Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
According to Curtiss XP-40The P-40 was often touted as a ground attack fighter to explain it's lack of altitude performance. Yet it was never rated as having an external bomb load until the C model. Perhaps (personal conjecture here) the Army was afraid that if Congress thought the pursuit planes could carry bombs they would NOT fund attack bombers?
Even assuming the advantages of a multi-role aircraft were ignored, the Fw 187 still had the advantages of being faster than the Ju 88 or Do 215 while using stocks of existing older Jumo 210 engines. (possibly using the Bramo engines of the Do 17 as well) Though Focke Wulf never attempted using alternate engines, Bramo and (especially) Jumo 211 engines would seem quite useful. (the Bramo would help more for climb and take-off performance than top speed, so attractive for potential high takeoff weights of bombloads as well as reduced engine vulnerability)As for the Fw 187, In 1937-39 such aircraft as the Do 17 and Ju 88 were viewed as Schnellbombers, and against such things as PZL P11 they were. And if you had enough spare DB601 engines to build Fw 187 "bombers" why not build Do 215s instead?
Ability to carry the second crewman was significant and a trade-off to consider in the long range patrol or escort role as well. (the performance trade-offs may have been worth the added communication abilities)However your idea about a "fighter bomber" version of the Fw 187 also stands up. The early German radios for single seat fighters were crap (so were most other countries). The ability to communicate with base and ground troops was minimal at best at any but short ranges. Pretty much a single frequency set. One reason for the 2nd crewman was to operate the long range radio. This also had multiple frequencies or was tunable to different frequencies. For a close support plane to depend on signal panels laid out on the ground (large arrows made of sheets of cloth) for targeting instructions is hardly the way to go. The guy in the back of the Ju 87 did more than wave that MG 15 around.
"The XP-40 flew for the first time on October 14, 1938, with test pilot Edward Elliot at the controls. Armament was two 0.50-inch machine guns located in the upper fuselage deck and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, standard armament for US pursuit aircraft at the time. Wing racks could be fitted for six 20-pound bombs."
So the initial prototype at least had provisions for installing bomb racks similar to the P-36. Perhaps some of the production P-40s retained such provisions as well, but weren't ever fitted? (prior to the adoption of the belly shackle, the bomb load limit was pretty light, even compared to the USN's 200~232 lbs)
Even assuming the advantages of a multi-role aircraft were ignored, the Fw 187 still had the advantages of being faster than the Ju 88 or Do 215 while using stocks of existing older Jumo 210 engines. (possibly using the Bramo engines of the Do 17 as well) Though Focke Wulf never attempted using alternate engines, Bramo and (especially) Jumo 211 engines would seem quite useful. (the Bramo would help more for climb and take-off performance than top speed, so attractive for potential high takeoff weights of bombloads as well as reduced engine vulnerability)
On the issue of American 1930s fighters having both bomb AND drop-tank carrying ability that disappeared with the P-40, P-39, P-38, F2A and F4F-3 (at least initially -and no drop tanks on the F2A) may have been due to greater focus on internal fuel capacity alone. The P-40C got its drop tank not to extend range, but to match the range the P-40B had managed on internal fuel. The XP-39 had originally carried 200 US gallons in its wings but the later self sealing cells nearly cut that in half. The P-38 took a major cut as well, though still managed a very long range. (still obviously much improved by drop tanks)
Ability to carry the second crewman was significant and a trade-off to consider in the long range patrol or escort role as well. (the performance trade-offs may have been worth the added communication abilities)
But the requirement for said crewman to also be an effective gunner (rather than relying on maneuverability, acceleration, and speed of a fighter) is another matter and tied to RLM doctrine, at least for the Zerstörer role.
British radios for Fighters during the BoB could switch between 4 different channels I believe from the cockpit?
Thank you.
This brings into question what the "fighter bomber" will be used for.
One side issue is the relative performance of fighters in the interwar period. Many fighters were simply incapable of carrying more than just guns until the advent of the "modern" monoplanes of the Hurricane, Spitfire, P-36 ilk. No point specifying a role for a fighter bomber if the available fighters can barely carry 4 guns into the fight.
I think that is not only a pertinent point but goes to the heart of the problem. The British struggled through the 1930s to get a S/E fighter capable of lifting four 20mm cannon, let alone bombs.
They might have had better luck if they had gotten their thumbs out of their bums earlier on the constant speed props. Or had priority over bomber production for the existing supply of props.
Aside from the low/medium altitude tactical escort and intercept role, might it not have been considered that the combination of heavy and light machine guns were more effective anti-material/personnel and anti-light armor weapons than those 20 lb bombs? (I'm not sure when AP/I rounds were first introduced on the .50 Browning, but that would have been a significant factor)Perhaps but no mention is made of bombs for the P-40 no letter and the P-40B. Ammo for the cowl .50 cal guns was increased from 200rpg to 380rpg. a 108lb increase in ammunition load. What is puzzling for the ground attack story of the P-40 is 1, the Army had decided it wanted radial engines for ground attack planes back in the early 30s.
This is somewhat curious since continued development of production of the P-36 would have fit that role and (while not as fast as the P-40) would at least have been much less vulnerable and capable as a fighter than contemporary attack planes.and the army stayed with air cooled engines for "attack" planes until the A-36.
Might the increased armament on the P-40B be at least in part for ground attack and not just air to air performance? (insisting on 4x LMGs in the P-39's wings against Bell's own wishes seems like it may have been for strafing as well, particularly with the ammo capacity and firing time far exceeding the nose guns)2, the army had pretty much standardized on four .30 cal mgs for attack planes from the planes pictured though the early A-20s. Two synchronized .50s aren't really good strafing armament.
If ability for tactical/close support use AND high altitude performance were the main considerations, might not a 2-stage R-1830 powered P-36 be more attractive? (slower below 15,000 ft, but likely better power/weight, better climb at most altitudes, shorter take-off run, better able to cope with weight of external stores, and significantly better acceleration/climb/speed around 20,000 ft, and potential further gains once the fan-cooled cowling set-up of the XP-42 were refined) More akin to the Hurricane II with much better high speed control and dive acceleration.AS a fighter to protect/escort the attack planes it makes more sense and what makes the most sense is that it was simply the best "altitude" fighter the Army could get at the time with the Allison engine using the highest gear ratio and FTH available at the time the planes were initially ordered and production started and the 'story' about the P-40 being designed/intended for ground attack is just wrong. What they were used for 2-3 years after being ordered is another story.
Given the Ju-88 had to resort to external racks to carry any large bombs would seem to be the area a fast fighter-bomber/dive bomber would be attractive. (and much faster and longer ranged than the Ju-87)A single 250kg or 500kg bomb? four 50kg bombs? eight 50kg bombs? one big bomb has a lot less drag than a bunch of little ones.
They certainly would have been inferior to the DB-601 or Jumo 211, and less fuel efficient than the Jumo 210, but external load carrying ability should have been significantly better than the 210 along with maximum climb rate, take off performance, and perhaps a more modest increase in top speed. (obviously much less than the DB 600 or 601 offered, but perhaps enough to put it slightly ahead of the Bf 109 and well ahead of the DB powered Bf 110 -and as a bomber, much faster than the Ju 87, though possibly not much advantage in speed over the 215 or 88 carrying internal bombs -more an advantage after dropping bombs and certainly compared to carrying external bombs)Using the Bramo 323 gives you power but at the cost of carrying around a pair of masonry sanitary facilities as far as drag goes.
Increasing altitudes may have been an issue as well, given the need for pressurized fuel tanks and such problems less likely to arise with tanks used on biplanes. The P-40C and Bf-109E-7 may be some of the earliest operational combat aircraft in WWII with properly combat-capable drop tanks.All this is true but one wonders why it took so long to bring /external/drop tanks back since they had been so common on early 1930s aircraft. Even the attack planes pictured had them.
Further cramping the already limited space for the radio operator could be a concern as well, hampering their ability in the radio capacity as well as possibly being less effective as a lookout. (more distracted, less attentive, and possibly a more obstructed field of vision due to the gun mounting -at least compared to the same area being glazed over rather than fared over with aluminum)From the German view point, once you have a rear seater, and a large radio and oxygen equipment and...... adding a lousy 10kg gun and mount and 1/2 dozen or so 75 round magazines is no big deal from a weight stand point. drag increase from trying to give the gunner a a decent field of fire may be more important.
Aside from the cost of the Jumo 210, given production is slowing down/ceasing anyway, it would be a short-term powerplant with cost of production already fixed. Logistically speaking, it's a matter of where to best allocate those supplies of engines. (fuel consumption might be a real operational cost consideration though, and single vs twin engine training)AS for a Fw 187 in 1039/40 using Jumo 210 engines, you have a plane with a similar wing area to a Ju-87, a bit more power but heavier empty and loaded weights (before bombs added) and costing more (you don't get two 20 liter V-12s for the price of one 33 liter V-12). As a sort of dedicated 'light' bomber it really doesn't make much sense unless also adopted as a fighter and with the Jumo 210 engines that wasn't going to happen.
Would that have been a bad thing, though? At least in as far as any fighters actually capable of managing competitive ranges with close to the same number of bombs (ie at least double the number of aircraft). Granted, these latter points are what Congress may have overlooked as well given the B-18 vs B-17 scenario. (they also likely wouldn't be fond of the P-38's cost -which itself may have been a very potent fighter bomber early-war, but production delays and other problems prevented that anyway, as was also discussed somewhat recently)Let too many congressmen know that single engine fighters could carry 500lbs worth of bombs and the twin engine "attack" plane could only carry 1200lbs (initial specification) and there might have been a lot of arguing about using 'cheap' fighter bombers instead of 'expensive' twin engine bombers. Please Remember that in the Spring and Summer of 1939 the Army owed Allison over $900,000 for work already done and this debt had NOTHING to do with engines for the production P-40s. (engines for YP-37 and Airacudas and development, etc).
I'm not so sure it would have been that much better a design overall than the Fw 187 itself, better than the Me 210, 410, He 219, and Ta 154 yes, perhaps a better heavy day interceptor (the 187 would need to resort to cheek/belly pod mountings for a really heavy armament) and night fighter better than hypothetical or real Ju 88 derivatives with similar engines, but compared to a late-war Fw 187 with compact radar? I suppose it at least would allow a roomier position for the radar operator and more flexible options for armament. (Still, the Fw 187 seems like it might manage to be similar to the P-38M, and given the altitudes of night bombers, DB-605AM engines would likely be perfectly acceptable -reserving DB-603s for Fw 190s would seem more sensible at that point, though prior to the AI radar coming online, diverting 603s to Ju 88s and possibly Ar 240s would make plenty of sense, though 603s to 190s and more 801s to twins might be more useful)From the other thread, I'm not sure the AR 240 had any issues that couldn't have been solved satisfactorily.
The main issues seem to have been marginal stability and that should not be "unfixable" for any design. The performance potential was certainly there and I think it could have been a good one ... but I'm also not sure it would have been, of course. But stability issues are correctable. perhaps it also had system or airframe problems that, taken together with the rest, made it seem not worth the effort.
In fact, I have bever seen a choerent explanation of why they didn't proceed with it. The closest I can come with an educated estimate is that the design team was asked to fix the stability issues and was given time to do it but they didn't succeed at it. If that happened, it might be the end of it in a wartime situation despite the obvious potential.
True for strategic bombing, but not tactical and Germany was all about tactical bombing and close cooperation with advancing ground forces. This makes fighter-bombers very attractive for similar reasons to dive-bombers, but the generally short range of operations required and apparent interest in converting level bombers to dive bombers yet not fighters makes the Fw 190 less appealing.During the interwar period, many believed that "the bomber will always get through", a concept staunchly supported by advocates of the strategic bomber because it was that weapon which largely drove the formation of independent air forces. As late as the early 1930s, fighters were the Cinderella component within many air forces. Allowing fighters to carry bombs would divert resources from the "real" function of air forces which was the delivery of strategic bombing.
I think the point was less constant speed props, and more any sort of useful variable pitch props. The fixed pitch 2-bladed wooden propellers were hindrances to all the British fighters using them, be it the sptifire, hurricane, or even the Gladiator.When were constant speed props added to the Bf109? I thought it only came in with the E-4 variant which doesn't put it too much ahead of the constant speed prop installation on the Spitfire MkII. If my timeline is correct, I see little opportunity for "them" to get their thumbs out any sooner than "they" did in reality.
I think the point was less constant speed props, and more any sort of useful variable pitch props. The fixed pitch 2-bladed wooden propellers were hindrances to all the British fighters using them, be it the sptifire, hurricane, or even the Gladiator.
Aside from the low/medium altitude tactical escort and intercept role, might it not have been considered that the combination of heavy and light machine guns were more effective anti-material/personnel and anti-light armor weapons than those 20 lb bombs? (I'm not sure when AP/I rounds were first introduced on the .50 Browning, but that would have been a significant factor)
Might the increased armament on the P-40B be at least in part for ground attack and not just air to air performance? (insisting on 4x LMGs in the P-39's wings against Bell's own wishes seems like it may have been for strafing as well, particularly with the ammo capacity and firing time far exceeding the nose guns)
Granted, unless they later switched to the R-2000, a radial engined Hawk would dead-end with the 2-stage R-1830 where the V-1710 saw considerable increases in emergency power as well as unapproved overboosting. (I'm not sure if such was ever attempted on the R-1830)
Given the Ju-88 had to resort to external racks to carry any large bombs would seem to be the area a fast fighter-bomber/dive bomber would be attractive. (and much faster and longer ranged than the Ju-87)
They certainly would have been inferior to the DB-601 or Jumo 211, and less fuel efficient than the Jumo 210, but external load carrying ability should have been significantly better than the 210 along with maximum climb rate, take off performance, and perhaps a more modest increase in top speed. (obviously much less than the DB 600 or 601 offered, but perhaps enough to put it slightly ahead of the Bf 109 and well ahead of the DB powered Bf 110 -and as a bomber, much faster than the Ju 87, though possibly not much advantage in speed over the 215 or 88 carrying internal bombs -more an advantage after dropping bombs and certainly compared to carrying external bombs)
The drag situation may have been similar or somewhat better than the case for the XF5F with its big R-1820s.
I think the point was less constant speed props, and more any sort of useful variable pitch props. The fixed pitch 2-bladed wooden propellers were hindrances to all the British fighters using them, be it the sptifire, hurricane, or even the Gladiator.