Fw187 could have been German P-38?

Looking closely the nose of the Hornet actually is a bit spacier and blunder than the Fw 187's so a change of cockpit section should be doable.
Btw does anybody know if the cockpit control mechanics for an aeroplane did get smaller in size as the war tech lept forward?

tomo pauk said:

German ww2 radar will have to have the 'antlers' antennae, bar a token number of 'Berlin' radars that appeared as ww2 drew to the end. For the second crew member (I'm not the greatest fan of a 2-seater Fw-187, but it sure beats the Fw 190 as a night fighter), maybe devise an 'elevated' cockpit, not unlike what the Do-335 had? Granted, it will cost performance-wise, but should leave a bit more room for the 'black boxes'? Also gives more room for the radar operator?
Relocating more fuel in the wings should free more space in the fuselage.

Click to expand...

The raised cockpit version of teh Do 335 was the trainer. The night fighter had a flush second canopy over the radar operator's position:

V10profil.jpg Photo by desmoloic | Photobucket

spicmart said:

I am just assuming that they hypothetically have similar radar equipment to make them equal in this point.

Click to expand...

What matters is what equipment the Luftwaffe actually had and at least up until the end of the war they thought the 3 seat cockpit of 110 was cramped, they didn't like the cockpit of the He 219 because they considered it too small. With the Fw 187 cockpit being even smaller it doesn't really matter what the British did or didn't do with their equipment or what they may have considered as 'satisfactory' cockpit space. FW and Kurt Tank could 'propose' night fighter variants all they wanted, it doesn't mean the Luftwaffe was going to accept them.

spicmart said:

Maybe some modification of spacial nature to the nose could have helped the Fw 187 to have in-cockpit-instruments. Some little but sufficient change to not affect the aerodynamics adversely of course. It perhaps would have resulted in blunder or longer nose but with the same cross section.

Click to expand...

The Fw 187 had 6 instruments on each engine cowl, Longer nose is not going to help put additional dials in the instrument panel.

Fw 187 instrument panel
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/al...19928-focke-wulf-fw-187-falke-cockpit-01.html

Bf 110 instrument panel


go here for picture of one radar set up in a Bf 110 for Lichtenstein SN-2b

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/-1...-messerschmitt-bf-110-2-fw-build-29238-6.html

Granted only the top row of boxes is the radar boxes, the other two rows being the radio and RDF equipment.

All I want is to show/speculate if the Fw 187 had the potential and modification ability to become the german equivalent to the Hornet. If it is historically possible to have happened or not for whatever reason I exclude.
Most of the modifications seem feasible just the cockpit arrangement seems to be more difficult.
Not just by making the nose longer but blunter also could make room for more instruments maybe.

wuzak said:

The raised cockpit version of teh Do 335 was the trainer. The night fighter had a flush second canopy over the radar operator's position:

V10profil.jpg Photo by desmoloic | Photobucket

Click to expand...

The 'net search for the Do 335A-6 yields pictures for aircraft with the 'elevated' second cockpit.From what I can gather, only the prototype have had second cockpit laying flush.

There were no A-6s actually built.

V10 was the prototype A-6 Night Fighter. It had the flush window I described earlier.

V17 was the prototype B-6 Night Fighter version. It too had the flush window.

This picture is labelled V17, but it is so grainey you can't really tell.



from Prototypes.com/Le Dornier Do-335 et ses dérivés/II. Description du Do-335

You can just make out the second cockpit canopy next to the man standing on the wing. It appears if the slide window in the canopy is open.

A quick glance through Smith and Creek, Dornier Do 335 Arrow reveals that the radar operator's canopy was to be blown for the A-6 (presumably B-6 too - but I didn't find that), as in this model:



And not dissimilar to the Sea Hornet NF21's radar position.

spicmart said:

All I want is to show/speculate if the Fw 187 had the potential and modification ability to become the german equivalent to the Hornet. If it is historically possible to have happened or not for whatever reason I exclude.
Most of the modifications seem feasible just the cockpit arrangement seems to be more difficult.

Click to expand...

To get the Fw 187 to be equivalent to the Hornet you are trying to take a 1937/38 aircraft and turn it into a 1944 aircraft. This rather ignores any and all advances in construction techniques, materials and aerodynamics made in those years.

A Hornet was not a smaller, single seat Mosquito. It used a different form of wing construction ( metal leading edges,part metal spars and metal top surfaces for one thing) and a different airfoil (similar to the Vampire) among other things.

IF you modified and FW 187 enough it may equal the Hornet, but since the FW 187 was designed to use DB 600 engines, forced to use Jumo 210s by engine shortage and only one was flown with a set of experimental DB 601 engines and anything after that were paper projects (not even wood mock ups?) it gets very fuzzy indeed as to what a 1944-46 Fw 187 could or could not do. Or wither a 1944-46 FW 187 would have very much in common with a 1938-40 FW 187.

Maybe someone would know what kind of wing profile was used on the Fw 187?

tomo pauk said:

Maybe someone would know what kind of wing profile was used on the Fw 187?

Click to expand...

The one million dollasr question. Unfortunately the Fw 187 book by hermann, at least the english vertion, mention nothing

Shortround6 said:

To get the Fw 187 to be equivalent to the Hornet you are trying to take a 1937/38 aircraft and turn it into a 1944 aircraft. This rather ignores any and all advances in construction techniques, materials and aerodynamics made in those years.

A Hornet was not a smaller, single seat Mosquito. It used a different form of wing construction ( metal leading edges,part metal spars and metal top surfaces for one thing) and a different airfoil (similar to the Vampire) among other things.

IF you modified and FW 187 enough it may equal the Hornet, but since the FW 187 was designed to use DB 600 engines, forced to use Jumo 210s by engine shortage and only one was flown with a set of experimental DB 601 engines and anything after that were paper projects (not even wood mock ups?) it gets very fuzzy indeed as to what a 1944-46 Fw 187 could or could not do. Or wither a 1944-46 FW 187 would have very much in common with a 1938-40 FW 187.

Click to expand...

No, prototypes V5 and V7 were well advanced in convertion to DB605 by 31/8/42 when RLM cancelled the Project. Also a mock up was well advanced
The Fw 187 C was not just a re engine A series .It was a little longer, with some stronger parts, and various other minor modifications

According to herman the single Seat Fw 187C would be 4905kgr empty weight-6050kgr normal take off weight
I believe hornet was somewhat heavier

Shortround6 said:

To get the Fw 187 to be equivalent to the Hornet you are trying to take a 1937/38 aircraft and turn it into a 1944 aircraft. This rather ignores any and all advances in construction techniques, materials and aerodynamics made in those years.

A Hornet was not a smaller, single seat Mosquito. It used a different form of wing construction ( metal leading edges,part metal spars and metal top surfaces for one thing) and a different airfoil (similar to the Vampire) among other things.

IF you modified and FW 187 enough it may equal the Hornet, but since the FW 187 was designed to use DB 600 engines, forced to use Jumo 210s by engine shortage and only one was flown with a set of experimental DB 601 engines and anything after that were paper projects (not even wood mock ups?) it gets very fuzzy indeed as to what a 1944-46 Fw 187 could or could not do. Or wither a 1944-46 FW 187 would have very much in common with a 1938-40 FW 187.

Click to expand...

Afaik practically all or at least most of the major propeller driven combat aircraft types that participated in the war were pre-war design. P-51 Mustang was one exception.
And most of them seemed to have enough stretch to stay competitive until the end. The most famous being the Spitfire and Me 109, both 1935 designs.
Both taking ever stronger engines with little airframe modification.
As said the DB 605 was to be used for the Fw 187 so the question of being designed for a strong enough engine or not can be dropped.
The Westland Whirlwind however was more limited in its development potential.
As advanced as it was the Hornet was still partly built of wood what could be a disdavantage weight wise. The metal building method should still have advantages in structural integrity also.

It could be an advantage if a plane has time to get develepod and the bugs sorted out.

spicmart said:

Afaik practically all or at least most of the major propeller driven combat aircraft types that participated in the war were pre-war design. P-51 Mustang was one exception.
And most of them seemed to have enough strech to stay competitive until the end. The most famous being the Spitfire and Me 109, both 1935 designs.

Click to expand...

There are others but another poster was trying to compare an upgraded Fw 187 to the DH Hornet and while the Hornet didn't fly until 1944 it also didn't enter service until 1946.
The FW 187 might very well equal a P-38 or other twin of it's time. Trying to equal one designed a number of years later is something else.
One can also look at the Douglas A-20 and A-26 bombers, designed by the same company and flown 3 1/2 years apart. ( A-26 flying in July 1942) While there is a strong family resemblance the A-26 used different wing construction, different airfoil (laminar flow as it was known at the time) and double slotted flaps (first plane to go into service using them) among other things. Douglas knew enough to switch to newer advances rather than keep trying to modify an old design after 1940/41(A-20s did get minor modifications but no new wings, new engines (after 1940)(different types) or major fuselage changes. XA-26 weighed almost double what the Prototype DB-7 did empty. It weighed around 2 tons more empty than the DB-7 did at max gross.

The FW 187 was being redesigned to use DB605 engines of 1475 HP (or PS?) which is all well and good but to be equivalent to a Hornet the FW 187 would have needed late model DB 605 engines like DB/DC. Possible but another variable.

I have Hermann's book and there seems to be a fair amount of "cheerleading" going on but many books about quite a number of different planes do the same thing (very few authors approach their subject matter by saying plane XXX was a piece of crap).

For instance on Page 126 it says that FW estimated that 373,700 engineering hours and 223,500 man hours would be needed to design the FW 187C and bring it to production. July 20th 1942 sees the development contract received. Mock up/s start construction Aug 4 1942. Work was 'halted' on Aug 31 1942 and FW is supposed to have estimated 26,640 engineering hours and 6,470 man hours having been invested in modifying the two prototypes up until that time (page 134). Granted a lot of the engineering and man hours were probably for the design and construction of production tooling but the state of the 'conversion' of the two prototypes might be a matter of interpretation. One of the 'modifications' was changing the wing sweep in the leading edge of the wing (compared to the A-0 series but not the V7) and another was lengthening the fuselage by about 1 meter. Other planes certainly underwent modifications in early stages but this is what makes estimating performance for later versions of the FW 187 so hard. A lot of things changed on the plane.

The Westland Whirlwind however was more limited in its development potential.

Click to expand...

Of course it did, it was a much smaller airplane. It had a wing the same sq ft as a Defiant and smaller than a Hurricane. It had a max take-off wight (with bombs) about 500kg more than a FW 190D-9.
Somebody might have proposed a twin Merlin version but that version would have had some major changes.
I like the Whirlwind and think it got a bad deal but without major changes (jack up canopy and slide new airplane under it) it was never going to be in the P-38, Bf 110, FW 187 class.

The Fw 187 could certainly have been made to be a very good fighter twin. What its development potential might have been is a good question, but it almost certianly could have fulfilled roles other than as a heavy fighter. I say that as ALL of the heavy fighters DID fulfill other roles in their combat lifetimes.

The Mosquito was very adaptable. The P-38 was very adaptable. Even the A-20 became a night fighter. The Bf 110 flew in very many roles, as did the Ju 88.

I cannot believe the Fw 187, as good as it looks on paper and during the small operational uses it got, would prove to be incapable of being adapted to other roles.

It is interesting that Fw 187 (as-is) have had less power than the Westland Whirlwind at altitude, something like 2 x 250 HP deficit. The Jumo 210 was providing less power at altitude than the RR Kestrels 'fully supercharged' marks, those providing 640-745 HP at 14500 ft; data for 87 oct fuel. No wonder re. power deficit, it was 19 L engine vs. 21 L engine.
One wonders how well an 'early Whirlwind' with 2 x 740 HP Kestrels would've fared in BoB, with or without 100 oct fuel

While I've always liked the Whirlwind design, I've also always thought it would prove "interesting" and maybe dangerous in single-engine operation, particularly in the landing pattern. Perhaps what was needed was a good, reliable engine, not necessarily the most powerful one.

I wonder if the Merlin XX supercharger section could have been fitted to the Peregrine, allowing for more power at altitude without having the physical size and weight problems of fitting the Merlin.

Interesting notion. Perhaps.

I've always wondered why they didn't do that with an Allison, too, with an adapter plate.

tomo pauk said:

It is interesting that Fw 187 (as-is) have had less power than the Westland Whirlwind at altitude, something like 2 x 250 HP deficit. The Jumo 210 was providing less power at altitude than the RR Kestrels 'fully supercharged' marks, those providing 640-745 HP at 14500 ft; data for 87 oct fuel. No wonder re. power deficit, it was 19 L engine vs. 21 L engine.
One wonders how well an 'early Whirlwind' with 2 x 740 HP Kestrels would've fared in BoB, with or without 100 oct fuel

Click to expand...

According to (static?) engine chart the Jumo 210D/E provided 500 PS at 4500 m (~14700 feet). 210G may have provided 10-30PS more.

Indeed you're right. The chart for the Jumo 210 D/E is provided here.

Hmm - maybe we could be suspicious that often quoted speed figure of ~530 km/h for the Fw 187A is for an unarmed prototype? Against the Whirlwind (560 km/h*), it sports more than a 1/3rd power disadvantage at ~5 km (both engines with ram), and it is a bigger aircraft.
Hopefully someone could provide factory data with more details about actual weight, state, engine power, performance figures achieved?

* added: not 560, but 580 km/h, as noted by Vincenzo