Fw 187 for 1939-45

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.

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

On another forum I have posed the question if it had been possible to develop the Fw 187 airframe to be competitive to the DH 103 Hornet, the pinnacle of twin-engined fighters and what it would take to do this.
Dimension-wise both planes are comparable. Same layout.
The Hornet has a 33 sqm wing. Cross-section of the fuselage (cockpit?) should also be about the Fw 187's (visual estimate). Nightfighting equipment could be installed in it.
Maybe it can be discussed here. Some ground has already been covered with the comparison to the P-38.

spicmart said:

On another forum I have posed the question if it had been possible to develop the Fw 187 airframe to be competitive to the DH 103 Hornet, the pinnacle of twin-engined fighters and what it would take to do this.

Click to expand...

Hornet have had the 130 series Merlin, with a 2-stage S/C; as low-drag, low-weight and altitude-power engine it was the best one around. Among the low-weight, low-drag, high-altitude German engines, the DB 605L was the best bet. So use that engine.
(I'd suggest lowering the CR of the 605L down to 6.5:1, if not down to 6:1 in order to improve the boost and with it the power; yes, we'd be loosing a bit of the altitude power, and I'm okay with that)
Guns are easy.
Fw 187 was a low-drag A/C, but getting even the better ww2 aircraft over 750 km/h was quite a task.

Aerodynamically the Hornet was a superlative design.
Laminar wing profile, drag-efficient leading edge radiators, fuselage and engine nacelles with extra slim Merlin 130/131 engines for smallest possible cross-sections.
Did the Germans ever consider XS engines for their planes?
Though they wouldn't need to go with such small engines as they could go for the annular/drum radiators which are more low drag even than the Hornet's.
Underwing radiators are less desirable dragwise compared afaik.
A DB 605 would be the engine of choice. 213/605/801 are too heavy.

4 x 20 mm MG 151/20 is a must.

The Hornet took it's first test flight during summer of 1944.

At that point in time, there would be no need for the Fw187, since the Me262 was entering service.

Also the British managed to squeeze all instruments into that tiny Hornet cockpit. So it might be possible with the Fw 187 late-war? Maybe the instruments became smaller...

GrauGeist said:

The Hornet took it's first test flight during summer of 1944.

At that point in time, there would be no need for the Fw187, since the Me262 was entering service.

Click to expand...

I'm interested in the potential.

spicmart said:

I'm interested in the potential.

Click to expand...

In these what-ifs, I try and keep the timeline in mind.

Otherwise, we could ask how the P-51H would have impacted the Battle of Britain.

GrauGeist said:

In these what-ifs, I try and keep the timeline in mind.

Otherwise, we could ask how the P-51H would have impacted the Battle of Britain.

Click to expand...

The Me 109 was a 1935 design which soldiered on until war's end and was reasonably competitive as was the Spitfire.
The Fw 187 appears to be a design which was clean and advanced enough to be developed into something really good and competitive, until the end, had FW gotten the opportunity.
I want to compare her with the best and think the Hornet was well within still reasonable technical proximity for that. It was wooden, too.

spicmart said:

Though they wouldn't need to go with such small engines as they could go for the annular/drum radiators which are more low drag even than the Hornet's.

Click to expand...

Are they?

spicmart said:

Aerodynamically the Hornet was a superlative design.
Laminar wing profile, drag-efficient leading edge radiators, fuselage and engine nacelles with extra slim Merlin 130/131 engines for smallest possible cross-sections.

Click to expand...

We can recall that there was a host of 450+- mph fighters with 'legacy' airfoils and with the profiles being a bit thicker than one can expect, like the F4U-4 and -5, F8F-II, Griffon Spitfires, Ta-152s/late 190Ds, or the latest P-47s.
Granted, having more modern airfoils and thinner wings helped to reach that extra 10-20 mph.

GrauGeist said:

Otherwise, we could ask how the P-51H would have impacted the Battle of Britain.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that anyone was trying to pitch the 450++ mph Fw 187 as something remotely available before 1945.

tomo pauk said:

Are they?

Click to expand...

I hope I was not too hasty.
AFAIU and IIRC, Hawker performed tests evaluating the drag of the various radiator arrangements and the (extendable) drum radiator came out on top.

spicmart said:

I hope I was not too hasty.
AFAIU and IIRC, Hawker performed tests evaluating the drag of the various radiator arrangements and the (extendable) drum radiator came out on top.

Click to expand...

Hawker was not so kind to list the drag figures breakdown of the whole aircraft - one could say that the drag of the LE radiators 'belonged' to the drag of the wing, not to the drag of the cooling system.
After all, their fastest piston-engined A/C were the ones with LE radiators.

tomo pauk said:

Hawker was not so kind to list the drag figures breakdown of the whole aircraft - one could say that the drag of the LE radiators 'belonged' to the drag of the wing, not to the drag of the cooling system.
After all, their fastest piston-engined A/C were the ones with LE radiators.

Click to expand...

The Sea Fury had both air-cooling and LE rad.

spicmart said:

The Sea Fury had both air-cooling and LE rad.

Click to expand...

Yes; LE radiator was just for oil.

FWIW

spicmart said:

4 x 20 mm MG 151/20 is a must.

Click to expand...

Fw 187 with DB engines was probably one of the rare German fighters to carry around three MK 103s and look good (= perform well) while doing it. These B-17s will not shot themselves down, you know...

Nice to see a logical discussion about this aircraft without the reversion to outright fantasy that so many threads on this aircraft descend into. The Fw 187 always reeks of a solution looking for a problem in my opinion. It wasn't ordered because the Luftwaffe couldn't see a use for it. As we all are aware, the aircraft did not fit the Zerstorer concept, so what is it being proposed as? Are we inventing a use for it as a long range escort fighter? If we are, then what of the Zerstorer? The Bf 110 in my opinion was a good, reliable, and versatile design and although it was no match for single-seat fighters, it was still a fast and handy multiplace airtcraft, which in hindsight the LW got a lot out of and was far more versatile an airframe than the Fw 187 could have ever been in its initial guise without extensive redesign.

As a night fighter, there isn't enough room for radar in the Fw 187, unless the Germans redesign their aerials as the Fw 187's propellers' proximity to the aircraft's nose renders that position unavailable. There was a proposed night fighter concept illustrated in the Hermann and Petrick book, but it was a single-seater devoid of radar, now that's gonna be next to useless when Bomber Command gets going by 1943. As for the projected Fw 187C, it was a projected fast strike aircraft without any recon capability as there was no room for the carriage of cameras, but by the time it would have entered service, had it been built, the LW had the Fw 190F, which could arguably do what it could have done with one fewer engine and crewmember.

So, what do we want this aircraft to be?

The next issue is what goes so the Fw 187 stays? The RLM doesn't have an infinite production capacity, so what is not being built? Fw 190s? Fw 200s? Fw 189s? The argument for all these Fw types is robust in favour of them as oposed to the Fw 187. If it is being built under licence, by whom and where, and again in place of what?

As for comparing it with the Hornet, a lot of drag reduction and serious power is needed. The projected maximum speed of around 450 mph for the planned variants (not taking into consideration weight creep, etc, if it were actually built) has to go up by a whopping thirty mph to match the Hornet, let alone exceed it. It is highly unlikely to happen in 1944, let alone before the war.

It is worth noting that when examining the Hermann and Petrick book, it can be seen that some liberties are taken with what is considered to be the Fw 187 by the original manufacturer in a bid to attract orders. The authors fail to pick up on this, perpetuating the all-singing, all-dancing Fw 187 myth that populates the internet. While these designs superficially resemble the Fw 187, they have different fuselages, different wings, different engines and so forth. They share little if anything with the design as originally conceived except their names. This means retooling and new production, which requires a lot of work. This isn't a situation of just adding modifications to the existing production line, but an entire redesign of the internal and external structure, which takes time and manpower to implement. Tank was better off with a clean slate.

To add to what we are going to use this aircraft for and who is going to build it, the next question then becomes how soon do we want this aircraft and will it be redundant when it finally arrives?

nuuumannn said:

The Fw 187 always reeks of a solution looking for a problem in my opinion. It wasn't ordered because the Luftwaffe couldn't see a use for it. As we all are aware, the aircraft did not fit the Zerstorer concept, so what is it being proposed as? Are we inventing a use for it as a long range escort fighter? If we are, then what of the Zerstorer?

Click to expand...

There was a host of problems in the LW fighter force, and a competent 2-engined fighter could've been a solution. That LW didn't adopted it shows that nobody had a monopoly on making mistakes - not the Japanese, not the Italians, not the British, not the Soviets.
There is no need to invent the use as a long range escort fighter - that is what LW wanted, but picked the Bf 110 for that job, that was a part of the Zerstorer spec.
The Fw 187 was 1st proposed as an escort fighter by the parent company.

nuuumannn said:

As a night fighter, there isn't enough room for radar in the Fw 187, unless the Germans redesign their aerials as the Fw 187's propellers' proximity to the aircraft's nose renders that position unavailable.

Click to expand...

See the Fw 190 night fighter with a radar, seems that an occupied nose was not an issue here.

nuuumannn said:

So, what do we want this aircraft to be?

Click to expand...

A long range escort fighter.
A high-performance heavily-armed day fighter.
A fast daylight bomber.
A fast LR recon.
A night intruder.
A 'helle nachtjagd' fighter, before we stick the radar on it.
A fighter-bomber.

Basically what the P-38 was in the Allied camp, but earlier, simpler and lighter, while having enough place for a second crew member, need-be.

nuuumannn said:

The next issue is what goes so the Fw 187 stays? The RLM doesn't have an infinite production capacity, so what is not being built? Fw 190s? Fw 200s? Fw 189s? The argument for all these Fw types is robust in favour of them as oposed to the Fw 187. If it is being built under licence, by whom and where, and again in place of what?

Click to expand...

What goes away? Bf 110/210/410, Hs 129, later Ju 87; the factories making these can start making the 187s instead ASAP.
All of the listed Fw designs can stay.

nuuumannn said:

It is worth noting that when examining the Hermann and Petric book, it can be seen that some liberties are taken with what is considered to be the Fw 187 by the original manufacturer in a bid to attract orders. The authors fail to pick up on this, perpetuating the all-singing, all-dancing Fw 187 myth that populates the internet. While these designs superficially resemble the Fw 187, they have different fuselages, different wing structures, different engines and so forth. They share little if anything with the design as originally conceived except their names. This means retooling and new production, which requires a lot of work. This isn't a situation of just adding modifications to the existing production line, but an entire redesign of the internal and external structure, which takes time and manpower to implement. Tank was better off with a clean slate.

Click to expand...

Be it as it might and FWIW, a DB-601-powered Fw 187 was made in metal. Unlike the Merlin P-38, the Merlin Whirlwind, or the Gloster Reaper, yet people are often willing to hang their hat on these paper projects.

nuuumannn said:

To add to what we are going to use this aircraft for and who is going to build it, the next question then becomes how soon do we want this aircraft and will it be redundant when it finally arrives?

Click to expand...

LW will want it as-is in 1938, with DB 601 in 1939-42, with DB 605 from late 1942 on etc. No worries, it will not be redundant, German and other Axis airforces were craving for capable fighters.

for a FW 187 that equals the Hornet.

Step 1, find engines that give just about 1900hp at 19-20,000ft.
Step 2, get the engines to fit in same package as the Merlin 130 (streamlining and cooling)
Step 3, find someplace for 1950 liters of fuel (internal)

tomo pauk said:

What goes away? Bf 110/210/410, Hs 129, later Ju 87; the factories making these can start making the 187s instead ASAP.
All of the listed Fw designs can stay.

Click to expand...

There really wasn't anything the Germans had, that could fill the Hs129's role, except maybe for the Fw190F/G.

Some versions of the Bf110 and Ju88 were used in similar capacities, but not as effective.