parsifal
Colonel
Kind of, but it then leads us circular fashion back to the original coment i made, which is that adopting the FW 187 will cost the LW some hundreeds of its historical force structure.
Effect of operational Fw187s during the Battle of Britain
- Thread starter wiking85
- Start date
Kind of, but it then leads us circular fashion back to the original coment i made, which is that adopting the FW 187 will cost the LW some hundreeds of its historical force structure.
- Thread starter
- #102
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Which in the OP I said was the cancellation of the Bf110 and repeated constantly. That entire project and the Zerstoerer concept would be cancelled in 1936 as general Wever wanted. The Fw187 would be developed as a long range escort fighter then, as von Richthofen wanted. As a result the Bf110 would not be produced and the hundreds of this model produced by 1940 would not be made. Starting in mid-1939 the Fw187 would enter production, probably with increased weight as suggested, and by then the Db601s that went to the Bf110 historically would instead go to the Fw187s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Polish_Campaign
The result would be that Germany would lack a long range fighter for the Polish campaign and one or two Geschwader of Fw187s would be ready in time for the Norwegian campaign. By the start of the BoF there would be at least two if not three Geschwader ready. By August, minus casualties, there would probably be around 3-4 Geschwader ready.
The question also would be what would the Luftwaffe do with the resources not spent on the Bf110 from 1936-1938? Pilots were trained and aircraft built, engines allocated, etc. which here won't start until 1939.
Last edited:
Not really "some versions", but prototypes.
I agree. There is a difference between hypothesising about what decisions might or might not have been made and what is technically or physically possible. Nowt wrong with hypothesising abpout the RLM deciding to put it into production and service in time for the BoB, but don't exaggerate factors that do not stand up to realistic or rational analysis.
What this thread highlights (apart from a tendency to exaggerate the capabilities of the type) is what a mistake the RLM made in not putting the Fw 187 into production and service.
- Thread starter
- #104
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
And categorizing the Bf110 as an escort fighter. It should have been a fighter-bomber and bomber destroyer and it would have been perfectly fine, though the Ju88 could have done that just as well.
- Thread starter
- #105
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
And categorizing the Bf110 as an escort fighter. It should have been a fighter-bomber and bomber destroyer and it would have been perfectly fine, though the Ju88 could have done that just as well.
parsifal
Colonel
You are repeating the same error over and over, no doubt getting frustrated because i keep giving you the same answer. In every other sense, but name, you are wanting to describe this project as a FW 187. If you want to describe it as a FW 187, then necessarily you have to accept it in the time frame that it did develop (except the last bit after June 1939), and for the reasons that it did develop. There was no interest in 1936 for the FW187 as a single seat fighter, but later it was accepted as an alternative design to the Zerstorer concept. It may have returned to its single seat roots, but that is a legitimate extrapolation whereas trying to re-write history from 1936 is, in my opnion more along the lines of good fiction.
By eliminating the Zerstorer specification, you also eliminate the only reason the FW187 had any interest at all shown in it. You can assume that it gets developed as a single seat fighter, but its at that point that the type ceases to be the FW 187 and becomes something else entirely.
So, in my opinion, if you want to consider this as a FW 187 derivative, you have to accept a minimalist change approach to its development. Necessarily that means having to accept the unpalatable reality that it owed its existence because of the Zerstorere Spec.
So that means necessarily all the detours, delays, problems and compromises that go with that pathway of development. And that means, on my estimates, a cost of about 600 or so aircraft from the LW line up in 1940.
This is quite apart from the other elephant in the room, namely that the FW187 was a twin engined a/c, which means its sucks out engines at twice the rate of Me109s. That alone will affect aircraft availability greatly.
By eliminating the Zerstorer specification, you also eliminate the only reason the FW187 had any interest at all shown in it. You can assume that it gets developed as a single seat fighter, but its at that point that the type ceases to be the FW 187 and becomes something else entirely.
So, in my opinion, if you want to consider this as a FW 187 derivative, you have to accept a minimalist change approach to its development. Necessarily that means having to accept the unpalatable reality that it owed its existence because of the Zerstorere Spec.
So that means necessarily all the detours, delays, problems and compromises that go with that pathway of development. And that means, on my estimates, a cost of about 600 or so aircraft from the LW line up in 1940.
This is quite apart from the other elephant in the room, namely that the FW187 was a twin engined a/c, which means its sucks out engines at twice the rate of Me109s. That alone will affect aircraft availability greatly.
parsifal
Colonel
I would say that FW187 was similar to the Gloster F.9/37, also known as the Gloster G.39. This was a a British twin-engined design for a cannon-armed fighter to serve with the Royal Air Force planned before the Second World War. The F.9/37 was rejected in favour of other designs. Sound familiar?????
A development of the F.9/37 as a night fighter, for a new Air Ministry Specifications F.29/40 – known unofficially as the "Gloster Reaper" – was dropped so that Gloster would be able to concentrate on existing work and on the nascent British jet projects.
Gloster had designed a twin-engined turret-fighter for specification F.34/35 but the single engine design from Boulton Paul (Boulton Paul Defiant) for F.9/35 was seen to cover both requirements and the F.34/55 design dropped. Had the germans progressed with their FW187 project, it is entirely plausiblke that the RAF would proceed with this twin so as to "match what the enemy is developing" instead of building the rather indifferent Defiant.
The F.9/37 was designed under the direction of W. G. Carter, his first for Gloster, to F.9/37 (hence the name) as a single seat fighter carrying an armament of four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns and two 20 mm Hispano cannon in the nose.
A prototype with 1,060 hp Bristol Taurus T-S(a) radial engines flew on 3 April 1939, and demonstrated excellent performance, its maximum speed of 360 mph (580 km/h) being the best recorded by a British fighter at the time. Test flights revealed that the prototype was very manoeuvrable and "a delight to fly." However, after being badly damaged in a landing accident in July 1939, it was re-engined with 900 hp Taurus T-S(a)-IIIs in 1940, which resulted in reduced performance. A second prototype (L8002) with 880 hp Rolls-Royce Peregrine I liquid-cooled in-line engines flew on 22 February 1940, it proved capable of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m).
In detail the prototype had the following characteristics
Maximum speed: 360 mph (313 knots, 580 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m)
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Rate of climb: 2,460 ft/min[8] (12.5 m/s) at 15,000 ft
Wing loading: 30.1 lb/ft² (147 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.172 lb/hp (0.283 kW/kg)
Climb to 28,000 feet (8,500 m): 19 min, 36 sec
Guns:
o Four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
o Two 20 mm Hispano cannon
Bombs: provision for 20lb bomb carriers
To my mind, both aircraft had very similar characteristics and potential, but neither were viable alternatives to SE fighters. Principally they were inherently more expensive to produce
A development of the F.9/37 as a night fighter, for a new Air Ministry Specifications F.29/40 – known unofficially as the "Gloster Reaper" – was dropped so that Gloster would be able to concentrate on existing work and on the nascent British jet projects.
Gloster had designed a twin-engined turret-fighter for specification F.34/35 but the single engine design from Boulton Paul (Boulton Paul Defiant) for F.9/35 was seen to cover both requirements and the F.34/55 design dropped. Had the germans progressed with their FW187 project, it is entirely plausiblke that the RAF would proceed with this twin so as to "match what the enemy is developing" instead of building the rather indifferent Defiant.
The F.9/37 was designed under the direction of W. G. Carter, his first for Gloster, to F.9/37 (hence the name) as a single seat fighter carrying an armament of four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns and two 20 mm Hispano cannon in the nose.
A prototype with 1,060 hp Bristol Taurus T-S(a) radial engines flew on 3 April 1939, and demonstrated excellent performance, its maximum speed of 360 mph (580 km/h) being the best recorded by a British fighter at the time. Test flights revealed that the prototype was very manoeuvrable and "a delight to fly." However, after being badly damaged in a landing accident in July 1939, it was re-engined with 900 hp Taurus T-S(a)-IIIs in 1940, which resulted in reduced performance. A second prototype (L8002) with 880 hp Rolls-Royce Peregrine I liquid-cooled in-line engines flew on 22 February 1940, it proved capable of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m).
In detail the prototype had the following characteristics
Maximum speed: 360 mph (313 knots, 580 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m)
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Rate of climb: 2,460 ft/min[8] (12.5 m/s) at 15,000 ft
Wing loading: 30.1 lb/ft² (147 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.172 lb/hp (0.283 kW/kg)
Climb to 28,000 feet (8,500 m): 19 min, 36 sec
Guns:
o Four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
o Two 20 mm Hispano cannon
Bombs: provision for 20lb bomb carriers
To my mind, both aircraft had very similar characteristics and potential, but neither were viable alternatives to SE fighters. Principally they were inherently more expensive to produce
Attachments
![Gloster_f9_37[1].jpg](/forum/data/attachments/200/200923-32ff5fc57f10129cfd1d61cbf3b5427e.jpg?hash=Mv9fxX8QEp)
Last edited:
How that beast, F9/37, is told to be similar to Fw187 is trully amazing
The single seat Fw187 , and all the future version are called fantasy planes by some members , but were called still Fw187s by their mother company , Focke-Wulf. But i suppose these forum members know better.
The 500kgr difference between single and two searted versions are Fw weights. And the difference would be bigger in future versions
But the most amazing statement is that Lw would have 600 less planes available for bof, if bf 110 had been canceled in favor of Fw187, because of the role of Bf 110 in BoF !!! No comment on that.
There were voices in Lw pointing the inability of Bf 110 to face modern single seaters both pre war and during 1939/40. Partly , it was political backing that saved the 110 . It would be not fantacy, but common sence those voices to have won the day and introduce a better long range fighter
Then replace the jumos of the V-1with the INTENDED from the start of the design DBs. How much fantacy does this need? Add as much weight as you like , even with 5200 or even 5500 kgr full load the single seat would be vastly superior to Bf110 c and very very competitive with british fighters. With proper tactics of course
ps in which way did the presence of the heavy, long range radio helped the 110 s during BoB? Why the lack of such an apparatus would be a shortcoming for the 187?
The single seat Fw187 , and all the future version are called fantasy planes by some members , but were called still Fw187s by their mother company , Focke-Wulf. But i suppose these forum members know better.
The 500kgr difference between single and two searted versions are Fw weights. And the difference would be bigger in future versions
But the most amazing statement is that Lw would have 600 less planes available for bof, if bf 110 had been canceled in favor of Fw187, because of the role of Bf 110 in BoF !!! No comment on that.
There were voices in Lw pointing the inability of Bf 110 to face modern single seaters both pre war and during 1939/40. Partly , it was political backing that saved the 110 . It would be not fantacy, but common sence those voices to have won the day and introduce a better long range fighter
Then replace the jumos of the V-1with the INTENDED from the start of the design DBs. How much fantacy does this need? Add as much weight as you like , even with 5200 or even 5500 kgr full load the single seat would be vastly superior to Bf110 c and very very competitive with british fighters. With proper tactics of course
ps in which way did the presence of the heavy, long range radio helped the 110 s during BoB? Why the lack of such an apparatus would be a shortcoming for the 187?
I am not downplaying the design of the wings contribution to the overall "slipperyness" of the aircraft,but this was nothing to do with laminar flow. The German experiments were done in a wind tunnel with a specially prepared wing and they found no evidence for the air flow over the wing surface remaining laminar. Transpose that to a real life wing on a service aircraft and their is no chance whatsoever.
This is another aspect of something I keep seeing repeated in other contexts,the tendency to muddle theoretical or ideal test performances with those achievable by aircraft in service.
Cheers
Steve
No,I'm talking about V5. The record breaking attempts were to be made with V7,on which work was halted in 12 September 1939. V7 never had the "special" DB 601s required to surpass the Me 209s speed record fitted.
The evaporative cooling system was first tested on the port engine of V5 on 15th September 1939 after more than a year of development by both Focke-Wulf and Daimler Benz.
Work with V5 didn't terminate until February 1942 when it was grounded and work on the evaporative cooling system finally ceased.
Both Focke-Wulf and Daimler Benz were developing this for production aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
No one has answered my question as to whether the Fw 187 was going to be fitted with self sealing tanks or armour plating, which would change weight figures, and as Delcyros astutely pointed out, in 1940, the aerodynamics of the Fw 187 would need to change to produce the performance that is being bandied about here. This would not have been able to be done in time for the Battle of Britain. The Hornet is a good example, since if it was fitted with chunky radiators like the Fw 187s under its propeller, the drag would surely effect its speed (and its looks; although this is not consequential, it is important since the Hornet is one attractive aeroplane).
These radiators' surface area would also need to be enlarged to compensate for the extra power output of the DB 601s. Take the Spitfire for example; look at the difference in surface area of its radiators between the Mk.V, Mk.IX and XIV fitted with Griffon engines.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, none of the Fw 187 proponents have acknowledged that if it did have such sterling performance, what would the British response be? As I said, you can sure as heck be certain they wouldn't just sit on their hands.
The fuel tanks were the standard Focke-Wulf cells held in place by straps. I don't think that they were self sealing in the true sense of the word. They resemble those of the Ta 152 which weren't.
They were provided with "medium lightweight armour". I don't know how or from what this was made,I doubt it was steel plate.
As far as I know the five tonne gross weight includes this,armament (two MG 17s and two MG 151 cannon) and an armoured windscreen.There is no mention of armour to protect the pilot which would surely be required on a service aircraft.
As far as radiators/drag go the oft quoted figure of 635 kph for a DB 601 powered Fw 187 at low level was achieved by V5 (CI+NY) fitted with the two prototype engines and the evaporative cooling system.
I don't think anyone is contemplating a service version featuring this system so some fairly chunky radiators are going to be needed. Radiator design was not one of Germany's best areas of expertise.
Cheers
Steve
Mr DonL has provided evidence that this statement is wrong. V5 used small coolers with a high pressure cooling system
True , it would need additional cooling in service but on the other hand the 635 km/h was achieved at low altitude
Since I've posted both German test results (0.0072 of captured P-51's wing, vs 0.0089 of Fw-190) and results of NACA model (0.0068 ), hope that I don't belong to the muddlers
Stating that Germans were doing the test in "a wind tunnel with a specially prepared wing" does not, hopefully, point out that NACA NAA were doing their tests design job in their engineer's spare time, in a barn or something.
Since I've posted both German test results (0.0072 of captured P-51's wing, vs 0.0089 of Fw-190) and results of NACA model (0.0068 ), hope that I don't belong to the muddlers
Stating that Germans were doing the test in "a wind tunnel with a specially prepared wing" does not, hopefully, point out that NACA NAA were doing their tests design job in their engineer's spare time, in a barn or something.
No and no,of course not but I now have an image of a couple of blokes in white coats and a large fan in a barn which is entertaining
I was just making the point that the wing that the Germans tested (and I assume the Americans) had a carefully prepared surface and did not exhibit a laminar flow over the surface. The consequences for a much less carefully prepared surface on an aircraft in squadron service is not difficult to imagine. Someone testing the wing made a comment about even a squashed insect delaminating the airflow at the leading edge but I can't remember who.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Well, lets see shall we.
Numbers for the F9/37 FW 187 and Westland Whirlwind.
Wing span------ 50' 0.5"--------50' 2.3"-------45'
Length----------37' 0.5"--------36' 6"---------32' 3"
Wing area-------386sq/ft-------327.2sq/ft----250sq/ft
empty weight---9,222lbs--------8,157lbs------8,310lb
Gross weight----12,108lbs------11,023lbs-----10,356lbs
Speed/height----330/15,000----328/13,800----360/15,000
Weights and speed for the F9/37 are with Peregrine engines. Weights for the Fw 187 are for the A-O version. It appears the "Beast" has about 18% more wing area, weighs 12% more empty and 10% more loaded. Granted the British planes have 885hp per engine at 15,000ft compared to the 675hp at 12,500 to 15,000ft for the Jumo 210 (depends on RAM). Calculated speed for the V-4 and A-0 was 545kph at 4600meters (335mph at 15,180ft).
Yeah, I can see how there is NO comparison to be made between the F9/37 and Fw 187
Not sure what the point is here?? The P-47A was a 6000lb plane powered by a single Allison and we know how that turned out
Adding or subtracting a seat on most twin engine planes did not require different designations or new designs. Both the US and British had a few "fantasy planes" of their own as paper studies were done of alternative engine set-ups that never saw the light of day, the companies rarely changed the designation for such projects aside from a letter or numerical suffix.
Can you please give the source for this, I cannot find it Herman Petrick's book but I may be looking on the wrong page/s?
I do agree with much of what you say here, IF there had been no 110 then the required number of 187s might have been built. However it takes a LOT of "common sense" and/or arrogance pre war and during 1939/40 to do away "totally" with the "Zerstorer" type plane as the French were building large numbers, the Italians were designing and building prototypes ( as were the Poles), The Japanese were working on such a plane and the Americans were fooling around with the Airacuda ( a plane that should have burned while still on the drawing board) . Such a plane was not just a German Idea but figured prominently in a lot of the writings by air theorists in many nations.
And as seen later, such air-frames did have important roles to play even if not quite what was originally invisioned. It also takes a pretty good crystal ball to foresee that the Ju-88 would turn out as good (or as adaptable) as it did back in pre war and during 1939/40.
No and no,of course not but I now have an image of a couple of blokes in white coats and a large fan in a barn which is entertaining
I was just making the point that the wing that the Germans tested (and I assume the Americans) had a carefully prepared surface and did not exhibit a laminar flow over the surface. The consequences for a much less carefully prepared surface on an aircraft in squadron service is not difficult to imagine. Someone testing the wing made a comment about even a squashed insect delaminating the airflow at the leading edge but I can't remember who.
Cheers
Steve
Think we're arrived at something agreeable: the in-service laminar flow wing was the best real world interpretation of a theoretical laminar-floe wing. Ie. the true, 100% laminar flow wing was never possible in real word.
The aircraft in service surely gave away some speed due to weathering, small damages etc. That held true for all airplanes. So I guess if a plane A starts with lower drag, after 100 flying hours it would still be a lower drag airplane when compared with a not-so-low-drag airplane B after that one also made 100 flying hours.
- Thread starter
- #118
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
You do realize that the Fw187 was marketed as a single seat long range escort fighter by Focke-Wulf and the design was accepted as such by the Luftwaffe's technical department under von Richthofen, right? Richthofen ordered the prototypes are a long range escort fighter based on the original design without modification or anything to do with the Zerstoerer role. When von Richthofen left after having some issues with Udet when he replace Walter Wimmer, the project began alterations; first the first three prototypes were denied the Db600 engines they were promised and had to use the Jumo 210s instead. Then they were ordered to adopted the Zerstoerer role in the V4-6 versions to be allowed to continue development, which they did. Based on that the A-0 series was ordered. So you are incorrect in saying that there was no desire for a single seat, twin engine fighter of the type of the Fw187, as there in fact was from both Walter Wever and Wolfram von Richthofen, which only changed upon the death of Wever and the shaking up of the technical branch of the Luftwaffe; at that point the Zerstoerer role became prominent in the development of the Fw187.
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Had Walter Wever not died, then Wimmer would not have been replaced and von Richthofen would not have left the technical department. Therefore the Fw187 would have continued the development path it started on, as ordered by von Richthofen, rather than Udet coming in and changing the project after the first three Fw187s were either in construction or delivered.
Wever wanted to kill the Zerstoerer project, as he thought it was too much of a compromised design, and that the French project was equally a waste of resources. Goering wanted the project kept because he thought it was viable. So if we have a situation in which Goering dies and Wever lives, then the project would be cancelled. The Fw187 was Richthofen's pet project, so without Wever's death he sticks around in the Technical Department and once the design proves itself, it would be clear that it could fill the role of escort fighter that Wever recognized as necessary.
The Zerstoerer may have been in many nation's air theory ideas, but Germany did not adopt the concepts many country's air power theorists had; just like the rejection of much of Douhet by Wever and Wilberg in favor of a balanced doctrine. Also to be fair France was seriously behind the air power curve in the 1930s.
You are correct about the Ju88 proving only later to fill the heavy fighter role well. That said even then Wever's Luftwaffe wanted to axe the Bf110 project but for Goering. The Fw187 was not being developed by von Richthofen to fill the same role, but rather another one entirely. Beyond this the Me109 with cannons was a match for any bomber Germany was likely to face up to 1940.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
No and no,of course not but I now have an image of a couple of blokes in white coats and a large fan in a barn which is entertaining
I was just making the point that the wing that the Germans tested (and I assume the Americans) had a carefully prepared surface and did not exhibit a laminar flow over the surface. The consequences for a much less carefully prepared surface on an aircraft in squadron service is not difficult to imagine. Someone testing the wing made a comment about even a squashed insect delaminating the airflow at the leading edge but I can't remember who.
I believe there is an NACA report (lots of guys in a really big barn with a really big fan) that found that even the thickness of paint used for the national insignia disrupted the airflow.
I believe that NOBODY was able to maintain laminar flow much past about 40% of wing cord at this time. Normal airfoils broke down at about 15-20% and the Davis wing went to 20-25%. The Mustang wing went to 30-40%. It helped but was not a great change or at least not the change that was hoped for from early small scale experiments.
Well, let's see it then.
Thanks for the update on the Fw 187's radiator, Steve.
Actually, I've changed my mind - the Fw 187 had the potential to be a terrific aeroplane, but what would not building the Bf 110 in favour of it actually cost the Luftwaffe in the long term? Despite its performance in the Battle of Britain, the Bf 110 was a capable and versatile aeroplane and proved its worth in other battlefields. It was the Luftwaffe's primary night fighter during the war in which a significant number of enemy bombers were shot down. It also proved itself in North Africa as a close support aircraft.
Without it, the LW would have been stuck with a one trick pony - a high performing single-seat twin engined fighter with little ability to evolve without major structural changes. It would have made a terrible night fighter with its tiny cockpit and so many instruments outside of the cockpit; there's no way you could cram a Lichtenstein set into its nose, and where would the aerial go?
The wings would have to be redesigned to fit hard points for the mounting of pylons for a close support role, so overall, perhaps the RLM unwittingly made the right decision for themselves by keeping the Bf 110. The war evolved into something that the RLM did not expect and, like with the RAF, many of the concepts it dreamed up before the war were found to be lacking during it. Versatile aeroplanes proved their worth during WW2 many times over on all sides and the '110 and Ju 88 were among the best that were fielded on any side. I doubt the Fw 187 could measure up to the usefulness of these two types.
Oops, just started reading Bf 110 thread - should have posted this there, oh well, still important here...
Last edited:
