Fw 187 for 1939-45

[Shortround6]

the main problem is finding enough DB 601 engines.
You can't stop cut into production of the 109s, you don't have enough of them to begin with.
You can't cut the 110 out completely, you need the big wing and big cockpit for certain jobs.

The MG/FF drums are a problem but building and using 90-100 round drums is not that big a deal (gun breeches and drums may have to go behind the cockpit. 60 rounds is too few, 180 rounds for the MG/FF may be overkill. Get the crew working on the MG 151 to take coffee breaks only (no strudel) to speed things up.

Manual for the early P-38s shows the following for the P-38D & E at 12,000ft. and using 260 (US) gallons (40gal used up in start, warm up, take off)
max continuous power 2600rpm......38in........180gph (US)...........345mph...............450 miles
1 step down.......................2300rpm.....31in.........114gph....................310mph...............630 miles
4th step down...................2100rpm.....27in...........72gph....................265mph...............860 miles
Most economic.................1700rpm.....22in...........61gph.....................230mph.............870 miles

Chart says the distances are for 12,000ft only which is one reason I used those speeds and throttle settings. The other is that while the turbos were working they wouldn't be working that much.
Take-off and climb chart (at 15,000lbs/6,800kg?) ) says 41 gallons to get to 10,000ft from sea level using 2300rpm and 29in.

We have the usual US cross over on the flight operation instruction chart (fuel used for start includes climbing to 5,000ft) and the climb chart (fuel used is from sea level but flying.

There are charts for the P-38F and P-38G but I figured the D & E were going to be closer to the early DB 601 engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

the main problem is finding enough DB 601 engines.
You can't stop cut into production of the 109s, you don't have enough of them to begin with.
You can't cut the 110 out completely, you need the big wing and big cockpit for certain jobs.

The 109s remain as-is, indeed. The 110s can be replaced competely by the Do 215s; granted, that does not solve the DB 601 availability. Me, I'd go with Jumo 211s for the either 215s, 110s or even the 187s. Even if that means Ju 87 gets the short end of the stick and gets Bramo 323 in the nose.

The MG/FF drums are a problem but building and using 90-100 round drums is not that big a deal (gun breeches and drums may have to go behind the cockpit. 60 rounds is too few, 180 rounds for the MG/FF may be overkill.

Yes, 90-100 rd drum should be doable early enough.

Get the crew working on the MG 151 to take coffee breaks only (no strudel) to speed things up.

Make the belt feed system for the MG FF in 1939 instead in 1942?
And, no strudel?? Really?

Manual for the early P-38s shows the following for the P-38D & E at 12,000ft. and using 260 (US) gallons (40gal used up in start, warm up, take off)
max continuous power 2600rpm......38in........180gph (US)...........345mph...............450 miles
1 step down.......................2300rpm.....31in.........114gph....................310mph...............630 miles
4th step down...................2100rpm.....27in...........72gph....................265mph...............860 miles
Most economic.................1700rpm.....22in...........61gph.....................230mph.............870 miles

Data sheet of interest:



Max cont at 4.9 km = 255 l/h = ~67.4 US gal/hr; obviously 134.7 US gal/hr for two engines. Step down (economy) at 5.5 km = 240 l/h, or 137.7 US gals for to engines.

For the best range at 5 km, the boost should be 0.76 ata, RPM of 1400 rpm, 400 L will be consumed in 1:50 hr, ie about 220 l/h, or 115-120 US gal/hr for two engines?
For 1000 liters, this is a bit less than 4 hours on max cont, or a bit more than 4 hours at economy (860 PS power per engine). I don't know the power for the really conservative settings, these of under 1 ata and under 2200 rpm.

At 875 HP at 6 km with ram, the Bf 110 was good for 1040 km on 513 (518?) km/h, with 965 kg (1270 L of fuel). I don't know the allowances used in the table. That is 25% more than Fw 187 as-is, with Jumo 210s; on the flip side, we might expect perhaps 10 % better mileage due to lower drag and weight, as well as some increase of cruising speed.
To be on the conservative side, I'll reduce the range figure for the Bf 110C by 20% for the Fw 187, arriving at 832 km range. This is 300+ km better than the Bf 109E on 850-900 HP at 6 km. Or probably no worse than a Bf 109E that carries a drop tank.