Fw-187 could have been German P-51?

davebender said:

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.

Click to expand...

Effective range is much different in the air than on the ground. In the air the higher MV of the Mk-103 offsets the higher BC of the Bk-5. Secondly, the curvature of the trajectory at those sorts of ranges means that at 2000 M, you might fire off the hole magazine WO hitting anything. If the curvature of the trajectory goes above or below the fuselage, then aim off is required. This is how Point blank and effective range is determined. With the Mk-103, the bullet stream is a very narrow cone, centered on the line of fire. This dispersion helps give it a longer effective range because of the "Shotgun" effect. That is missing from the Bk-5. IIRC, the maximum range, not effective range was listed as 1,200 M for the Bk-5. The effective range for the Mk-103 was listed as 1,000 M. Take it for what it is worth. Also a Google search should find the fighter weapons page with a list of all WW-II guns and ammo. Lots of neat data there.

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

In the Mosquito FB.VI manual the operating limits for the Merlins were 125°C for 1 hour (take-off climb), 105°C for maximum continuous and 135°C for 5 minute combat limit.

The reason these can be above the boiling point for water is that the cooling system is pressurised.

The USAAC's "hyper" engine program called for coolant temperatures of 300°F (149°C), but it was found that the cooling load was transferred to the oil, requiring a larger oil cooler and offsetting the smaller radiator. In the end they settled for 250°F (121°C).

wuzak said:

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

Click to expand...

The Mk 108 was a rather short barrelled weapon, so let's look at that.

Mk 108 - 580mm.
Mk 103 - 1340mm.

So the length of the cannon, not including the barrel, is:

Mk 108 - 477mm
Mk 103 - 1010mm.

So the Mk 103 was 533mm longer than the Mk 108 behind the barrel. Which means the rear of the gun would have been 533mm further back than the 108 when in a motor-cannon installation. In a Bf 109G the rear of the gun would tickle the pilot's balls!

Hi DonL,

Then the Fw 187 DB version did have an evaporative cooling system? And what we need to find out is what sort of evaporator it had?

The engine needs liquid cooling ... and the issue would be the rest of the system, seemingly. It might get interesting. Haven't received my book yet, though, and so will wait to see what it says.

Thanks.

davebender said:

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)?

Click to expand...

If you read page 33 you'll see that the 410s were used against a couple of bomber raids targeting Pilsen and Posen with a handful of aircraft being shot down on the latter raid. Otherwise the Me 410/BK 5 cannon combination was a total failure; the figure of 129 B-17s 4 B-24s shot down, cited by Wikipedia and LuftArchiv is farcical.

GregP said:

Hi DonL,

Then the Fw 187 DB version did have an evaporative cooling system? And what we need to find out is what sort of evaporator it had?

The engine needs liquid cooling ... and the issue would be the rest of the system, seemingly. It might get interesting. Haven't received my book yet, though, and so will wait to see what it says.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

From the pictures, it appears the radiator/condenser was under the engine, in length it goes from the middle of the first exhaust port to the 5th exhaust port, it is roughly the width of the engine (brackets/straps seem to hold it to the valve covers) and it is roughly the thickness of the valve covers although the bottom seems to curve. Picture/s do not show the front so you can see the airflow passages.

Shortround6 said:

From the pictures, it appears the radiator/condenser was under the engine, in length it goes from the middle of the first exhaust port to the 5th exhaust port, it is roughly the width of the engine (brackets/straps seem to hold it to the valve covers) and it is roughly the thickness of the valve covers although the bottom seems to curve. Picture/s do not show the front so you can see the airflow passages.

Click to expand...

Could the curved surface possibly form the bottom of the cowling? Ie, be exposed to the airflow?

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...

Unmitigated disaster? What rubbish. I think you are making way more of this than need be, Shooter. Regardless of any handling issues Spitfires might have suffered, the average RAF pilot certainly did not think the XIV nor the IX was as bad as you make out. Here is an example: 130 Squadron Spitfire XIV pilot Ian Ponsford;

"The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the Fw 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it straight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine."

Do you think an average service pilot would state that the XIV was "the most marvellous aeroplane at the time" if it was an "unmitigated disaster" as you claim?

Jeffrey Quill claimed that the XIV was; "...something quite outstanding – another quantum jump almost on a par with the jump from the Mk.V to the Mk.IX." If the aircraft was as much of a dog as you make out, then Quill wouldn't have claimed it was outstanding. After all, he flew every mark of Spit there was.

I also don't understand why you think the development of these aircraft was protracted. Nine months elapsed betwen the first flight of the first Mk.VIII, JF316 with a Sixty Series Griffon and the first production 'XIV, RB140. That's not that long to incorporate a research programme and to put a new type into production and service.

Shooter, you need to let go of this, because there is plenty of evdence on these pages alone that your hypothesis is incorrect. Before you mention Spitfire the History, I have a copy right here on my book shelf and I have studied it at length for years. I have spoken to Spitfire pilots, both WW2 veterans and warbird pilots of Spitfire Vs, IXs and XIVs. None have said anything that matches your description of how these aircraft handled. Everyone I have spoken to about flying the Spitfire has said that it is one of the best handling of any aircraft of its era.

Here is a quote from Tom Middleton, a warbird pilot who has flown Spit XVIs and XIVs; he states that "The XIV will always be my favourite aircraft of all time. I adored everything about it." "The Mark XVI is easy to fly [bearing in mind a XVI is a IX with a Packard built Merlin]. It instinctively tells you when it is out of balance." as for the XIV, he calls it; "...a seductive gypsy woman, a wild and sexy thing." "It was heavier on the control, but much more powerful and a good deal faster... ...whilst not difficult, it was quite demanding to fly."

wuzak said:

Could the curved surface possibly form the bottom of the cowling? Ie, be exposed to the airflow?

Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to be so from the pictures of the complete plane, or more accurately, pictures of the V5 while the best picture of the engine without cowling is of the partially competed V7. The V5 bottom cowling looks like a longer, somewhat oversized version of the oil cooler cowling/fairing on a normal DB 601/605. It looks too small for a normal radiator but how much air flow was needed for this system I don't know. There is quite a bit of energy transferred when water turns to steam and then back to water. It is this heat of vaporization that makes the steam cooling so attractive in theory.

42.7kg. MG151/20 750 rpm. Mine shell has 18.6 grams HE filler.
57.5kg. 2cm Flak38. 480 rpm. HE shell has 22 grams HE filler.

With the Mk-103, the bullet stream is a very narrow cone, centered on the line of fire. This dispersion helps give it a longer effective range because of the "Shotgun" effect. That is missing from the Bk-5. IIRC, the maximum range, not effective range was listed as 1,200 M for the Bk-5. The effective range for the Mk-103 was listed as 1,000 M.

Click to expand...

Why not go a step further? 2cm Flak38 has the velocity to reach past 1,000 meters and the weapon isn't much heavier then MG151/20. Not compact enough for use in small fighter aircraft such as Me-109 but putting four on fuselage sides of Fw-187, Me-410 etc. shouldn't be a problem. Need to develop a belt feed but that shouldn't be difficult compared to developing a belt feed for 5cm AT gun (i.e. BK 5 cannon).

Four 2cm Flak38 cannon weigh less then two 3cm Mk103 cannon. In fact they weigh less then the eight .50cal MGs installed in an American P-47. So a Fw-187 armed with four 2cm Flak38 cannon should not suffer a significant performance loss. The Falke should remain fully capable vs enemy fighter aircraft while having the ability to attack heavy bombers outside range of bomber gun turrets.

Several questions were raised re. 'Daimlerized Falke', ie. the Fw-187 with DB-6 series of engines and the abilities of such an aircraft, had it ever entered the service.
-How big a bomb would it be able to carry how far? The DB-601A was good for 1100 HP for take off, add another 50 HP if the engine is of Aa variety. That would give 2200-2300 HP to power an airplane with a 300 sq ft wing and of modest weight - plenty enough for a decent bomb load.
-How good a bomber destroyer? Stick 4 x MG151/20 and you're set.
-How to circumwent the 60 rds drum limitation? Install 2 LMGs for every MG/FF, so one can unleash 8 centrally mounted LMGs into opposition, until belt-fed cannons are available.
-How good a high altitude fighter? The DB was just fine engine for higher altitudes, unlike the BMW-801.
-It would not make a good night fighter, bar substantial redesign? Okay, pump out the Ju-88s for the Nachtjagd.
-It would cost too much? Less, actually, since the Bf-110 production can be substantially reduced, and Me-210 saga never to occur.
-But, Fw-190 was such a great fighter? Okay, the LW has a great fighter already in 1939-41, and it does not have to endure the engine-related issues for 15 months, like the 190 had.
-The derivatives of the Fw-190 were exceptional fighters? Neither derivative past BMW-engined planes ever made enything worthwhile for the Axis war effort.

Could 8 7.92mm LMGs have downed a fighter in 1940?

Sure enough - and quite a number of bombers. The 8 LMG battery was a standard outfit of Spitfires and Hurricanes of BoB vintage.

What do you think 1940 RAF fighter aircraft were armed with?

wuzak said:

In a Bf 109G the rear of the gun would tickle the pilot's balls!

Click to expand...

So...um... where can I get one of these??

deleted

tomo pauk said:

Sure enough - and quite a number of bombers. The 8 LMG battery was a standard outfit of Spitfires and Hurricanes of BoB vintage.

Click to expand...

There was a reason they added the cannons though.

tomo pauk said:

Several questions were raised re. 'Daimlerized Falke', ie. the Fw-187 with DB-6 series of engines and the abilities of such an aircraft, had it ever entered the service.
-How big a bomb would it be able to carry how far? The DB-601A was good for 1100 HP for take off, add another 50 HP if the engine is of Aa variety. That would give 2200-2300 HP to power an airplane with a 300 sq ft wing and of modest weight - plenty enough for a decent bomb load.

-How good a high altitude fighter? The DB was just fine engine for higher altitudes, unlike the BMW-801.
-It would not make a good night fighter, bar substantial redesign? Okay, pump out the Ju-88s for the Nachtjagd.
-It would cost too much?

Click to expand...

We have a problem with the "modest" weight. The Jumo powered versions went 4900-5000kg clean. No argument there. We have no weight figures for a BD 601 powered version. The data for the proposed DB 605 powered version has a weight of 7200KG clean and a proposed high altitude variant with single seat and two 20mm MG 151s and two MG 131s was 6000kg. The next question is what kind of fields are being used. Using a P-38L as an example (because I could get the chart easy) which is both heavier and has more power the take off distance changes by 300 ft on a hard runway with an increase of 2000lbs but changes by 500 ft on a soft runway. That is at 32 degrees F, add 10% for every 20 degrees F above freezing. take off on soft runway at 60 degrees F at 19,400lbs (middle line on the chart) is almost 2400ft. take off on hard runway at 17,400lbs is 1300ft at same temp.

The early DB engines are no more a high altitude engine than a 1940-41 Allison was. Was gives the early DB engine the reputation of a high altitude engine was that it was installed in a 2700-3000 KG fighter instead of a 3400-3600kg fighter. IF the DB 601N powered fighter weighs 5600 kg it will have the same power to weight ratio as a 109F-2 with a slightly higher wing loading. Using DB 601A type engines even if the plane is several hundred KG lighter doesn't improve things.

SAVING money buy building "lighter" Fw 187s (There is only about 1600lbs difference in empty weight between a Jumo powered FW 187 and a Bf 110C wigh DB 601s) kind of goes out the window when you replace the 11,220lb empty weight Bf 110G night fighter with a 19,973lb empty Ju 88C night fighter. While cost to build is not directly linked to airframe weight is was close enough that it was used for many 'quick' comparisons.

You can estimate the weight increase of several FW 187 from Jumo 210 to DB 601 A,DB 601aa DB 601N and DB 601E very specific, because you have exact data's of the weight increase of the Bf 110 from Jumo 210 to several DB 601 engines. This not very difficult to estimate to + - 50kg.

Also with this weight increase and comperative data's of the Bf 110, you can very exact calculate the range of different versions of the FW 187 and more important the speed increase. The numbers of the Bf 109 with several DB 601 are also a good indication for the speed increase.

To my opinion only a two seater destroyer version makes sense from 1939 to 1942, with the problems of the Bf 109G and the high altitude problematic, beginning with the Spitfire IX and P-47, single seater fighter versions would come to focus.

The FW 187 can only be put in production instead of the Bf 110 and the Me 210.

Also I'm not convinced that the FW 187 couldn't be an adequate nightfighter 1941, 142, 1943, I have written enough in this Forum to this issue.
The claim from stona is obviously wrong, that the FW 187 couldn't be a nightfighter, in his book Dietmar Hermann provide enough sources to prove the opposite.

Edit:

An other point is, that the FW 187C was very heayily armoured, much more then the early Bf 110 C,D or F destroyers and much more then any P 38

Why do you want to build a two seat zerstorer version? I think the potential strength of the Fw 187 lay in a role as a single seat fighter, something like the Westland Whirlwind, but better. Adding extra seat(s) and rearward facing armament and all the other bits in the zerstorer specification(s) simply detracted from this.
The only problem is manoeuvrability when faced with nimble single engine types, but properly used it might have worked.

The Fw 187 would not make a night fighter because it was too small and that was also the conclusion of the RLM. We don't have any reliable data about the potential performance of such a version anyway.
For the same reason I don't believe it would have made a better bomber destroyer than other twin engine types tried in that role. Bolting on a battery of heavy weapons would again compromise the best qualities of the aeroplane, just as it did with every other type on which this was tried.

My point about the Fw 190 is that it made a very good fighter bomber, something comparable to the Typhoon or Thunderbolt. I can't see the Fw 187 in that role, armoured or not.

Unfortunately since the type was never tried and tested in any of these roles we can never know one way or the other. Any argument is entirely theoretical and the Fw 187 might have proved adept in some unexpected role and hopeless in one where it might be expected to excel. It wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers
Steve