Fw-187 could have been German P-51?

I don't believe it.

Heavier shells tend to retain velocity over a longer range. Hence the reason 3.7cm flak has over twice the effective range as 2cm flak even though both are high velocity weapons. BK 5 should have been accurate to a range of at least 2km. And it's a foregone conclusion that a single 5cm mine shell will seriously damage any aircraft.

I don't care if you don't believe it. Look it up.

Aiming is major limit on air to air shooting, ie predicting were the target will be when the shell gets there with NO rangefinder and calculating gun sight like many AA guns had.

Unless you use a two seater Fw 187 with this poor soul sticking his head and shoulders out of the cockpit to range on the B-17s.

davebender said:

I think you are wrong about BK 5 cannon. It works great provided BK 5 equipped aircraft have adequate fighter escort.
BK 5 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fw-187 mit BK 5 cannon would be an interesting combination for bomber interception as the aircraft should be capable of over 400mph when powered by DB605 engines. Falke could dive into cannon range, empty the 21 round magazine in about 30 seconds and then dive away before Allied escort fighter aircraft intercede.

Click to expand...

What a load of nonsense that Wikipedia article and the website it cited.

"Were said to have shot down 129 B-17s and 4 B-24s"?

Click to expand...

No, far from it: here's what really happened:



pages 32 - 33:




The smaller, faster firing Mk 103s and MG 151/20s were infinitely more efficient because they could actually hit a target, whereas the BK 5 was very fortunate if it hit anything; it worked maybe once or twice when fired at unescorted bombers by pilots who were "outstanding marksmen". The BK5 was even worse when tried in two converted Me 262s and would have equally been a waste of time in the Fw 187.

I only use that example because I happen to be in Madrid at the moment!

Click to expand...

Hola! I thought your post had a distinctly continental flavour to it; all that talk about the Spanish Inquisition (cue the Monty Python jokes )...

smaller, faster firing Mk 103s and MG 151/20s were infinitely more efficient because they could actually hit a target,

Click to expand...

Your article talks about using BK 5 cannon against fighter aircraft. What results were achieved vs an American heavy bomber box (i.e. what they should have been used for)?

Juha said:

So you think some 4 months from idea to production is a very long gestation period? What is your definitation for a short gestation period? One can say that Mk VIII suffered from a long gestation period but not Mk IX.

Juha

Click to expand...

I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.

GregP said:

Hi DonL,

When you post something about an American plane, say, a P-51 or a P-40, do you use original primary source documents from North American or Curtiss? If so, where did you get them? You probably cannot get original primary source documents from Japan or the former Soviet Union, so you have to rely on secondary sources if you talk about a Lavochkin or MiG.

When we restored our A6M5 model 52 Zero, we had help from Mitsubishi and Nakajima, and they wouldn't give the information to anyone except to restore an original aircraft, which we did. So, if you write about the Zero, what primary source would you use?

I find it almost impossible to believe that only ONE author in the world knows the full story of the Fw 187. If he can find the information, so can other people. Actually it was made in such small numbers that very few people have written anything on it, and most of them agree with one another.

So ... I am interested enough to have ordered the book you described. I'll refrain until I get it (and READ it) and then decide whether the author is telling the truth or whether he is another of the same sort you feel all the other authors are.

A surface evaporative cooling system can use steam separators, otherwise known as condensers, and I am not convinced the Fw 187 with the DB engines did not use surface evaporation yet. The information I have says it had issues wuith skin buckling, but does not go into specifics about the locaion of same, so I don't know the location except that it was reported for the DB-powered aircraft. The skin bucking might be connected to the cooling and might not be, the cause of it was not stated where I read about it. When encountered, it can be easy to fix or quite problematic, depending on what the issue is.

While we may not think the same in the end, I'll wait until I read this new account and see how it compares with the data I already have. As far as your demads to tell the forum where I got data, I already did, in my posts, and that is as far as it will go at this time.

The information I have says the Fw 187 was supposed to be very maneuverable, which might change a bit as they added heavier engines, but it makes me wonder why the RLM didn't proceed with it. Perhaps that is covered in the book you suggested. At this time I am under the impression the Fw 187 was killed due internal Third Reich politics, and that smacks of truth though I don't know for sure. Politics is bad regardless of nationality.

Meanwhile, have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Missed the part with the book recommendation. Could anyone please post it again so I can have a look? Thanks.

Jabberwocky said:

Wuzak, don't waste your time trying to correct him.

Shooter has confused the Mk XIVs minor lateral control instability with the Mk 21s more substantial problems. He's been corrected on this time and time again here and other forums (Warbirds Forum, Strategy PAge, Tony William's forums) both by me and other members.

He simply refuses to accept he is wrong about it.

Click to expand...

It seems the Authors of "Spitfire, the history" do not agree with you. Start on page 307 and keep going until you get to the part where they changed the tail size.

nuuumannn said:

What point is that, Shooter? Jabberwocky; point taken.
The point(s) are two fold. The sterling qualities that made the Mks-I to V such delightful planes to fly vanished with the Mk-IX. It took a very long time from first flight to operational service and then longer to demonstrated superiority over the FW-190 and the steady stream of kills that went with it. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Even after entry into squadron service it was, IIRC, over one year to the first kill in combat. These facts by them selves prove that the later Spit was a handful and not a very effective combat weapon.


Wuzak, yep; Mk.III was, as you state, modified to become the first two-speed, two-stage Merlin Spitfire recipient. The first Merlin 60 was produced in early/mid (don't have an exact date) 1941 for B.23/39 after the high altitude Hercules engines weren't able to meet performance specs at altitude. There is no reason to hypothesise that if a threat evolved sooner that Rolls would not get to work on such a thing sooner. If this engine was fitted to a Spitfire III or even Mk.I airframe, the timeline I specified is not too fantastic for producing a service Spitfire fitted with a 60 Series Merlin.

Click to expand...

Well, yes it is. Fitment of a heavier engine reduces static CoG margin and makes the plane vertically unstable. The four blade prop required to put the power into the air added area forward of the CoAP and made the plane "snaky". Those problems took a long time to solve when they were encountered. Those problems were over looked in large part because of the dire need of more performance than the Mk-V could give. So no matter what you do when, it takes a long time to fix each generation of power increase. That is what the problem is.

wuzak said:

The III would have been more competitive with the Bf 109F and the Fw 190 with the 20-series Merlins, I would have thought. Plus it had some refinements over the I/II/V.

Click to expand...

Including, IIRC, a larger tail.

Steam cooling was the darling of the 1930's, right when the Fw 187 was designed and built. A normal radiator system uses a closed liquid system, typically ethylene glycol, and runs from about 30°C to about 95°C, a difference of 65°C that can be used for cooling.

I don't know of any steam systems that are not evaporative. Some were surface evaporative but all made use of the heat of vaoporization, and used condensers to turn the steam generated by the engine heat back into liquid. The temperatures were usually measured in the liquid sections, one in the line going back to the accumulator tank from the condenser (the colder one) and one inside the engine before the liquid is turned into steam (the hotter one). The two temperature extremes are usually about 80°C and 110°C and it seems the system is less effective, but when the liquid turns to steam, the temperature is 560°C. So the temperature difference is 580°C, quite effective at generating a temperature swing.

Personally, I don't know of any gasoline engine cooling system that uses steam other than an evaporative system. I am not even sure if another type exists. If it does, I don't know about it. If you turn liquid to steam, the system IS evaporative. If you turn it into steam and it never gets back to liquid until you shut the engine off …. maybe it is a closed steam-cooling system, but I don't know of any engine that could be cooled by steam entering the liquid intake port.

A steam separator is a device used to separate water from steam. That implies the steam remaining is used for something, and there is NO use for steam in cooling any engine that is colder than the steam. ALL engines are colder than steam.

I think the "steam separator" is a German-to-English translation error. To achieve cooling, the steam must be condensed back into a liquid if it is a CLOSED sytem, or else you are flying a LOSS system. Some Reno racers fly a total loss cooling system for the oil, but I cannot conceive of Focke-Wulf trying to palm off a total loss system for the Fw 187. When the water runs out, you go down. If I had fuel left, I'd not want to crash due to running out of water!

When the Fw 187 book arrives, I'll be interested to see the DB cooling system description and the purported reason why the Fw 187 was not proceeded with. If it WAS politics, then the Third Reich was almost as stupid as we seem to be today. Not surprising in the least except for the fact that Hitler was a dictator and politics should not have been a disabling thing for his government.

Perhaps it was endemic to the procurement arm of the German military? It certainly reared its ugly head in the US procurement system ... both during and after WWII.

do the math. A bomber traveling at 200mph covers about 400ft in the time it takes between shots from the BK 5, the firing aircraft, if doing 400mph covers 800ft. It takes about a second (or more?) for the shell to travel 800 meters, the bomber covers about 300 ft (four fuselage lengths) in a second. The 400 mph fighter covers around 600 feet in the same time.

This is like trying to shoot flying ducks with a rifle from a pick up truck driving faster than the ducks.

Most people figured a pilot was doing good if he could keep a target in the gun sight for 3 seconds. Even if we credit the BK 5 with with being able to fire 3 shots in 3 seconds ( it can, 2.66 seconds from 1st to 3rd) we run into the other statistic that says on average the pilots hit with 2% of rounds fired. To get a hit the pilot with the BK 5 either needs to hit with 33% or rounds fired or needs 16-17 firing passes to score a hit. Or gets one hit every 2 1/2 missions with a 21 round magazine capacity.

With two MK 103s firing 39-40 shells in 3 seconds the pilot on average will get one hit on 4 out of 5 passes.

An Me 262 was firing 40 shells a second or 120 in 3 seconds so, if close enough, scored 2.2 hits per 3 second firing pass.

Now some pilots were much better and made up for the pilots that emptied their ammo tanks/bins without hitting anything but setting up a plane that needs an extraordinary shot to make ANY use of what soever AND degrades the performance of the plane at the same time makes no sense.

DonL said:

Hello wuzak,

it is very difficult to estimate if there were issues with this cooling system or not.
I think there a bunch of reasons why it wasn't developed further and also I think it was one reason, the FW 187 wasn't put in production.

System reasons.

From the description of the system at the book, it was tricky to have always a good water film through the condensator. There was a lot of experimenting with the condensator, they chnanged it several times and built several different condensators, also the radiotors under the engine were rebuilt, because they can't withstand the water pressure at first. All around the book says the whole system was average to poor from agility (steady flow of water film)at performance changes of the engine, which had effects of the agility of the engine. So to my opinion perhaps a promising system at bigger airfileds, with lot of trained mechanics, spare parts and supply, but nothing for field airfields at the nirwana of the UDSSR or the desert at NA.
Also I think the system took to much space for a single engined a/c, except you built a cockpit wide at the back of the a/c.

RLM/Political reasons

What is to me absolute incomprehensible, why Focker Wulf didn't put simply normal DB 601A engines with normal coolings under the wings of the FW 187 and presented auch a "convential" FW 187 B to the RLM?!
They had the base with the FW 187 A0 and the aerodynamic of the FW 187 was outstanding.
Here I think Focker Wulf was under enormous pressure through the politics of the RLM and the preference to Messerschmitt.
Just like Heinkel, Focker Wulf had no big order at this time from the RLM and so I think they wanted to deliverer something very special, just like Heinkel with He 100. From the book the cooling system of the FW 187 functioned "a lot" better then the system of the He 100, but I think both companys should has stand to the simple convential and field-tested cooling solutions. Before or at the beginning of a war, nobody would change horses to unknown territory.

What can be said is, that the cooling system of the FW 187 in cooperation with DB, accelerated high pressure water cooling at german engines and developed the steam seperator for the next generation engines (DB 605, 603 and Jumo 213).

Click to expand...

Why not just install the big engine with annular radiators like those on the Ju-88 and be done with it? There was no down side to frontal area. Little downside to Form factor and huge increases in power.

nuuumannn said:

Agreed on the Hurricane's performance, but that fighter would have been able to outmanoeuvre the Fw 187 with ease, as would the Spitfire, so the fight would not be all the German aircraft's way. Despite your point about the P-51, as valid as it might be, you cannot argue that the numerical superiority it held over Europe was not telling in the end. I doubt the Fw 187 could be built in such numbers that its impact would be the same, despite its high performance.




True. Stick a Merlin 60 in a Spit II or III airframe and you up its speed by over 20 mph above the 380 mph fighter and increase its altitude, rate of climb etc. Perhaps that could have been a worthy stop gap until the 60 Series was available?



Yep, I remember reading Hans Sander's description of flying the prototype being like sticking his feet in a furnace. Despite its perceived performance, I doubt the Fw 187 would have been able to fulfill all the roles the Fw 190 did with the Luftwaffe as successfully as the Fw 190 did. That aircraft was a winner and led to some potent derivatives that might not have seen the light of day had FW concentrated on the Fw 187. Very few pre-war designs stayed as relevant as the Fw 190 design did to the very end of the war - the Spitfire and Bf 109 being notable exceptions. Would the Fw 187, with its in-line engines and hefty radiators or vulnerable evaporative cooling system have been as effective as a ground attack/close support aircraft as the Fw 190F family? Would it have remained as relevant as the Fw 190? All hypothetical questions we will never know the exact answer to, and you could argue that all night, really.

Click to expand...

I like the aerodynamics of the FW-187. It has a higher aspect ratio wing, low form drag and less SA/power as shown by it's quick climb rate and speed on so little power. The very small differences in the weight of the two engines makes consideration of same a moot point.
As I see it, the plane had two big problems, low power for the time and a crummy cooling system. It also had a huge and insurmountable problem with the RLM. Little to nothing maters if you can not solve this last thing.

SHOOTER said:

I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.

Click to expand...

IMHO you should read pp 307-08 again, Mk IX was at first in essence Spit Mk VC locally strengthened with Merlin 61 bolted in its nose. Spit Mks VII/VIII were the propertly developed Merlin 60 series Spits but because their development to production ready took time and air situation was critical, the ad hoc solution was Mk IX. 4 months was an underestimation say 5. But after all this isn't a Spitfire thread, so if you want to discuss on Spit maybe it would be better that you open a new thred.

On handling IIRC Quill wrote that of the Spit fighter versions he liked Mk VIII most .

nuuumannn said:

Completely agree, SR; too many variables. The problem with this sort of thing is that what-ifs beget what-ifs, so in theory you could be going off on a tangent in any direction and arrive at a conclusion no one was expecting at all! Despite all the figures, statistics, charts etc that research has produced on this aircraft, regardless of how thorough, it is all circumstantial when it comes to establishing how effective it would have been in service. There is the possibility that decisions could have been made during the aircraft's development that might have had an adverse effect on its service introduction, beyond what can be predicted using available figures produced from prototypes and pre-production aircraft alone. No one really knows and all we can do is make an educated guess.

Click to expand...

I have been taught over the years that simple engine swaps can be calculated with little difficulty. First, the Square Root of the difference in power changes speed proportionally. Secondly changes in weight do the same, also as a second order function. The big bugaboo is the extra weight of the engine must be offset with ballast, if there is not enough room in the aft fuse to move something heavy back some distance. If you do these things, you get a good idea of the changes in speed. Climb is harder but goes up as a first order fraction. ( More power = more climb.)
In this case there is a third problem in that the original cooling system did not work and the new one creates more drag. Beyond simple math's.

SHOOTER said:

I do not think it was that short. If you look at "Spitfire, the history" There are at least four sections, each of several or more pages concerned with changing the size and area of the empennage to increase stability on each of the new planes with more blades on the prop(s). While it may have been only four months from idea to first flight of the Mk-IX. Page 307 of said book disputes your claim of service 4 months after idea. First flight in September 27, 1941 and by April the next year, they were still testing it and ordered a second airframe conversion to speed testing. It was in test for nearly 6 months, in spite of the go-ahead already given. They were building plane that were not fit for service due to many handling defects. Read the whole chapter if you doubt this. The Mk-XIV was much worse. Taking more than a year of test, modification and more tests between first squadron service and first kill. The Mk-V during this time, September '41 to April '42 lost 335 planes a number that forced them to abandon all operations not in defense of England. Pilot complaints about heavy controls, bad manners and "Snaky" Yaw tendencies are rife. The Spitfire never regained it's sterling reputation after the Mk-V became obsolete. The Mk-IX became better than good enough, but was never equal to the Mk-V as related to fighting qualities. The Mk-XIV was an unmitigated disaster on those lines, but was the only plane the Brits had that could hope to compete late war, so they flew it anyway.

Click to expand...

Operational Highlights
No. 64 Squadron at Hornchurch was the first squadron to go operational with Spitfire IXs (28-July-1942). Deliveries of more powerful Spitfire IXs equipped with Merlin 63, 66, or 70s commenced in early 1943. No 611 Squadron at Biggin Hill was the first to use the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire LF IX on operations (March 1943). Full service approval of +25 lbs boost was granted 10 March 1944, providing considerable improvement in low altitude performance. No. 1 and No. 165 squadrons at Predannack were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost, taking 2 days off from operations in early May 44 to do so.

Click to expand...

Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials

Flying characteristics

16......... The Spitfire IX is similar to the Spitfire VC for take-off and landing, although the landing speed is slightly higher. The extra weight and length of the aircraft has made the elevators a little heavier and as a result controls are better harmonised. It was noticed that during dives there was less tendency for the aircraft to yaw and this was thought to be due to the extra radiator fitted on the port wing. Tight turns were made up to 5G and there was no sign of 'tightening up', the aircraft recovering normally when the control column was released.

Click to expand...

Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive.

21......... Short trials were carried out against a Typhoon I and the Spitfire IX was found to be more manoeuvrable and superior in climb but inferior in dive. During a dog-fight at 18,000 feet the Spitfire out-turned the Typhoon and got on its tail after 1 1/2 turns.

Click to expand...

Spitfire IX Tactical Trials

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
5. In most respects this aircraft is similar to the Spitfire IX, except for some very marked changes in trim with alteration of throttle setting below 0 boost. This applies principally to the rudder, despite the incorporation of the servo-operated trimming tab. This is the one bad characteristic of this aircraft. The elevators also require more frequent trimming than in a Spitfire IX.

Click to expand...

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

Click to expand...

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

68. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Spitfire IX in all respects.

69. It has the best all-round performance of any present-day fighter, apart from range.

70. Modification to the compass bracket, to enable the pilot to obtain an unresticted view of the compass, should be incorporated.

Click to expand...

Spitfire Mk XIV Testing

To summarise, the IX handled very much like the V. The XIV handled very much like the IX, except for take-off where the stronger torque of the Griffon made life more difficult.

Basically, in 1944/5, when you could get it to the fight, the Spitfire XIV was the aircraft to have for the Allies in air to air battles in the ETO. The problem was getting it to the fight.

A steam separator is a device used to separate water from steam. That implies the steam remaining is used for something, and there is NO use for steam in cooling any engine that is colder than the steam. ALL engines are colder than steam.

Click to expand...

Hello GregP,

the steam seperator in german called Dampfabschneider, was part of the engine, and it's main duty was to hold the water liquid circle of the engine bubble free, so that no steam bubbles could get at the water circle of the engne.
It was also used for normal high pressure water cooling at the DB 605, Jumo 213 and DB 603.
The first german engines as the Jumo 211A-H (Jumo F was the first with high pressure water cooling) and the DB 601A-N (DB 601E as the first with high pressure water cooling)were not high pressure water cooling engines and the part of the glycol was very smal and at the jumo engine only part of the water cycle at winter month. The engine highest temperature of the non high pressure water cooling engine was 90 C, for the high pressure water cooling engines 110-120 C. It was higher at the second generation engines with steam seperator.

davebender said:

I was think of Mk108 cannon.

IMO high velocity 3cm Mk103 cannon does not belong on a WWII era fighter aircraft. CAS aircraft are a different matter.

Click to expand...

My landlord when I was stationed in Heidelberg claimed to have flown and used a Me-109K with the Mk-103 in it. He had pictures of him and the plane. Willy Messerschmitt also made that claim in his book that several were made and some used for test and evaluation.
I think that disputing the head of the factory when interviewed just after the war would not be easy to prove. What higher source would know what they were doing. On the other hand, no one thinks the records from that time are very good, if they exist at all. So that is one best possible source and one not so great source, disputed by record that have be demonstrated to be less than reliable?

SHOOTER said:

My landlord when I was stationed in Heidelberg claimed to have flown and used a Me-109K with the Mk-103 in it. He had pictures of him and the plane. Willy Messerschmitt also made that claim in his book that several were made and some used for test and evaluation.
I think that disputing the head of the factory when interviewed just after the war would not be easy to prove. What higher source would know what they were doing. On the other hand, no one thinks the records from that time are very good, if they exist at all. So that is one best possible source and one not so great source, disputed by record that have be demonstrated to be less than reliable?

Click to expand...

Jabberwocky said:

Is this mythical, fictional circle of pilots like your "former landlord who flew a Me-109K with a 30 MM Mk-103 shooting through the prop hub and two Mg-151/15s under the cowling!" ?

Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?

Click to expand...

btw:
Mk 108 - 1057mm long, 58kg.
Mk 103 - 2350mm long, 141kg.