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

GrauGeist said:
Show me your data sources.
Click to expand...

What do you want from me?

I have told in this forum more then a hundred times that my source of the FW 187 is:

Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History: Amazon.de: Dietmar Harmann: Englische Bücher

Dietmar Harmann is a very well known and expected author in Germany, who is known for his very good connections to Focker Wulf and it's historical Archive, also he is expected for his very sophisticated research and the providing of primary sources.

He has written countless very expected books about FW a/c's
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The book I have lists a bibliography only, but shows no primary source data, and I can't FIND it when I search for it anywhere as yet. So, he might be entirely correct or he might be telling it his way.

I can't say and, from the book I have, nobody CAN.

You say he is respected and I don't doubt it, DonL, but will reserve my own final judgement until I can see some data that have Focke-Wulf period-correct notation and numbers that corroborate his text. Meanwhile, I am entertained by the text which is pretty good, if not shown to be correct by illustrated primary source data. If his primary source data are locatable and able to be viewed and prove his text, then maybe he is correct. Until then, I like the style and the pics, but am not convinced without some proof other than a bibliography with no illustrations with performance numbers and original doc scans.

If he has original Focke-Wulf data that cannot be shown publically, it is no good at all to me and not believable in the slightest.

Again, great pics of an obscure aircraft and that alone is worth the price of the book. I appreciate the tip on it and like the text, especially if I can find the reference material.
 
Denniss said:
I assume you prefer a book with one thousand pages used to reprint all the Focke-Wulf<->RLM letters, calculations and data pages?
Click to expand...

And the $1000 plus price for the book.

Dietmar Harmann is more respected and knowledgeable that the W Greens and H Nowarras you use Greg.

You could contact the Bund. Archives and ask for the documents listed in the book.
 
In all honesty, knowledge doesn't come without a price.

I would much prefer to pay $100 (or more) for a comprehensive book full of factual information than spend $20 or so, on a book that fills in gaps of information with assumptions and conjecture.
 
Nice books but too many "assumptions and conjecture" there, especially for production numbers and production series designations (Panzer III never exceeded 8./ZW while Spielberger had them at 11 or 12./ZW). III L was not a separate series but renamed III J with long gun, etc etc.
 
man, this is a great discussion, but do we really need to go down the way of "my books better than your book"

We have a difference of opinion....thats where it is. End. So what that we dont agree
 
The entire point of accurate history is accurate data. I think this IS a relevant discussion as far as the Focke-Wulf data go.

I have absolutely nothing against the Fw 187 book by Hermann and Petrick except inability to confirm sources in the bibliography. By all means, if DonL or Denniss know where these may be found, it would be interesting to acquire copies. While I don't read German, I have friends who DO, and the charts will still have the numbers in them.

These Focke-Wulf primary data ARE interesting to me amnd gistorically significant, but arguing about the relativer merits of two or more books on the same subject isn't, I agree. Once you can find some of the supposed reference data and find things to be wrong, you can make up your own mind about the books. Primary sources that corroborate are very nice to find.

I try to follow the scientific method. That is, I read about it from relaible sources if I can identify them, form a hypothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. If I can't after a reasonable effort, then maybe it is true. I might find things later that disprove it and might not, but finding real primary data is tough ... at least for me to date. Any I can get are good acquisitions.

Hearing things like "Nowarra is an unreliable author" does nothing for me unless the person making the statement has primary source data that show their contention to be true. Otherwise it could easily be simple personal bias. Not saying it IS in any particular case, even this one, but it could be until the primary source data confirming or refuting the statements are accessed.

Just my take on it ... but I'd not pass up a chance to get some real German primary source data from Focke-Wulf!
 
Bit of a weird discussion this, the FW187 was cancelled before it was accepted for service so spouting test results and calculations of development aircraft is pretty worthless, there is no way of knowing what would have been changed for the service aircraft once full armament/communications/testing/structural issues etc were incorporated, if the aircraft had insurmountable problems or if it would be re designed (thinking me 210), It was cancelled, that says it all really, if FW came in with a world beater be sure it would have been put into production, as it was it was obviously a flawed design!
 

The acceptance into series production does not really prove your point. Many aircraft experienced a whole bunch of significant problems when introduced, and it took plenty of time and resources to iron out the issues. Sometimes that was not even possible, talk Bread Ba.88 or Blackburn Botha. The somewhat less problematic examples were B-29, Typhoon (and it's engine), Fw-190 (much due to it's engine), Soviets have hard time to bring much of their crates to perform as respective prototypes, LaGG-3 was almost cancelled because the factory producing it was not up to the task. Early Me-210 (unstable due to to short a fuselage), He 177 (again mostly due to the engine - bad layout of exhausts). Japanese have had their own set of problems, again mostly due to the engines, and some of planes were unable to accept self sealing tanks without problems, once that was recognized as a need (Zero as prime example).

Of course, if you have proof that Fw-187 was a flawed design, then please post that.
 
you pretty much made my point for me, once all those issues are sorted there is no way of knowing what the performance of the aircraft will be, all aircraft gain weight complexity as they are developed, that's why I don't believe quoting prototype performance figures is a reliable source for a service aircraft!


As to it being flawed, the fact it was cancelled is pretty much all the evidence you need, if it was such a wonder plane they there's little doubt the people testing and evaluating it would have pushed for its production, the RM obviously considered there no cost/benefit to produce it, the evaporative cooling system is a seriously bad idea in a combat aircraft to start!
 
Whilst I agree absolutely with the first part of Kryten's post, it's more or less what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure that this means that the design was basically flawed.
I agree that the evaporative cooling system was problematic and may well not have been used on a final service aircraft (think Spitfire) and that this is just one of many, many factors, some unknown, which would have had an effect on the performance of a service type.
If the aircraft had a fatal flaw, in the eyes of the RLM, it was just too small to fulfil the multiple roles they were looking for in designs by 1941/2.
It's best chance, as an out and out twin engine fighter, was lost by a combination of the RLM's destroyer fixation and Udet. The Luftwaffe's experience with twins against the more agile single engine types of the RAF in 1939/40 may have influenced this.
As a night fighter or fast bomber the Fw 187 was rightly rejected by the RLM. There were good grounds for these decisions, they were not illogical or even idiotic as I have seen argued.
Cheers
Steve
 
I did not proved your point, that being that Fw-187 was a flawed design.
Germans themselves pushed forward many aircraft that belong to the category 'what were they thinking??', that easily implies that people that make decisions are not always right. The Mosquito was delayed couple of years, people at the Air Ministry thinkered some time that Spitfire is just a temporary solution, that turret fighter was a good idea, that Botha ought to be a fine torpedo bomber - and we now know that they were wrong at these particular issues (they were right most of the time). In the USA, it took time for the people to even fight test the Mustang, P-75 almost got produced, USAF almost failed to support V-1710 with resources, while many supposedly 'hi-per' engines were supported etc. It took time for the Soviets to really decide about series production of their finest war-time bomber (Tu-2), many air forces believed that biplane and/or highly maneuverable monoplane are the future, the French were sure (in 1939) that 100 of new fighters coming to them monthly is too much - again, the top brass made mistakes.

The Fw-187 was not married to the evaporative cooling, combat-worthy airplanes carried conventional cooling system.
 
The RLM cancelled the project, they obviously felt the aircraft offered little benefit to them compared to it's cost/development time, there was obviously better alternatives available to fit their requirements!

Therein lies the flaw, it does not fit the requirements, the advocates of this aircraft are arguing it would have been some kind of super plane, RLM did not agree and saw little potential, and they knew far more about it than anyone here!
 

Certainly the DB 605 version (the Fw 187C) would have ditched the evaporative cooling for conventional radiators. These would have been mounted between the nacelles and the fuselage, inside and beneath the inner wing - replacing a pair of wing tanks.
 

Again I agree but you are conflating two different arguments.

As a single seat twin engine day fighter the Fw 187 did have considerable potential. As soon as the RLM made it clear that it wanted an aircraft to a "zerstorer" specification Focke-Wulf, in an effort to win a lucrative contract, compromised their own design, adding the extra seat, rearward armament etc.
The Fw 187 then became an inadvertent victim of the Me 210 debacle. The Me 210 was the preferred "zerstorer" and should have been in service at about the same time the Fw187 would have been had it won out.
The only reason the Fw 187 is ever mentioned at the RLM as a contender in various roles after 1940 is because of the failure of the Me 210 This seems to give the aircraft's advocates completely unrealistic hopes for its adoption into service. On each occasion it was very firmly rejected.

After this you are again correct. The Fw 187 simply did not fit the RLM's requirements. The RLM itself gave perfectly good reasons why it was not suitable as a night fighter, fast bomber or heavy fighter (not as in the original Zerstorer, but aircraft carrying large calibre weapons). It was disqualified from a reconnaissance role by its inability to be adapted to the other roles as the RLM tried to rationalise production.

It was never going to be some kind of war winning wonder weapon, any more than the V-1 or V-2.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
THe FW 187 V4, which was flying and tested autumn 1938, challenged the Me 110 (before the Me 110 was put in mass production).
And from hard fact datas, test flights at Rechlin and comparations at Denmark, the FW 187 with Jumo 210 engines was even better then the Me 110 C1-4 with DB 601 engines.

The FW 187 concept (as twin seater) was a long range fighter and a "light" destroyer, always with the focus on fighting and the direct opponent was the Me 110, which was introduced at 1939 mainly as long range escort fighter.
The Me 210 and also the Ar 240 were both completely other aircraft concepts, with the focus on bombing, their fighter abilities were more or less nonexistent compare to the single seat fighters at 1941/42.

The philosophy of the FW 187 was always fighting with the possibility to do destroyer and reconnaissance missions and it was much better as the Me 110, which was exactly intoduced for that missions.

To call an a/c flawed which was flying for 4 years in compat missions and was at a training school and proved at it's service with underpowered engines, that it was as fast, much more agile and a better turner then the direct opponent Me 110 with the DB 601 engine is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
DonL said:
The FW 187 concept (as twin seater) was a long range fighter and a "light" destroyer, always with the focus on fighting and the direct opponent was the Me 110, which was introduced at 1939 mainly as long range escort fighter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The difference is that the Me 110 proved itself a capable night fighter, decent ground attack aircraft (both in the BoB and later on the Eastern Front) and even day fighter (at least in the East) and adopted various other roles. It was one of the most versatile and successful aircraft of the war on all sides. It was still being produced in 1945, nearly four years after production had been scheduled to finish.

The Fw 187 may or may not have proved a better twin engine fighter than the Bf 110, we will never know. I think it would have, but the Bf 110 is often under estimated due to its showing in the BoB as an escort fighter.
What it could never have done was perform all the other roles that the Bf 110 undertook with considerable success. Lack of size and space (a criticism also levelled at the larger Bf 110) precluded its development in other roles.

By 1942 the RLM did not want a "light destroyer". It wanted heavily armed aircraft, initially as tank destroyers and then as bomber destroyers. This is when we increasingly seem the term "heavy fighter" used. It is also when the "fast bomber" concept is being tied to the same type as the heavy fighter. These were roles that the Fw 187, already ignored in a role where it had potential, could not perform.

By 1944 the Do 335 was being promoted as a multi role combat aircraft in a very modern sense. It was a solution that the RLM had been edging towards since at least 1942.

Cheers

Steve
 
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
568
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
375
Warspite63
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register