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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The entire point of this hypothetical was to discuss the effects of the fighter serving in the Battle of Britain; if the result is that the British respond with their own hypothetical aircraft(s), then it falls within the OP. I don't want to continue the semantical argument over whether the Fw187 single seater constitutes alternate history or not. Frankly its a pointless pissing contest. Technically speaking the aircraft had the ability to exist as I describe it, so in that sense it is not a fantasy aircraft, in the sense of whether the aircraft I describe existed in the time frame I suggest, then yes, you are right that it would be an 'fantasy' aircraft because it did not exist as such at that time. We can argue whether later developments are indicators of the 1940 potential performance, but as of 1940 the Fw187 did not exist in the configuration I describe. So if that concession satisfies your demands, can we return to the central premise of this thread?
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.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.
If it makes you happy I'll acknowledge that the fighter I'm describing never entered full scale production and is a hypothetical aircraft, as we only has some versions of it to extrapolate performance from.
as far as "fantasy aircraft" goes this does enter into it. Hypothetical performance numbers are being thrown about that don't seem to stand up to a 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.
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.
I'm not saying that all of the low drag was because of the wing, but contribution of the wing to the low overall drag should not be downplayed.
This special cooling system was meant for a record flight but not for standard production models.
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.
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
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
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.
How that beast, F9/37, is told to be similar to Fw187 is trully amazing
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 outThe 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
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
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.
In 1935, Kurt Tank made the suggestion of creating a long-range single-seat fighter under a private venture within Focke-Wulf. The idea was not to produce a heavy fighter or bomber destroyer like the Bf 110, but instead a long-range design that would have the performance of a single-seat design. Powered by the new 736 kW (1,000 PS) Daimler-Benz DB 600, it had an expected speed of 560 km/h (350 mph). The design was unveiled in 1936 at an exhibition of new weapons, prototypes and projects held at the Henschel factory at Berlin-Schönefeld, where it was viewed by a number of high-ranking Nazi officials, including Hitler.
Tank then took the design directly to Wolfram von Richthofen, chief of the development section of the Technischen Amt, the research and development arm of the RLM. Richthofen was not so convinced that bomber performance would remain superior to fighters, and gave the go-ahead for the construction of three prototypes.
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.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.
Mr DonL has provided evidence that this statement is wrong.