Fw 187 for 1939-45

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Focke-Wulf got their @$$ handed to them in the Kampfzerstörer completion - Bf.110 being better aircraft than FW.57 and in the Rüstungsflugzeug IV competition - Bf.109 being better aircraft than FW.159.

Herr Messerschmitt was therefore expounding that Dr. Tank couldn't design high performance aircraft and that Focke-Wulf should build Bfw aircraft.

The FW.187V1 was excellent rebuttal to the Bf.109 - with its twin Ju.210Ds, it handily our performs the Messerschmitt fighter, especially in range. But it came at a cost - it was only designed to carry the same 2- MG17s as Bf.109B. Empty weight of FW.187 is <100kg more than Bf.109B, after factoring in the extra engine and increased wing area. And a twin costs >2x a single engine.

On the one hand, the FW.187 has demonstrated that Dr. Tank can design a high performance aircraft (It will get him inclusion is the upcoming competition which results in FW.190). On the other, the aircraft is too small/too lightly built to take upgrades.

As S Shortround6 points out - FW.187 V4, "enhanced" with 2nd crew member, blind flying instruments and additional firepower (2 additional MG17s or 2 - MGFF + MG81) increased empty weight from 2,500 to 3,400 kg (almost the gross of V1-3 of 3,850 kg) and gross to 4,900 kg. Interestingly, the better performance of the Ju.210G meant that the V4 was over 40km/h faster than earlier single seaters. (Almost as fast as Bf.109E!)

And then the fantasy starts: While I have seen the picture of ground running of FW.187V6 with evaporative cooling DB600, I haven't seen any evidence of it flying with DB601s. (Evaporative cooling being dead end). With the discontinuation of the Ju.210, the Fw.187 is an airframe without an engine. (Same issue as Whirlwind when Peregrine is cancelled). RLM cancels production, knowing there won't be engines for it.

Dr. Tank proposing alternative to Me.210 in '42 when Messerschmitt's Zerstörer is having issues should come as no surprise given the historic bad blood. But it's not Fw.187 (unless FW is simply reusing a RLM number). It wasn't the heavy fighter that FW.187V4 hinted to be/Luftwaffe was about to need.
 

Laminar flow profile for the Fw 187. Do you think it's possible (or even necessary) to implement LE rads?
As wood surface (Hornet) is smoother than riveted metal, waxing might be used but that would be laborious.
How about a wooden Fw 187?
 
spicmart said:
Laminar flow profile for the Fw 187. Do you think it's possible (or even necessary) to implement LE rads?
As wood surface (Hornet) is smoother than riveted metal, waxing might be used but that would be laborious.
How about a wooden Fw 187?
Click to expand...
Which version - the '38 Ju.210 equipped fighter? Or the '42 Napkinwaffe??

Riveted metal can be very smooth if jigs are held solid enough, then given couple coats of primer which are block sanded, followed by a smooth top coat ala Mustang. (Wartime Mustangs are silver paint over primer to achieve best finish they could).

Isn't Ta.154, your wooden aircraft with better engine (Ju.213E, not DB605)?
 
spicmart said:
Laminar flow profile for the Fw 187. Do you think it's possible (or even necessary) to implement LE rads?
Click to expand...
I don't see the reason why the LE radiators would've been impossible to implement.

spicmart said:
As wood surface (Hornet) is smoother than riveted metal, waxing might be used but that would be laborious.
How about a wooden Fw 187?
Click to expand...
Seems like MTT have had a better luck with the wooden wings, so perhaps peek a bit on the Me 163 wing construction?
 
tomo pauk said:
I don't see the reason why the LE radiators would've been impossible to implement.


Seems like MTT have had a better luck with the wooden wings, so perhaps peek a bit on the Me 163 wing construction?
Click to expand...

So we then could have an airframe which would be competitive.
How does the DB 605L compare to the Merlin 130/131?
 
spicmart said:
So we then could have an airframe which would be competitive.
How does the DB 605L compare to the Merlin 130/131?
Click to expand...
AT low and medium altitudes, the 130-131 was much better, eg. about 250 HP extra (this a reaso why I've suggested the reduction of CR => can withstand greater boost => better power). At high altitudes (above 27-28 kft), the 605L was slightly better.
The best of the lot was probably the V-1650-9, with the water-alcohol injection adding another 10-15% over the Merlin 100-130 series, while also beating the 605L at high altitudes.
 
Well, they built the FW 187V5 and V7 with the steam cooling systems and DB 601 engines.
The V7 probably never flew, being used as test rig.
The V5 is supposed to have flown, how much is subject to question. It is the source of the claims that the Fw 187 did 635kph at low altitude.

The engines were supposed to be good for 1350hp at sea level for 1 minute, so?
The photos of the V5 in the book are at straight on angles and from low levels (looking up). You cannot see any indications of 20mm guns. You also cannot even tell it there are or not any 7.9mm guns. wing tip covers the forward canopy in the side shot so you can't see the windscreen. Photos of the V7 show a blown curved wind screen (think sort of Speed Spitfire) instead of the faceted windscreen the A-0s used.

Kurt was trying to make a world speed record aircraft with this one but got beat by the He 100 and Me 209 in timing so there are very little in the way of actual performance numbers.
Since the Germans claimed the Me 209 record plane was just a modified Bf 109 I have no idea of what an actual Fw 187 with service engines and actual armament/equipment (radio antenna?) and service finish would do.

As nuuumannn keeps saying, by the time you get to 1942/43 and especially when you get to when the DB601L shows up, you have darn little of the original Fw 187 left except for general shape so like a lot of other luft 46 stuff, nobody can say what it could or could not do, except to point out some of the optimistic bits.

to reinforce nuuumannn the original A-0s were flown at around 4850-5000kg, and were very maneuverable (no problems with G loads?) but an plane that can do 8 Gs at 5000kg is only good for 5.55 Gs at 7200kg without substantial changes to the structure. You can make a plane that looks like a FW 187 but you don't have much of the original left.

Herman must have been sharing some of his stash as the specifications call for
four MG 151s with 250rpg
two MG 131s with 450rpg fixed in the rear fuselage and aimed by periscope by the pilot.
one mg 181 with 750rpg aimed by rear seater.

Fuel was 1300 liters internal so you had about 93% of what a late model P-47D had.
 
How much there is left of the Bf 109B when we are at Bf 109F1, or when we are at 109K-4? Ho much there is left of the DB-7 when we're at A-20G?
People had no problems in calling the P-51H a 'lightweight Mustang', or even the P-51, despite perhaps 1-2% or parts (gauges, guns, ammo?) being the same.

Shortround6 said:
Fuel was 1300 liters internal so you had about 93% of what a late model P-47D had.
Click to expand...
That is some 15% more than the P-38F to H, or a bit more than the Bf 110. Plenty for European distances.
 
tomo pauk said:
How much there is left of the Bf 109B when we are at Bf 109F1, or when we are at 109K-4?
Click to expand...
Probably not much, but very few people use the Performance of the Bf 109B to estimate or justify the performance of the later versions or hypothetical versions.
We know what changed and we know the actual results were.
tomo pauk said:
Ho much there is left of the DB-7 when we're at A-20G?
Click to expand...
Probably more than the early Fw 187 had in common with the paper 1942-43 Fw 187s.
with a lot of planes the gross weight went up a lot more than the percentage of the empty weights went up.
However in a lot of these planes they allowed them to operate at the higher weights under restrictions.
You are allowed to fly an A-20G (which had a strengthened wing spar/wing construction) at higher weights than any DB-7 but you can't pull the same Gs in a lot of the maneuvers.
The A-20G was allowed an max gross weight of 30,000lbs but a max combat weight of 27,000lbs and a normal combat take-off of 24,000lbs.
An early DB-7 with R-2600 engines grossed at 19,322lbs, now the A-20G in similar condition grossed the above mentioned 24,000lbs or about 24% greater. The paper Fw 187 gained 44% in weight over the Fw 187 A-0 and that is clean, They showed them carrying 1000kg of bombs for a "normal" gross of 8200kg (64% increase) and a possibility of carrying a 2000kg bomb (9200kg- 84) or three 500kg bombs, 8840kg-76% increase. Now please add another 530kg for the hypothetical BMW 801 versions.
Going on a bombing run is different that the A-20G flying with the belly ferry tank


tomo pauk said:
That is some 15% more than the P-38F to H, or a bit more than the Bf 110. Plenty for European distances.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on what you are trying to do. With the P-47 and P-38s it was plenty with drop tanks for long range fighter missions (or not so plenty )
If you stuck bombs on the drop tank points the targets had better be close.
The Paper Fw 187 was sort of in the same boat. It could carry a pair of 900 liter tanks for an extra 75% in range (2100km, speed and altitude not given) but if you want it to play bomber???
P-38F to H held 1135 liters in internal fuel. They could cruise at around 300mph at around 20,000ft using 100-115 US gallons an hour.

the point is that the paper Fw 187 of 1942-43 was not really the Fw 187 of 1938-39. It looked close but the structure and other stuff had changed.

Edit. Please note that the Fw 187 DB 605 with max bomb load is 20,282lbs, getting into the low area for the A-20G
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
Probably not much, but very few people use the Performance of the Bf 109B to estimate or justify the performance of the later versions or hypothetical versions.
We know what changed and we know the actual results were.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I was trying to point out that, even though every nut and bold didn't remained the same, people had no problems in classifying the much-changed aircraft under the same general name as the predecessor had.

DB-7 as this - a lightweight bomber powered by light engines (R-1830, not R-2600), able to carry a lightweight bomb load on short distances, whose fuel tanks were not protected, and with weak guns' armament. 17030 lbs max TO weight.

Shortround6 said:
Again, it depends on what you are trying to do.
Click to expand...
I've listed several times the tasks I believe were well in the scope for the 187.

Shortround6 said:
the point is that the paper Fw 187 of 1942-43 was not really the Fw 187 of 1938-39. It looked close but the structure and other stuff had changed.
Click to expand...

Same was true for a number of aircraft from the era. Granted, some have had more stretch in design then the other types.
 
The more we go into the hypothetical, the longer the timeframe, the more a design diverts from what-was to what-could-have been.
I don't understand why some are so against what-iffing when seeing what was accomplished in the real world evolution-wise with original airframes.

I was only interested if the Fw 187 design could be pushed enough to compete against the Hornet in an air-to-air encounter, twin-engined fighter against twin-engined fighter in a dogfight. Comparison of pure performance-parameters without the thought of other tasks.

Fantasy planes? Maybe. But what I asked for is "well within the scope of the Fw 187" to quote tomo.
So what anyway... It's part of the fun, imo, and this is a whif-thread.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps.

The Mosquito was not actually a good fighter. It wasn't stressed to do high "G" turns. I believe (?) it was stressed for 5.5 Gs but I forget at what weight. Now there usually about a 50% safety margin so the plane won't break if it actually winds up turning 6-7 Gs. Depends on the age/ condition of the airframe. The Mosquito was also set up so that it took an awful lot of tugging on the controls to get it to that 5-6 G area. Which meant that it was at a disadvantage against single engine fighters that could turn (subject to the pilot blacking out) at around Gs with a around a 11-12G safety margin.
The Mosquito did a lot of things very well, dog fighting was not one of them.
The A-20 we have mentioned above, the early ones were good for over 340mph (could out run a Hurricane II at certain altitudes) it was considered rather maneuverable for fighter. Why it could even do bank turns at 60 degree banks It was used as night fighter at times. but night fighters are not day fighters.

There is a lot of things that do not come up in most short performance specs. The FW 187 was designed as a single seat fighter, it gained a lot weight when they converted it to a two seater. Granted a lot of other planes gained weight. P-39 gained over 2000lbs on a 5500lb plane (gross) before it ever saw combat and like the Fw 187 it kept the same basic engine.

The problem for me with the FW 187 vs the Hornet is there are too many unknowns. None of the 1942 Fw 187 and later rolls are fighter to fighter. Night fighter and daylight bomber destroyer don't call for the same turning ability as fighter to fighter. Bombers can carry a crap load of weight but some of the late war bombers were not expected to pull even 3 Gs when loaded.
That last includes B-25s, not B-17s.

The Fw 187 after 1939-40, since it was paper, turns into an elastic man toy.
Now the V1-V3 were supposed to weigh 3850kg (with two machine guns) and if stressed for 8 Gs (unknown but plausible for a single seater). The 1942 versions weigh from 6050kg (high altitude fighter) to 7200kg (Kampfzerstorer. clean) to 6620kg (Kampfzerstorer, night fighter) and that 6620kg may take a bit of fiddling.
If they didn't beef up the structure the 6050kg single seat high altitude fighter would only be stressed for 5.1 Gs. I am sure they beefed it up, at least to get to the 4850kg A-0 sereis planes. but enough to dog fight single engine planes or Hornets? Or somewhere half way in between?
Armament is all over the place, the 6050kg single seat high altitude fighter has two MG 151s and two Mg 131. What else did they leave out of it?
It was supposed to weigh 4905kg empty.
If you filled up the fuel tanks (1250 liters?) you have about 220kg left for pilot, oil, guns (?) ammo.

There are so many gaps and every time you dig into the Fw 187 pit, the sand keeps shifting or the plane just stretches/shrinks to fit the new situation.
 
tomo pauk said:
Seems like MTT have had a better luck with the wooden wings, so perhaps peek a bit on the Me 163 wing construction?
Click to expand...

Dietmar Hermann seems to see the glue problem as exaggerated post-war.
Tank reported the problem as being solved iirc and the issues wasn't mentioned again.
Have to look in Hermann's booksabout the Ta 154 but they're stored.
 

Ta 154 A-1 was to be a dayfighter version and it was arguably less nimble than a Fw 187 single-seater.
Wouldn't the 187 be about the weight of a Hornet give or take?
The Ki-83, also a comparable peak twin fighter development, had a loaded weight of 8.8 tons.
 
Last edited:
The Ta 154 had only a slightly bigger wing than the Fw 187 and it weighed a lot more.
I don't think anybody matched the weight of the DH aircraft for their size using wood. The Hornet used some metal in certain locations.

The Germans problem is that they cannot match the power to weight ratio of the Merlin engines, a lot of that was due to the fuel.
You want a Fw 187 that can match the Hornet in a what-if?
Get some German spies/British criminals to steal 4 Merlin 130s, 10 tons of 100/150 fuel, transfer the stuff to a German U boat in a remote loch in Scotland, get the stuff back to Germany and build your what-if Fw 187

The Ki-83 was a bomber destroyer, not a dog fighter. Not sure if the 8.8 tons is metric or British long tons. US tons is about 9.7 tons.
At any rate, being about 22% heavier with the same wing size is not going to help the Ki-83 in a "dog fight" with a Hornet.
 

I thought the Ki-83 was a long range heavy fighter which happens to carry a anti-bomber armament that was necessary?
It was amazingly manoeverable for a twin,
not surprising as it's Japanese.
As you mentioned its cannons weighted less than Hispanos.
What about a DB 605 running at high-quality fuel on par with the Allies' plus MW 50/ GM-1 injection?
 
spicmart said:
I thought the Ki-83 was a long range heavy fighter which happens to carry a anti-bomber armament that was necessary?
Click to expand...
You may very well be right about the range or about original intentions.
What they wanted in May of 1942 may not have been what they needed in Nov 1944.
For most countries the idea of a heavy fighter was to carry more armament than the "standard" fighter.
The Ki-83 could do long range but at it's "normal" range it wasn't much better than some of the Japanese single engine planes, it was flying faster though.
spicmart said:
It was amazingly manoeverable for a twin,
not surprising as it's Japanese.
Click to expand...
What we don't know it what they were comparing it to.
Maybe my math skills are just bad but this makes no sense.
" The machines displayed remarkable maneuverability for aircraft of their size, being able to execute a 671 m (2,200 ft) diameter loop in just 31 seconds at a speed of over 644 km/h (400 mph)"
2200ft X 3.14 Pi = 6908 ft
6908 ft X 0.5 (30 seconds) = 13,816 fpm
13,816fpm = 157 mph average for the loop.
If the plane had managed to maintain 400mph throughout the loop the plane would have been doing about 10Gs through the loop.

The Japanese could not change physics. They could, and did, changes attributes or conditions that affected the planes performance. Light weight meant that you could use a lower wing loading and thus a lower stall speed, they stayed flying when their opponents did high speed stalls in turns and departed controlled flight.

spicmart said:
As you mentioned its cannons weighted less than Hispanos.
Click to expand...
Heavy armament for a Japanese fighter is not the same as heavy armament for most other countries.
spicmart said:
What about a DB 605 running at high-quality fuel on par with the Allies' plus MW 50/ GM-1 injection?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could do it after rebuilding the engine, like changing pistons and redoing the fuel injection. Assuming that the cooling system will keep up.
Engines didn't stay the same and there was a lot of stuff going on in the background aside from the power increases.
The Merlin 130s were rated in the Manual/pilot's notes (misprint?) at being good for 2850 rpm at 12lbs for one hour. which isn't far off the power allowed for 5 minutes in combat in 1940.
For the German engines you get to pick from one power boosting system at a time. A few planes may have been fitted with both but they were used at different altitudes.
MW 50 allows you to use more pressure from the supercharger at lower altitudes than the critical or full throttle height of the engine. It cools the intake charge to prevent detonation and it helps cool the whole engine.
GM-1 is nitrous oxide and it supplies more oxygen for combustion at higher altitudes than the supercharger can provide the needed air.
GM-1 had a few problems of it's own. Like a crap load of weight for keeping the engines running for very long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
SplitRz
Radial engines favored for powering the tanks & AFVs, 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
marathag
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
5K
bf109xxl
Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
232
Views
9K
marathag
Kurt Tank FW 187/ Grumman XP5F 1935/1938 et al.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register