Fw-187 could have been German P-51?

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

A DB 605 powered Fw 187 did not exist.

A DB 603 powered Li P 10 did not exist either.

Anybody can write specifications, as Messerschmitt did for their fictional adaptation of the Me 210 by Lippisch. It's just as relevant or official as anything Focke-Wulf wrote for their fictional version of the Fw 187.

PERIOD

Steve
 
Thanks stona for this post,

because it shows obviously your motivation and the ignoring of facts.

1. The FW 187 C was officially ordered from the RLM
2. The reconstruction of the FW 187 V5 was on the way
3. Dummy was built
4. 26.400 engineer hours were invested in the project
5. The FW 187 C specifications was official and send to the RLM not any company intern project.
6. All the datas of the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 engines was there for comparison (center of gravity, weights, spaces etc.)

At every german engineer school or university, they would realy laugh about you to compare these two projects and come to the same conclusion.
I'm realy thankful for your post, because it shows so obvious your biases.

Edit:

By the way.

Did the Bf 109 G, Bf 110 G and the Ju 88 G6 existed, before their official specification were promoted to the RLM?
No not any of this a/c's existed before the official specification, but the official specification were basing on real a/c's, just as the FW 187 and not some Paper design as the A DB 603 powered Li P 10.

Your argumentations are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
whether the RLM ordered an aircraft is not relevant.

We are talking about a projected performance of an aircraft that never flew in both cases.

Messerschmitt would have used data from the Me 210 and calculations from Lippisch to ESTIMATE the performance of the Li P 10.

Focke Wulf would have used data from earlier Fw 187 prototypes and data frm Daimler Benz to ESTIMATE the performance of the DB 605 powered version.

Both sets of data are preserved in your beloved "primary sources", whether you like it or not.

You cannot take estimated data as proven performance for any aircraft at any time. That really is ridiculous.

I have one question which simply needs a yes or no answer.

Did a DB 605 powered Fw 187 ever exist?

Steve
 
Last edited:
We are here on technical board and not in your privat court room!

Development of aircrafts isn't a simple yes or no answer, the technical aspects or much more complex and you are not able to argument with technical facts at the issue FW 187, because you have not any counter technical arguments on hand. Only your ridiculous yes and no questions and not comparable paper projects.

And yes a DB 605 powered FW 187 existed, the FW 187 V8, which was the reconstructed FW 187 V5, but it wasn't finished.


Ah and the DB 603 high altitude engine was a production engine? With proved several test flights and proved performance?
Also there was ever an equal a/c of the Li P 10, that had many test flights, as the FW 187 V5 (with DB engines) to the FW 187 C?
To compare this two projects is rediculous!
 
Last edited:
Jumo 210 production ended during 1938. Jumo 211 replaced it on Junkers production lines. So Fw-187 prototype powered by Jumo 210 is nothing more then a historical footnote. It had zero chance for mass production.

Jumo 211 powered Fw-187 was possible as plenty of engines were available. Not my first choice but there were three Jumo 211 engine plants vs one DB601 engine plant. Path of least resistance.
 
If you have an aircraft flying and properly tested/measured it's very much possible to recalculate the gained data for a different engine and/or weight increases.
Calculated data for paper projects is more guessing based on some given theoretical parameters.
 

Yes , but extrapolating prototype data to a production aircraft is fraught with problems.

K 5054 managed 349 mph at about 18,000ft in the hands of Supermarine pilots before being sent of for official trials. This was close enough for Mitchell's hoped for 350 mph, but less than some calculations. After initial level tests in March 1936 Mitchell said that he was "very disappointed with the results, which are a lot slower than I had hoped for." I am sure that Mitchell based those hopes on calculations done by the Supermarine team.

The results certainly do not represent the performance of a fully armed and armoured Spitfire with the same engine, propeller and fuel.

Mitchell's words should be a caveat for anyone transferring estimated data based on data obtained from a specialist prototype. Suggesting that it is representative of an aircraft configured as a service version is not credible.

How many DB 603 engines were built? I don't believe anyone knows for sure, but it powered a lot of different aircraft.

Anyway we are going over the same argument again and again. DonL is entitled to his view that the Fw 187 was a potential world beating aeroplane based on theoretical and extrapolated data.

I am entitled to be a little more sceptical given that only a few were ever built, none flew with DB 605s and only one or two specialised prototypes flew with DB 601s (can't be arsed to check) and because, despite repeated efforts, it was rejected time and again by the RLM for a variety of reasons. Those reasons must have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.

Cheers

Steve
 
Anyway we are going over the same argument again and again. DonL is entitled to his view that the Fw 187 was a potential world beating aeroplane based on theoretical and extrapolated data.
Click to expand...

I'm entitled to my view that the Fw 187 was a potential very advanced aeroplane, which was much much better then the Bf 110 andf 210, based on hard proved datas of pre production aircrafts which were fully armed and armoured and flew for four years and the FW 187 V5 prototype and extrapolated datas.


it was rejected time and again by the RLM for a variety of reasons. Those reasons must have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.
Click to expand...

For example the Bofors 40mm was also rejected from 1936-1944 for the 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30, those reasons must also have seemed good and justifiable to those making the decisions at the time, whatever some may think today, with hindsight.
 
Last edited:
Hi DonL,

The pages you referenced are a bibliography, not references included in the text. I can't find any of them online and have no access via library, etc. All written in the book might be substantiated and might not be, I can't tell. That's why I said what I said. If you choose to believe each and every word, that's OK.

They still built only a few and had zero impact on the war. Had they been built in numbers, that might have changed, but the evaporative cooling system might also have been the Achilles heel of the aircraft in the field. I tend to believe that to be a viable combat aircraft, it would have had to employ a conventional radiator, making it fast for a twin but not quite as fast as the unit with the evaporative cooling system.

Still, it might have been a good addition to the Luftwaffe's stable and almost certainly better than the Me 210 / 410. I have no problem with the Bf 110, it was a good plane if not quite an able fighter compared with the single engine units.

The DB 605 version of the Fw 187 was under construction when it was ordered halted according to the book you set such store by. It was never finished, never tested, and it's fate was to be scrapped in December 1942. Hardly a rousing statement for the potential qualities of the aircraft, but I acknowledge that it could have been a good one if things had worked out. The real-world events are hardly indicative of a world-beating thoroughbred but some unrealized potential is clearly there.

I can't say what might have been, but know what happened regarding this aircraft. It was ignored by the German military as was the He 100, another "might have been." Why is a question for posterity. Both might have simply not been the plane of choice of the people making the decisions ... killed by the politics of personal choice. Whatever the real reason, it makes for an interesting study of an obscure aircraft, and obscure aircraft are a hobby of mine.

And what the heck does a Bofors 40 mm have to do with the Fw 187?
 
Last edited:
DonL said:
1. The FW 187 C was officially ordered from the RLM
Click to expand...

Covered by Stona. Ordered and then cancelled/


DonL said:
2. The reconstruction of the FW 187 V5 was on the way
Click to expand...

Yes, being undertaken but not complete.


DonL said:
3. Dummy was built
Click to expand...

A mock-up of the Supermarine Type 327 was built. Should its projected performance be compared to teh Fw 187C's?


DonL said:
5. The FW 187 C specifications was official and send to the RLM not any company intern project.
Click to expand...

Right - so including estimated weights, performance and armament, but no test data.


DonL said:
6. All the datas of the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 engines was there for comparison (center of gravity, weights, spaces etc.)
Click to expand...

The Fw 187C was to use a different cooling system with radiators similar to the Me 210. This alone has the potential to throw off the estimates.
 

I've often wondered about the wisdom of placing the engine instruments on the engine cowlings: for one thing they're out of the pilot's direct line of sight and have to be scanned by moving the head through a large arc; secondly adverse visibility ( eg; fogged up canopy) or low light conditions must have made it next to impossible to scan the instruments - how would it have fared as a nightfighter had the engine instruments stayed on the cowlings?

 
Might not be a good idea to shine a flashlight on the cowling at night to see the instruments, but what other choice would the pilot have except to ignore them?
Remote mounting of engine instruments is surely an idea worth ignoring! That alone makes me wonder less why the aircraft was cancelled. Knowing the state of your engines is second only to staying alive in a WWII combat aircraft. Well, maybe knowing the fuel state is ALSO right up there, too, huh?

If the front fuselage had been made bigger to accommodate all the instruments, how would performance have been affected? Coupled with the evaporative cooling system, it is yet another oddity on this aircraft that maybe could have been overcome but never got the chance.

I like the looks and the potential performance, but it was cancelled for a reason or reasons. Perhaps it was just a case of yet another potentially good aircraft that was simply not ordered into production. It happened to a lot of potentially very good aircraft. We never bought the F-20 Tigershark either and probably SHOULD have. Maybe the Germans SHOULD have built the Fw 187, and simply just didn't do so.
 
I would think those outside instruments would have their own lights, just like any other aircraft . But I wonder just how well you'd be able to see them at night as they seem to be right over the exhaust stacks .

The only blind flying I've ever done was in a link trainer. It would surely make blind flying a great deal more difficult having to keep those engine instruments in your scan.

I was told by a instructor that rapid, large head movements could induce vertigo.
 
And what the heck does a Bofors 40 mm have to do with the Fw 187?
Click to expand...

That the best approved (from all historians and experts) midrange and middle caliber Flak of the whole WWII was rejected from german decision-makers for the average to worst 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30.
 
We stuck with the 50-caliber machine gun for the entire war despite better 20 mm cannons being available, so you weren't the only ones to make bad gun decisions!

We also didn't buy the Republic XP-72 when it was clearly superior to much in the world at the time, so the Fw 187 is not alone in being rejected when it probably would have been a good acquisition. Of course, we probably don't have all the information the people during WWII had with which to make their decisions.

I find second guessing the decisions is fraught with arguments that can never be truly answered since we have no opportunuity to go back and try again, but some decisions ARE hard to understand.
 
It may be a good thing that the Army didn't buy the XP-72. The P W R-4360 may have offered good performance and may have been reliable in service (from the no major break downs, in flight fires, catastrophic failures stand point) but it was a maintenance hog of the first order, at least for a number of years in the early versions. Perhaps durable is a better word than reliable. It was a primary reason for the development of engine analyzers. It was hard to actually break the thing but there were a vast number of small things that could go wrong. Find the bad spark-plug out of 56
 
Funny you should mention that. I know a couple of old R-4360 crew chiefs and thay say it can be a nightmare or it can be easy, and there is no way to tell which type of problem you are dealing with until you are well into it.

Perhaps it IS just as well we didn't acquire the XP-72 ... wish we had a gaggle of Skyraiders about 1945, though.
 
Last edited:
Show me your data sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
571
Dimlee
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
A
Where could Universal Carriers make an impact?
Replies
4
Views
377
Warspite63
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register