation cooling) at october 1939, because it had no surface for evaporation, only very smal high effciency coolers under the engines. This is proved from primary sources and photos at the mentioned book.

I think you know very little about the Fw 187!

 

[GrauGeist]

1. Wrong the weight on the rudders, was flying away through the speed in a dive, and without the weight the rudders were perfect, read the primary source about this flight!

2. There was no issue with the landuíng gear after primary sources!

3. Wrong the Fw 187 was suggested as nightfighter 1938 as two seater, because it has the license as heavy weather or blind sight fighter.

4. Wrong, the only Fw 187 which flew with DB engines was the V5 and it flew with DB 601 V41 engines with a steam seperater and 1100PS. This plane clocked 629 km/h at sea level with hot steam cooling (not exactly a evaporation cooling), because it had no surface for evaporation!

I think you know very little about the Fw 187!

Whatever...

 

[Starfighter91]

So whatever are the "new" arguments or argumentation?

 

[Starfighter91]

Im no expert, but there are a great many people from this forum that do not agree with your appraisal of this type.

My personal view is that it was a type with great potential, but there were problems with it, else the LW would have accepted it into production.

its not that I dismiss your claims, its just that I prefer the collective wisdom of this place that does not share your optimism for this prototype

I can provide a book which is basing on primary sources, which sources have the other side?

 

[GrauGeist]

So whatever are the "new" arguments or argumentation?

That was my saying I am not in the mood to argue with you.

You are using an illustrated 160 page book for your definitive authority.

And I laugh.

 

[parsifal]

no thanks

 

[Starfighter91]

Ok you laugh about the primary sources which are all listed at the last 3 pages of the book?
So is this why the book is basing on german primary sources and not anglo sources or is there an other reason?

Have the primary sources from germany less value then the primary or other sources from the USA or GB?

I'm curious what is to laugh about an author and his primary sources (the only author in the whole world, who has direct access of the Focker Wulf archive), who has an international standing at the aviation world?

 

[GrauGeist]

First off, you need to calm down.

Secondly, I have sources too...sources like Griehl, Smith, Kay, Gunston, et al.

While I am not a world expert on the Fw187, I am fairly good at reading comprehension.

And what I have read from several sources, is that Kurt Tank designed the Falke to be a single-seat fighter, equipped with DB600 engines.

The rest is academic.

 

[Starfighter91]

The book from Dietmar Hermann is the only book in the whole world which was written only and directly about the FW 187 and direct access to the FW archive.

You are right the rest is academeic nonsense or copy and paste!

 

[parsifal]

why bother. this is the pointy end to the balmy army. its pointless to argue with these guys. that should be obvious by now

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think everyone needs to calm down.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think everyone needs to calm down.

I've been calm...had Pilsner Urquells with my Fillet Mignon followed up by a Macanudo Maduro and aged Bourbon.

I'm calm man...reeaallll calm!

 

[parsifal]

I will be in about 10 minutes. I have a bottle of 8 year scotch waiting to be enjoyed and I this is as good an occasion as any

 

[GrauGeist]

I will be in about 10 minutes. I have a bottle of 8 year scotch waiting to be enjoyed and I this is as good an occasion as any

Cheers, my friend

 

[drgondog]

I have stayed out of this due to in-depth ignorance regarding the FW 187 relative to identifiable and reliable flight test and drag data.

Hermann has produced good works on the FW 190D and others. Does he have similar background data for his treatment of the FW 187?

With reliable drag calculations validated by wind tunnel testing and reliable horsepower specs, the flight tests should validate (or repudiate) the preliminary engineering projections.

 

[stona]

The British sacrificed endurance for other properties they deemed important in an interceptor and this was an active policy from at least 1933 when the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Burnett) put proposals for a new day fighter, to replace the Fury, to the Chief of the Air Staff.
Burnett wrote.

"It is suggested that the operational requirement should be based on substantially the same principles as those on which the successful Fury was evolved namely, elimination of all but minimum essential equipment, no provision for night flying, and reduced endurance, in order to obtain the highest possible performance..."

You can find the same basic principle repeated time and time again throughout the 1930s. A later DCAS (Ludlow Hewitt) would write that the RAF should maintain a policy of

"...equipping a few squadrons with a fighter developed to produce as high a fighting performance as possible at the sacrifice of other characteristics such as endurance and landing speed."

Just as the quest for firepower led to the turret fighters discussed in another thread, the quest for speed and performance led to decisions which limited the endurance of British high speed fighters in the 1930s and into the war.
People here are trying to wave a magic wand and over turn years of institutional thinking to suddenly produce a long range fighter in 1941, like a rabbit out of a hat. I'm afraid it is hindsight again, without an understanding of how Britain came to have fighters of such limited endurance in the first place.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Thank you for the excerpts

FWIW, I've always mantained that long range fighter was much more a matter of doctrine than some country actually lagging behind in technology, and British were more than capable to come out with designs to do that job had that been asked for.
We can recall that UK ave had two long range fighters in service in 1941, (un)fortunately both having the roots from bombers, dive-or torpedo bombers.

 

[stona]

Every aircraft is a compromise, whatever the technology of the day. In the 1930s the British were looking for firepower and performance in fighters. It was the quest for performance that led to the sacrifice of range.
The British were aware of the increasing performance of fighters and bombers in other countries. By 1934 views that the current fighter specifications might be lagging behind those being developed abroad (which in 1934/5 means Germany) were being openly expressed. This just drove the quest for greater performance at the cost of other capabilities.
It was in July 1934 that the Director of Technical Development (DTD, Cave) at the Air Ministry wrote to the Operational Requirements section that

"We receive from A[air]. I[intelligence]. reports of high speeds claimed for fighters built abroad. As our new Fighter Specifications F.7/30, F.5/33 and F.22/33 all sacrifice performance for other operational requirements the situation may arise shortly that our fastest fighter is very much slower than some foreign fighters."

He was probably referring to F.7/30s required night fighting capability and the low performance expected of twin designs. The story of how this quest for speed led to not one but two short range, high speed interceptors is well known.

Cheers

Steve