Fw-187 could have been German P-51?

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do agree that we should have better data available, re. weight of the DB-Falke, in order to do some estimates. The P-38J weighted 17000 lbs (~7720 kg )with full ammo and internal fuel, no drop tanks. The Falke was slightly smaller and was not carrying turbos, so it would be reasonable to estimate the weight of the DB-601 version at 6000 kg, loaded, clean?
FWIW, the P-38F was able to take off with two dummy torpedoes - 3500 lbs worth?

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.

Click to expand...

I was not referring to the 601A as a high altitude engine, and certainly don't agree with such reputation if it exists. I was referring to Steve's estimate: "High altitude interceptor?......Possibly with substantial modification." - installation of newer versions of the DB-601/605 engines as they become available does not require substantial modifications of the basic airframe stressed for the DB-601A.

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.

Click to expand...

You can see in the post you've quoted that Me-210 saga is very unlikely to happen, that means also the Me-410 is deleted. Further savings are due to the less losses of the better performer (DB Falke vs. Bf-110), LW and RA loses less bombers when attacking Malta and Med convoys, LW looses less (far less?) Ju-52s while trying to reinforce Afica Corps due to the escort provided. Less LW bombers lost means the losses in crews are smaller, while the damage inflicted to the Allies is greater. During Op Pedestal, RN loses two CVs (instead of one); tanker Ohio does not make it to Malta?
The number of engines for Ju-88 instead of Me-210 night fighters remains the same, as well as number of electronics sets required, so the price per night fighter produced should be just a tad greater.

Not sure if this is valid but the equally slim DH.103 Hornet could successfully be made into a nightfighter.

It depends on how much rearranging you want to do and what the RLM felt was necessary for room. They didn't think the cockpit in the He 219 was big enough. Slim is a relative term. even 6in in width can mean a difference.

FW 187 cockpit.


5-6 engine gauges were mounted on each nacelle because there is no room in the cockpit. Radio on two seaters was mounted on the rear wall of the cockpit. space between pilot and radio operator was filled with ammo bins for the machineguns.



The Hornet night fighter didn't show up until 1948/49, the radar operator was positioned at the trailing edge of the wing and the radar unit was a development of a war time unit. Space and weight may have been lower than a German mid war unit?

The engine instruments were moved to the nacelles when the side consoles became necessary. These were installed to reduce the height at the top of the instrument panel in order to allow what passed in WW2 for acceptable visibility forwards. It was impossible to lower the entire panel and fit in the pilot's legs.
It's not me that thinks arbitrarily that there is not enough room for night fighter equipment, it was the reason given for not developing the Fw 187 as such at the time.
Cheers
Steve

Lengthening the cockpit might give room for all engine gauges?

spicmart said:

Lengthening the cockpit might give room for all engine gauges?

Click to expand...

The engine gauges on the nacelles was not a solution unique to the Fw 187.
The lack of room was more in the rear cockpit. This had been squeezed into what was originally a single seater at the behest of the RLM. The rear cockpit was so small that the defensive armament, a specification of zerstorer aircraft, proved very difficult to fit (I can't check which if any versions actually got it at the moment), let alone all the equipment needed to outfit a night fighter.
Cheers
Steve

tomo pauk said:

I do agree that we should have better data available, re. weight of the DB-Falke, in order to do some estimates. The P-38J weighted 17000 lbs (~7720 kg )with full ammo and internal fuel, no drop tanks. The Falke was slightly smaller and was not carrying turbos, so it would be reasonable to estimate the weight of the DB-601 version at 6000 kg, loaded, clean?
FWIW, the P-38F was able to take off with two dummy torpedoes - 3500 lbs worth?

Click to expand...

The question is what was the Luftwaffe field requirement? not if plane XX can get of the ground with load YY given an unlimited runway. Can the Bf 110 operate from a shorter air strip carrying the same load? As an extreme example some might say the US wasted money building B-25 (or other twin engine bombers) because the P-38 could carry 3200lbs of bombs (or more?). It over looks the facts that the P-38 could carry only two bombs. It overlooks the fact that the 3200lb load was the 1600lb armor piercing bombs that carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb and it over looks the fact that even with a pair of 1600lbs a late model P-38 was credited with a combat radius of 250 miles at 10,000ft.
SO there were quite a number of medium bomber missions the P-38 could NOT do.

Perhaps the lower drag of the Fw 187 does permit the same radius of action with the same bomb-load as the Bf 110 using the same engines, perhaps it doesn't?

I was not referring to the 601A as a high altitude engine, and certainly don't agree with such reputation if it exists. I was referring to Steve's estimate: "High altitude interceptor?......Possibly with substantial modification." - installation of newer versions of the DB-601/605 engines as they become available does not require substantial modifications of the basic airframe stressed for the DB-601A.

Click to expand...

The Fw 187 due to it's smaller size would make a better high altitude fighter than the Bf 110 using the same engines but to be a truly high altitude fighter requires the big supercharger DB 605 engines at the very least. High altitude performance is going to be marginally better than a 109 with the same engine once you get passed "E" series. FW 187 was a lot cleaner than the Jumo 210 powered 109s and 'E's but once the 'F's show up the performance difference becomes a lot smaller. The Proposed "high altitude" Fw 187 had around 1000-1200kg of second crewman, armament and other stuff taken out. I would say cutting 16% from weight of a clean fighter is a substantial modification (cut 1500lbs from a clean Mustang D?)

tomo pauk said:

You can see in the post you've quoted that Me-210 saga is very unlikely to happen, that means also the Me-410 is deleted. Further savings are due to the less losses of the better performer (DB Falke vs. Bf-110), LW and RA loses less bombers when attacking Malta and Med convoys, LW looses less (far less?) Ju-52s while trying to reinforce Afica Corps due to the escort provided. Less LW bombers lost means the losses in crews are smaller, while the damage inflicted to the Allies is greater. During Op Pedestal, RN loses two CVs (instead of one); tanker Ohio does not make it to Malta?
The number of engines for Ju-88 instead of Me-210 night fighters remains the same, as well as number of electronics sets required, so the price per night fighter produced should be just a tad greater.

Click to expand...

The Me 210/410 saga also shows what can happen. Do they want a fast bomber with enclosed bomb-bay or a fighter? The fighter can lift the same amount of bombs from the same runway but the higher drag of external bombs cuts into range. But the weight/volume of the bomb bay cut into performance as a fighter. The adaptation of the rearward firing 13mm mgs didn't do much for it either.

Shortround6 said:

The question is what was the Luftwaffe field requirement? not if plane XX can get of the ground with load YY given an unlimited runway. Can the Bf 110 operate from a shorter air strip carrying the same load? As an extreme example some might say the US wasted money building B-25 (or other twin engine bombers) because the P-38 could carry 3200lbs of bombs (or more?). It over looks the facts that the P-38 could carry only two bombs. It overlooks the fact that the 3200lb load was the 1600lb armor piercing bombs that carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb and it over looks the fact that even with a pair of 1600lbs a late model P-38 was credited with a combat radius of 250 miles at 10,000ft.
SO there were quite a number of medium bomber missions the P-38 could NOT do.
Perhaps the lower drag of the Fw 187 does permit the same radius of action with the same bomb-load as the Bf 110 using the same engines, perhaps it doesn't?

Click to expand...

Nowhere in this thread the Fw-187 "DB"was suggested as a replacement for a fully fledged bomber, rather it was compared with bomb-carrying Fw-190 and Bf-110. Both of them were erstwhile fighters that were modified into bomb-carriers.

The Fw 187 due to it's smaller size would make a better high altitude fighter than the Bf 110 using the same engines but to be a truly high altitude fighter requires the big supercharger DB 605 engines at the very least. High altitude performance is going to be marginally better than a 109 with the same engine once you get passed "E" series. FW 187 was a lot cleaner than the Jumo 210 powered 109s and 'E's but once the 'F's show up the performance difference becomes a lot smaller.

Click to expand...

A role of high-altitude fighter have had a lot to do with intended target - the B-17/24. So our high altitude fighter need a good punch, and there both 109 and 190 have their set of problems. A Fw-190 carrying 4 cannons is a bad performer above 20-25000 ft; a Bf-109 with 3 cannons is a worse performer than one with 1 cannon. If the outer pair of cannons is not carried, the bomb-killing ability is much reduced.
The DB Falke can lug around 4 cannons and still perform above 20-25000 ft.

The Proposed "high altitude" Fw 187 had around 1000-1200kg of second crewman, armament and other stuff taken out. I would say cutting 16% from weight of a clean fighter is a substantial modification (cut 1500lbs from a clean Mustang D?).

Click to expand...

The Falke have had something to cut from those 16%, unlike the Mustang (assuming both planes are left with fuel untouched). A substantial modification of P-51D was P-51H, and there was maybe 10% of common parts within the two, like radio, guns and instruments.

The Me 210/410 saga also shows what can happen. Do they want a fast bomber with enclosed bomb-bay or a fighter? The fighter can lift the same amount of bombs from the same runway but the higher drag of external bombs cuts into range. But the weight/volume of the bomb bay cut into performance as a fighter. The adaptation of the rearward firing 13mm mgs didn't do much for it either.

Click to expand...

Agreed completely. The RLM should've went for a world-beater single seat fighter, in case of the Fw-187.

stona said:

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

Click to expand...

Simply the FW 187 could only go in production instead of the Bf 110/210/410.
I agree that the advantages of the FW 187 were at fighting and not so much as a heavy destroyer, but Germany was in need of an all or bad weather fighter, which requires a second seat. Also the FW 187 have to do the same dutys as the Bf 110, especially at Norway, Bay of Biscaya and the Mediterranean , which also requires a second seat. Rearward facing armament wasn't at any time necessary, with the speed of the Fw 187, same as the Mossie.

The advantage of the FW 187 was it's multi role character, it has the possibility to be developed as heavy fighter/destroyer (two seater) and also as a single seater high performance fighter with the same basic a/c. It offers much more variability then any Messerschmitt counterpart, because she had much more payload then the single seater Bf 109 and Fw 190 and could carry 4 x 151 guns as high performance single seater fighter.

The equippment of the FW 187 V4 was absolutely the same then the Bf 110 C4, as you can see this at the rear cockpit at page 60!
Also till summer autum 1942, as the first german nightfighters were euipped with onboard radar, a FW 187 could do by all means the nightfighter role.

I don't have much use for Me-110. However the Daimler-Benz engine shortage was created by RLM mismanagement. Just as RLM created the Fw-187 shortage which cost Germany dearly during the Battle of Britain.

Late 1930s Germany had the option to build DB601 engines on same scale as Jumo 211 engine. Then any European aircraft manufacturer (including Hungary, Sweden, Italy etc.) could acquire DB601 engines simply by writing a check to Daimler-Benz.

davebender said:

Late 1930s Germany had the option to build DB601 engines on same scale as Jumo 211 engine. Then any European aircraft manufacturer (including Hungary, Sweden, Italy etc.) could acquire DB601 engines simply by writing a check to Daimler-Benz.

Click to expand...

Not this tired, and at this point, crumbly chestnut again. The Germans were NOT trying to export the DB 601 series of engines to just anybody. It was a military secret. The engine displayed at the Paris airshow in Dec 1938 was the DB 600 with carburetor while the Jumo 211 had fuel injection.

Did BD not get funding because they weren't delivering on the promises on time or were they not delivering because they weren't getting funding? The Early DB 600 engines don't seem to be a rousing success. Throwing large scale funding at a troubled engine may result in success or it may be money down a rat hole. We know that DB pulled it out but what was know at the time?

DonL said:

Also till summer autum 1942, as the first german nightfighters were euipped with onboard radar, a FW 187 could do by all means the nightfighter role.

Click to expand...

From the minutes of an RLM Developmental Meeting, 8th August 1942.

"Topic: heavy fighter/high speed bomber/night fighter using one standard type.

......the Fw 187 does not have sufficient range and payload and, due to its cockpit design, is ruled out as a night fighter."

My italics.

The men, most importantly Milch who was present, who needed convincing were in that meeting. It was here that the axe effectively fell on any further development of the Fw 187. Whether they were right or wrong is another debate entirely. They gave their reasons. They definitely did not see the Fw 187 as capable of being a multi role aircraft (in modern terms).

As I said before, it is not me but the RLM/Luftwaffe who considered the Fw 187 to be unable to undertake the role of night fighter.

At the same meeting the Me 210 was preferred in other roles which due to the reasons above the RLM didn't think that the Fw187 could fulfil. The He 219 was the preferred night fighter, so in the end they settled on two types, not one anyway. Unfortunately for the Fw 187 it wasn't preferred in any of those roles.

Milch was the only one who preferred the Ju 188 over the He 219 on practical grounds as it could be built at existing facilities.

Cheers

Steve

They used 109s and 190s as nightfighters, doesn't mean they were very good even if they did occasionally shoot down something. By summer of 1942 they were looking for planes they could put radar in.

And prior to that meeting I can find no evidence that the Fw 187 was ever considered as a night fighter. I can't find any evidence that Focke-Wulf promoted it in that role. Focke-Wulf tended to react to the RLM's ever changing requirements. Tank was a master of re-pitching his various designs in attempts to keep projects alive and secure government funding.

Once Udet replaced von Richthofen (Wolfram) the single seat version was effectively dead in the water. This was in 1936 if my memory serves me well.

I honestly believe that this is when the Fw187's best chance of being developed, as a single seat, high performance fighter (in early war terms) was lost. In that role I think it would have been a good aeroplane. A game changer? I don't think so, but it would have caused some serious head aches for the RAF in 1940/41.

In 1942 it was once again rejected as a heavy fighter (successor of the zerstorer concept), fast bomber and night fighter. There was nothing left.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

And prior to that meeting I can find no evidence that the Fw 187 was ever considered as a night fighter. I can't find any evidence that Focke-Wulf promoted it in that role. Focke-Wulf tended to react to the RLM's ever changing requirements. Tank was a master of re-pitching his various designs in attempts to keep projects alive and secure government funding.

Once Udet replaced von Richthofen (Wolfram) the single seat version was effectively dead in the water. This was in 1936 if my memory serves me well.

I honestly believe that this is when the Fw187's best chance of being developed, as a single seat, high performance fighter (in early war terms) was lost.

In 1942 it was once again rejected as a heavy fighter (successor of the zerstorer concept), fast bomber and night fighter. There was nothing left.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

So we come back to the classic Luftwaffe what if: Wever lives, so Udet doesn't replace Wimmer in the technical branch and Richthofen stays on in the Development office.

wiking85 said:

So we come back to the classic Luftwaffe what if: Wever lives, so Udet doesn't replace Wimmer in the technical branch and Richthofen stays on in the Development office.

Click to expand...

And it is a "what if". We can only go with the real decisions taken by the men and committees at the time. It was Udet who saw the Fw 187 as a potential replacement for the Bf 110 and that effectively killed any chance the Fw 187 had to show what a good aeroplane it might have been. Instead they got the Me 210! The only reason that the Fw 187 even features in discussions at the RLM in 1942 is because the Me 210 was such a disaster. Had the Me 210 worked we would never have heard of the Fw 187 after the beginning of the war, it would have gone the way of dozens of other failed or rejected projects.
Cheers
Steve

OK, I looked at the Fw 187 book by Dietmar Hermann and Peter Petrick. The authors make some outlandish claims without specific reference to Focke-Wulf documents. For instance, they quote some Fw documents and then say the V5 was always the plane slated for the DB engines, but never says that came from Fw documents. I think he makes some assumptions the same as the other authors, claims to have genuine Focke-Wulf documents to back him up … but we don't get to see them, just translations. They say in the chapter on the Fw 187 B that the specification remains missing, yet produced a specification a few pages later for the DB-powered Kampfzerstorer without any references to Fw documents, and then proceeds to produce specifications for a DB 605-powered version when the specs for the DB 601 units remain missing! They show a supposed Fw document on page 125, but there is no document marking. I could have drawn it, as far as the reproduction shows.

I like the book, but hardly think it should be taken as seriously as indicated in here by some. There's just too much speculation with not a shred of evidence traceable to anything.

Back in the 1930's many aviation manufacturers experimented with evaporative cooling systems. One such was the surface evaporative type that used the surface of the plane's fuselage, wings, and pontoons to mount a thin, streamlined condenser or radiator. It's purpose was to turn the vapor back into liquid and to cool the liquid after doing so. The experiments with evaporative cooling ended about 1940 and EVERYONE decided the system was too complex, not tolerant of any battle damage, and was never perfected. It was tough to keep it working even without hard service, much less combat and field conditions.

The Fw 187 also used an evaporative cooling system, but it wasn't a surface evaporative system. Instead they developed a complex and finicky set of evaporators that were below the cylinder banks and also wrapped around the nose case. The condenser was not the surface type, but was a normal condenser coupled with what they called a steam separator. The steam separator used a spinning setup to hurl the water outward and vent the setan toward a central pipe, but it was still part of an evaporative cooling system. There is NO system which employs steam that is NOT evaporative. The evaporation comes in when the steam is produced and the condensing happens when the water is condensed from and separated from the steam.

There was NO further effort expended on the system after 1940. And we are left to our own conclusions. Mine are as follows:

The system was too complex for field employment, too delicate for combat, didn't quite work as described, or was simply out of favor with the RLM. It really doesn't matter which it was, one of them is true. They made at least one Messerschmitt Bf 110 with the Fw 187's evaporative cooling system and had its performance to compare with the normal liquid-only radiator system employed in the same aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. Either the Bf 110 trial evaporative system wasn't quite right, wasn't considered rugged enough, or worked OK but couldn't handle any battle damage. Other wised they would have adopted it if it proved superior to existing technology. This was, after all, war and results are what mattered … assuming the politics could be overcome. Perhaps it WAS politics, said above as "out of favor with the RLM." In any case, evaporative cooling was not pursued in many further Luftwaffe aircraft, and there was SOME REASON for that.

So I stand by what I said earlier on the cooling system except for the "surface" part.

It was evaporative. As for the speed, I really don't care if the speeds were 10 – 12 mph different, top speed isn't really relevant in combat except in a dive anyway. Top speed is largely reserved for emergencies, like when you will probably die if you don't escape. This is not just MY opinion, but is the opinion shared by MANY WWII combat pilots including some from Germany, the UK, and Japan. So I have some very good company in that opinion, including modern fighter pilots as well. Granted there were a few who DID employ top speed … but it was almost universally employed to escape, not to attack.

The documents shown for the V2 show a top speed of 311 mph (page 28_). The comparison between the Fw 187 V1 and the Westland Whirlwind also show a max speed of 311 mph (501 km/h) and do not represent official documents of any sort … they are typed in. The chapter on the Fw 187 V4 / A-0 show a maximum speed of 545 km/h (339 mph) at 4,000 m, and are slower at both lower and higher altitudes. No surprise there as all aircraft have an optimum altitude. There are a couple of pages where the author says Fw tried to make the Fw 187 inot a dive bomber, but no DB-powered drawing survives, The only surviving drawing shows a radial-powered machine and there are some specifications given with no reference to any surviving documentation. The speed shown is higher than the fighter version at 605 km/h (376 mph) at 6,000 m, but there is no indication if these data refer to the radial-powered unit or the DB-powered unit and no reference to Fw data at all.

There is a whole chapter on a comparison among the new DB 605-powered Fw 187, the Me 2110C-4, and the Bf 110 despite the fact that no DB 605-powered Fw 187 ever flew. This is speculation. The next few pages detail the performance of the DB 605-powered Fw 187 despite the fact that none were ever built and flown. There is ONE Fw drawing in this area that shows the proposed location of bombs, but nothing on performance.

From my perspective, this book is more speculative than the internet text I have read about the aircraft, but has some wonderful pics of the machine. I would not consider this book to be an authoritative source for information on the Fw 187. It is more of a collection if really good pics coupled with SOME data and a lot of speculation.

In my earlier posts, I expressed surprise this neat aircraft was not proceeded with and I remain surprised by that fact. On the surface, it looks as if the Fw 187 had better potential than the Bf 110 / Me 210 / 410 to me. Whether or not this would have been true is speculation that I would not care to get into.

Good library addition, but hardly a "reference." Your opinion may vary, and that is OK. I won't disagree with you but also won't believe or concur with any conclusions based on this book until and unless the primary source data surfaces.

VERY neat pics!

You should look at page 158 and 159 there is an exact list of references and all this references are primary german sources.

If this documents are for you only speculations and no reference, it shows much of your biases.
Be aware I will challenge you if you are doing unsubstained claims, only why you are thinking an author is doing speculation, because the provided document are for you no references, instead they are german primary sources from FW, Daimler Benz and the RLM.

Also at the book is explicit mentioned, that the original specification of the FW 187 A (with Jumo 210) and the original specification of the FW 187 C (DB 605) are at the the FW archive and base of the book, only the original specification of tHe FW 187 B (DB 601) is missing.

Your post is to me incomprehensible and nothing more then bias!
In your world are obviously only counting your personal opinion and allied documents.

DonL said:

Also at the book is explicit mentioned, that the original specification of the FW 187 A (with Jumo 210) and the original specification of the FW 187 C (DB 605) are at the the FW archive and base of the book.

Click to expand...

So what?
Here's a document from Messerschmitt.



The Li P 10 has a surviving specification. With two DB 603 engines it had a maximum speed of 682 kph, a ceiling of 12,100 m and a range of 2,480 km. It's about as relevant as a DB 605 powered Fw 187 because it never existed either!

Steve

Live in your own world stona!

The FW 187 existed, the FW 187 V5 with DB 601 was flying and the DB 605 engine, which was the calculated base of the FW 187 C was a production engine.
Your arguments are nothing more then biases and excuses and I'm realy tired to show you, your false technical argumentaion, which are obviously bisased .
A paper project with paper projected engines, is fundemental different to real flying a/c's and production engines, where you have hard proved datas from testflights.