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

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread.
V-5 clocked 635 kph at low level but it was NOT powered by standard DB 601 engines. It was powered by to DB 601 prototype engines based on the DB 601 A designated DB 601 V40 and V42. These were capable of producing 1,350 hp at ground level for one minute, plenty of time for a timed flight.
V-5 also featured the evaporative cooling system which Focke-Wulf and to some extent Daimler-Benz struggled to make work properly before finally giving up in February 1942.
Neither of these features were seen on any other production version of the Fw 187 and to suggest that figures for such a special prototype have any relevance to an aircraft that might have entered service (we know it never did) is disingenuous at the very least.
I'm not even starting on the rest of incorrect or selectively quoted data I'm seeing here. It gives me a terrible sense of deja-vu.
Cheers
Steve
 

Your post is incorrect!
If you look at page 78 you will read that the DB 601 V40 and V42 had 1100PS each and later developed DB 601 H and M had 1350PS for 1 minute!
Also the system is not a classic evaporative cooling system, which you can see on on page 81, where you can see the smal convential radiator, also you can see the radiators on page 82!

V-5 also featured the evaporative cooling system which Focke-Wulf and to some extent Daimler-Benz struggled to make work properly before finally giving up in February 1942.
Click to expand...
This is also incorrect more to nonsense, because every produced DB 605 had a steam separator, which was developed with this engines and system!

The testflight of the FW 187 V5 shows
1. The very good aerodynamik of this a/c, because 635km/h near sea level is outstanding for 1939
2. That the FW 187 had not a single problem to fly with the bigger DB 601 engines.

The next time you will call my posts nonsense or suggest between the lines, that I post incorrect facts, present your facts and arguments, we will see if your claims can stand the facts!
Also we know your biases against the FW 187, but till now you haven't provided any single technical argument against the FW 187 and the estimated datas, from sophisticated piston aircraft engineers, from the book of Dietmar Herrmann.

It is the same anti FW 187 bla bla without facts as everytime.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I have Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta 154, and it's excellent. It provides a great deal of information for the German-language wikipedia entry on the aircraft, which, as I've posted here before, is miles better than its English counterpart.

Contrast this translated page:

Google Translate

with the English-language entry:

Focke-Wulf Ta 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comparison is all in the favour of the German page, and by extension Dietmar Hermann.
 
DonL said:
If you look at page 78 you will read that the DB 601 V40 and V42 had 1100PS each
Click to expand...

That is correct, my bad memory.

I don't know what you call a "classic" evaporative cooling system. No production Fw 187 had such a system, classic or otherwise. Why don't you check why the small longditudinal radiator you refer to (under the engine) was fitted? It was always part of the system designed by Focke-Wulf. Compare the intake for this with that for the radiator on the A-0.

Estimated data are just that, estimated. You cannot provide data for a service version of a DB 601 (or 605) powered Fw 187 because no such aircraft ever existed. The prototype version whose data you quote, lacked much equipment (radio, gun sight etc), were unarmed, carried who knows what fuel loads for testing, were "clean" (no racks, armoured windscreens, antennae),had special cooling systems and many other variations from a version that might have seen service.


I don't care how well qualified you feel the technicians calculating the performance of the aircraft were. It remains entirely theoretical and UNTESTED.

It might make a good sales pitch to the RLM, obviously not good enough to get a decent production order.

Cheers

Steve
 

Then check the radiotors from the Bf 110 B (Jumo 210) to the Bf 110 C (DB 601), the next blend granade claim from you.


Wrong the FW 187 V5 flew over 2 years, so there was no problem with the bigger engines (DB 601).

And that is what you don't get! The estimations came mostly from the Bf 110 in comparation with the FW 187 A0/V4 and V5.
The Bf 110 had the engines and the cooling for a production FW 187 with DB 601 engines and it is not a mythical to compare the datas from the Bf 110 and Fw 187 and do a very sophisticated calculation
FW produced Bf 110 C's, you also can see the plane in the book, which was for the tests.

Every major german a/c program from Bf 109, Bf 110, Ju 87 (all Jumo 210 to DB 601) or Do 17, 215, He 111 etc.... were gone through engine step ups and at every program it functioned, to suggest a FW 187 would have had problems or didn't reach the performance steps as calculated, is nothing more then the evilst propaganda, without any single technical prove.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how long a prototype aircraft, essentially a test bed for the evaporative cooling system, flew for at a specialist test facility. It has NOTHING to do with an aircraft in the hurly burly of service life. The V5 was attended and maintained by a specialist team of Focke-Wulf and Daimler-Benz technicians until the experiments ended in 1942.

You can make all the sophisticated calculations you like. All they provide is untested data. Many, many aircraft designs failed to live up to their projected performance. A Daimler-Benz powered Fw 187 prototype does not represent the performance of an aircraft which might actually enter service.

Look at the cooler intake on V5.



Compare that with the radiator intake on an A-0, the only version to sort of enter some kind of service. These radiators did not have to deal with the heat from the more powerful DB 601.



This is just one of many differences between a prototype aircraft and something which could actually fight. You are completely ignoring this. You don't have to be an aerodynamicist or undertake sophisticated calculations to work out that these kind of differences will degrade the performance figures that you keep quoting.

Cheers

Steve
 
Be sure the Bf109 used the same radiator from the A model to the K model. There was also no performance increase.
 
Milosh said:
Be sure the Bf109 used the same radiator from the A model to the K model. There was also no performance increase.
Click to expand...

The E series was the first to get the under wing radiators. An entirely new cooling system was introduced with the F series and I vaguely remember modifications to the cores as engine power increased.
Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
stona said:
The E series was the first to get the under wing radiators. An entirely new cooling system was introduced with the F series and I vaguely remember modifications to the cores as engine power increased.
Cheers
Steve
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a more aerodynamic cowling introduced, or am I thinking of the Fw190?

Milosh said:
So there is no reason why the Fw187 could not be able to be changed.
Click to expand...
Of course, the argument is what the performance would be in that case; there are some good points being made about the tested version having non-standard cooling systems, but also that these were done away with in other tests, as per Harmann:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764318713/?tag=dcglabs-20

The 380-85 mph with the Db601A seems reasonable for a single seat fighter.
The A-0 series with the Jumo 210 (700hp) managed to achieve 329 mph despite being designed around the much more powerful Db601. With an additional 400hp per engine and the lack of a second crew member (the A-0 had a longer cockpit with a second crew member unlike the single seat fighter version I'm suggesting), which IIRC someone suggested added 500kg extra to the frame, a gain of 60 mph for 500kg less and 800hp more seems reasonable.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

It matters in any way, because the test flights give data's about the structure integrity of the a/c with the bigger/heavier engine, you will get data's about the cas, the agility and stability of the a/c.
The system of the FW 187 was no evaporative cooling system, because the cooling circle was closed and there was NO surface for any evaporation. It was more like someting of an extreme high pressure cooling, that you can also see of the development of the steam seperater, which was introduced for series production at the DB 605.
The FW 187 V5 was absolute the same a/c as a production FW 187 "B" except for the cooling at the engine gondula.


To my opinion and for a technical understanding, your claim is wrong.
The a/c and it's stability was tested with the bigger engines and the engines and the cooling system of a production FW 187 was in service with the Bf 110. All datas are tested in reallife.
Also the FW engineer had hundreds of data's from the Bf 110 and the FW 187 V5 and A0, for calculation and comparation.
Not one single LW project failed an engine step up.

From Dietmar Herrmanns book about the FW 190:
Every single project/ a/c from Focker Wulf which was calculated and presented to the RLM reached it's estimated performance as production aircraft

For the cooling:

Bf 110 B (Jumo 210 engines)




campare to the Bf 110 C (DB 601A engines)



That are major differences between the cooling a the Jumo 210 Bf 110 B and the DB 601 coolings of the Bf 110C.



You should look at my post 6.
The estimated performance of a production FW 187 with normal cooling and DB 601A engines (1100PS each) is 385 mph at 5000m and not 392 mph at near sea level. Your claim against me is simple wrong.

GregP claimed the P-38 and the Mosquito were 80 mph faster as any FW 187 ever flew, what is also simply wrong as we have seen from the flights of the FW 187 V5.

The 380-85 mph with the Db601A seems reasonable for a single seat fighter.
Click to expand...

The estimation from my posted graph is for a two seater version!
 
Last edited:
DonL said:
The estimation from my posted graph is for a two seater version!
Click to expand...
So a single seater version would be around 390mph???
Also what was the range for this fighter with the Db601a? IIRC it was around 1000 miles all told.

Edit:
Also the version that was tested included the full weight of armor, armament, and equipment?
 

All preproduction series inclusive the FW 187 V4 were all twin seater and were tested with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.
The graph also shows a twin seater with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.

The theoretical range with 1100 Liter internal fuel and 0,80 ata at 5000m is 1280km, something about 800 miles.
For the later versions the fuel tanks would be bigger and have 1300 Liter internal fuel, the range would be 1520km /950 miles
 
The two pictures showing the difference in coolant radiators between the Bf110 Jumo powered and Db601 powered are a little deceptive, because the second photo doesn't show the coolant radiators at all.
The Bf110C has the only oil cooler directly behind the propeller spinner, the coolant radiator is outboard of each engine, the left is blocked from view from that angle, and the right is cropped out of the photo.
 
I think that the FW 187 with the proposed engines (DB 601s) would perform pretty much as calculated. I for one, am not going to argue over a few % points. How much the handling may have deteriorated is another question but with the DB 601s probably not a lot. There is an armament problem until mid/late 1941 and that is that the MG/FF cannon only have 60 round drums, although there is no real reason that larger ones could not have been built. Hispano Suiza was advertising 45, 60, 75 and 100 round drums for their gun before the war. It seems like the 60 round was the only one every really used but the others are not impossible. But still not the quantity of ammo that a belt feed gun would have. Having enough fuel is one thing, having enough ammo for more than 6-7 seconds firing time for an escort fighter is another.
The other question is the radio. Does the escort fighter need to be able to "talk" to it's base from target area? Radios changed a lot from 1939/40 to 1944. The radio in the 109 was not a long range radio. With out building a new radio does the "escort" fighter need a long range radio and radio operator. The Bf 110 was burdened with the same radio set up as an He 111 and required a separate operator. He also changed the ammo drums on the 20mm cannon.
With the MG 151 cannon that reason for a rear seater goes away.

A rough (very rough?) estimate of range may be made by looking at the Bf 109F. Roughly the same top speed using the same (or close) engines which to me means the FW 187 had about twice the drag or the same drag per HP. The Fw 187 carries roughly 62% more fuel per engine (1300 liter version) so should have about 62% more range/radius at similar speeds/power settings.

How close this is to published figures I don't know but like some allied aircraft, published figures for "max" range often bear little resemblance to the speeds/altitudes actually used on real missions.
 
DonL said:
All preproduction series inclusive the FW 187 V4 were all twin seater and were tested with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.
The graph also shows a twin seater with full weight of armor, armament, equipment and fuel.
Click to expand...

It would be less confusing to say that the V4 prototype and A-0 pre-production series were built as two seaters. V1 to v3 were single seaters as that was Focke-Wulf's original intention for the design.
V4 was test flown from 27 October '38 until 6 February '39 when it was returned to the RLM. It was scrapped in September '39.

The V4 was flown with various equipment and the A-0 to the zerstorer specification. What has this Jumo powered version got to do with a fully equipped DB 601 powered version? Once again it is only possible to make estimated and unproven extrapolations. I've only ever seen calculated speeds for V4. Extrapolating the performance of a different engine version from these might well be compounding any error.
I'd be interested if anyone has any measured speeds for the V4 or A-0 series.

Cheers

Steve
 

The absolutely same as the Bf 110 B compared to the Bf 110 C! Not at same leage, but also the Bf 109 D to the Bf 109 E, or Ju 87 A0 to the A2.
With the Bf 110 you have a similar a/c to the FW 187, so you have reallife datas about the weight increase, adjustment and performance of the "new" (normal) cooling system and the engines from the step of the Jumo 210 to the DB 601.
All other datas, as the new propeller, the structural stability with bigger and heavier engine you got from the FW 187 V5.
Also the armor, armament and equipment was near the same between the Bf 110 B and FW 187 A0 and wasn't changed from the step from Jumo to DB engines at both a/c's.
You can't get any better datas for a very sophisticated estimation. And this is not unproved, because FW did for the FW 187 C with DB 605 engines a complete calculated specification, which was send and presented to the RLM. And as I have written before, not any single presented calculated specification to the RLM from Focker Wulf for several a/c's didn't reach the estimated performances with production a/c's.
 
Question: what were the power values for the different versions of the Jumo 210 that powered Fw-187? I'm especially interested in power at altitude.
 
Hello tomo,

The FW 187 V1 and V2 were flying the Jumo 210D which was rated with 680 PS with a catributor and no ram effect, the best altitude performance was 3000m with 1,26 ata and 2700 U/min.
Since the FW 187 V3 the FW 187 was flying the Jumo 210G (700PS) with fuel injection and ram effect. The best altitude performance was 4600m at 2700 U/min and a performance output of 670 PS at 3900m and 605 PS at 4600m altitude.
 
Last edited:
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
563
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
368
Warspite63
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register