- Thread starter
- #21
Heavy fighter: you are in charge
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The standard P38 of the time was at least 30 mph faster than the Fw-187 and also climbed better. The P38K was said to do 432 omh in level flight on military power and was guessed to be over 450 on WEP. It was also said to have had a ceiling of nearly 50,000 ft and climb at 4,800 fpm on military power and thought to be over 5,000 fpm on WEP. The P38 also had sufficient firepower for it's intended targets and could have been armed with cannon if needed. Money, at that time, meant nothing to the US, we were out to win.
So exactly what advantage did the Fw-187 have over even the standard P38?
Last edited:
I rather suspect that the FW 187 would have had its fuel capacity increased over the initial 1100, the Me 110 and P-38 did recieve increases.
I estimate the range of the FW 187 at maximum cruise as about 700 miles: about 1.5 times that of the Me 109 plus 10% for its superior speed and 5-10% for the lower proportion of the journey spent in climb. With drop tanks this open up the possibillity of sustained opperations out to 330 miles from base; something the Luftwaffe didn't have moreover unlike the P-38 it could have been ready by by wars begining.
Ernst Udet allowed the production of the FW 187 prototypes to go ahead however he stipulated the rather small Jumo 210 engines due to DB600 series shortages. Going straight for the DB601 for small production runs should have been worthwile even if it meant sacrificing 10% of Me 109 and Me 110 production to get a small number of this aircraft to fill in the gaps. The Jumo 211J could have powered around half of FW 187 production between early 1942 and 43 when it was superior to the DB605A at low altitudes.
The turbo superchargers of the Allison would probably allow the P-38 to win out over the DB605ASM at very high altitudes, probably somewhere close to 30,000ft.
The primary advantage would be
1 Longer range escort
2 Abillity to carry external ordinance (eg a 500lb bomb) with little impact on performance.
3 An aircraft faster than single seaters of the same technology (laimar flow wings aside) thus providing for a high speed reconaisance aircraft.
3 A two seater, which allowing rearward facing observer still provides for a radar opperator and navigator (eg using the lightweight Siemens FuG 217 Neptune radar)
I like the idea, it might work so long as the rules I proposed of maintaining power to weight ratios and wing loadings better than single seaters is maintained. Your proposal is however so big it might be possible to do it with a second crew member to provide assistance with navigation and copiloting during ultra long range missions. It would need turbosupercharging for sure as well as the boosted ailerons as the large size will cut into roll rate.
What are you going to use it for?
One disadvantage of large fighters is that they are generally seen first.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
During early 1939 a Fw-187 prototype powered by 1,000 hp DB600 engines achieved 395 mph in level flight.
The P-38 protytpe first flew 27 Jan 1939. On 11 Feb 1939 the P-38 prototype conducted a high speed test.
The P-38 Lightning
It appears to me P-38 prototype max speed was similiar to Fw-187 prototype max speed.
Internal fuel.
According to the web site P-38s prior to the J model carried only 300 gallons of internal fuel. Internal fuel capacity increased by a third for late war P-38s. A similiar increase would give late war Fw-187s 1,467 liters of internal fuel.
The P-38 protytpe first flew 27 Jan 1939. On 11 Feb 1939 the P-38 prototype conducted a high speed test.
The P-38 Lightning
It appears to me P-38 prototype max speed was similiar to Fw-187 prototype max speed.
Internal fuel.
According to the web site P-38s prior to the J model carried only 300 gallons of internal fuel. Internal fuel capacity increased by a third for late war P-38s. A similiar increase would give late war Fw-187s 1,467 liters of internal fuel.
wuzak
Captain
I'm going to go for the Do335 for the Germans.
Except that I would redesign the Göppingen Gö 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to include a second engine, and test the push-pull, twin coaxial pusher and twin coaxial tractor engine layouts.
The discovering the extra performace of the pusher layout the Do335 would become a twin engine pusher aircraft, with the cockpit moved forward and nose mounted armament.
It would, in fact, look a lot like the proposed P.252/3, though probably with a shorter fuselage.
Dornier Do P.252
For the Brits it would be the Supermarine Type 327 with 4 20mm instead of 6. Developed version to use 2 stage Merlins, or possibly Griffons.
US I think were set with the P-38.
Except that I would redesign the Göppingen Gö 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to include a second engine, and test the push-pull, twin coaxial pusher and twin coaxial tractor engine layouts.
The discovering the extra performace of the pusher layout the Do335 would become a twin engine pusher aircraft, with the cockpit moved forward and nose mounted armament.
It would, in fact, look a lot like the proposed P.252/3, though probably with a shorter fuselage.
Dornier Do P.252
For the Brits it would be the Supermarine Type 327 with 4 20mm instead of 6. Developed version to use 2 stage Merlins, or possibly Griffons.
US I think were set with the P-38.
wuzak
Captain
The Fw187 which achieved that speed was using surface/evaporative cooling - negating a lot of drag. However, such systems didn't work in production machinery - though they worked well in racing/record breaking aircraft.
When fitted with normal radiators the Fw187 was quite a bit slower.
Forum member DonL wrote the following on the "Whirlwind vs. Fw 187 vs. P-38" thread, I copy/paste it. It is part of post #27 in this thread:
"I don't know if the evaporative cooling system is the proper translation for the cooling System of the FW 187. In the englisch Wiki is claimed, that is was the same as in the Heinkel HE 100.
This is totaly wrong.
At the HE 100 System (Oberflächen Verdampfungskühlung) the cooling liquid is running through the wings and will evaporate at the wing surface. Also there is an extra wheel away cooler for the ground.
The cooling system from the FW 187 (Dampfheißkühlung) were only very low drag surface cooler for enegines with pressure water/glycol cooling systems. This cooling system was combat ready and had no problems itself.
The problem was the DB 600/601 and Junkers Jumo 210G/211weren't pressure water/glycol enegines, they had normal water cooling and there were problems with the cooling system of the the FW 187 at very low speed cruising (<250km/h) and ground action.
Pressure water/glycol engine 125 degree celsius limit; normal watercooling engine 90-100 dergree celsius limit.
This was solved in the A0 serie with a more normal cooler.
But later for the pressure water/glycol enegines DB 605, DB 603 and Jumo 213 this system is ready for intoduction."
drgondog
Major
I'm with SR. The mission will dictate to design.
If I had pre-sight and was asked to propose a long range fighter in 1940 it would have been big and heavy to carry the fuel. If the specified altitude for standard ops was 25-30000 feet I would have been thinking Merlin with two stage or Allison with Turbo. I wouldn't think R-2600 or R-2800 because specific fuel consumption would dominate one aspect of the design.
There was no engine in 1940 that popped up in designer's radar for less than .6 to 1.0 GPH and still delivered 1200 hp at 25000 feet without turbo supercharger - and I didn't have access to Merlin - so Allison is what I am stuck with (in US). Cruise drag bucket range needs close scrutiny
Next - I have to think about what kind of performance I needed at 25-30K to deliver 400+mph on a medium loaded airframe at 500 miles radius. If speed was sole dictate then low drag/high thrust to weight airframe at 1/2 load of fuel starts the drag calcs and dictates the airframe config. I probably have to settle for less than optimal acceleration.
Twin booms - more drag. Single standard fuselage/twin engines says we have to have the superchargers in the nacelle with each engine.
Wing airfoil poses the initial drag calcs, span and aspect ratio start the trade offs between more induced drag but better climb and turn capability.. how important is that?
Guns - centerline more effective. 6x50 or 3x20mm - ammo near cg if possible
Move fuel to wings (inboard as much as possible, some fuel aft of cockpit). Design for drop tanks inboard, external stores inboard or outboard when fuel not primary issue.
Prop design - can I get what I need with nose gear. Nose gear heavier and complicates armament - try tail dragger first.
What kind of airfields? How much take off run do I need on a hot day, fully loaded at SL - to clear a 50 foot obstacle?
Do I need a second crew? Why? -stick with one if possible.
Do we propose a second mission? Fighter Bomber, Recon, Interceptor? Each influences wing design and power requirements.
Last edited:
chris mcmillin
Airman
I think that Mossie's that were bubble canopied like a Tempest with one pilot would be great. Kinda like Hornets, only earlier. Gas, armament, speed, power all there.
Beaufighters with nothing in the back, no crew, no turret, rear firing guns, nothing besides the pilot with a big Malcolm hood. Keep it light. Need gas? Fill the bombay.
A-20's, keep it light, no crew beside the pilot, Malcolm hood. Big guns in the nose and belly. -2600's from the TBM high power version. Need gas? See above...
P-38's already were the best, designed for the fighter role. Thank God they had drops from the start. A few thousand V-1650-3 powered versions, for the ETO.
P-82's, leave out the other guy, close up the other hole, wow did NA and Lockheed build and use some big drops late war.
P-65/F7F, simply awesome, good guns, long range with a drop, super speed, altitude capability.
ETO and PTO would be covered.
Beaufighters with nothing in the back, no crew, no turret, rear firing guns, nothing besides the pilot with a big Malcolm hood. Keep it light. Need gas? Fill the bombay.
A-20's, keep it light, no crew beside the pilot, Malcolm hood. Big guns in the nose and belly. -2600's from the TBM high power version. Need gas? See above...
P-38's already were the best, designed for the fighter role. Thank God they had drops from the start. A few thousand V-1650-3 powered versions, for the ETO.
P-82's, leave out the other guy, close up the other hole, wow did NA and Lockheed build and use some big drops late war.
P-65/F7F, simply awesome, good guns, long range with a drop, super speed, altitude capability.
ETO and PTO would be covered.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The historical Do-335 was a high speed light bomber. The 1945 equivalent of a F-105 or F-111.
If you want the Do-335 as a fighter aircraft it could be quite a bit smaller and lighter in weight. That should improve maneuverability, which is what you want for a fighter aircraft.
- Eliminate the bomb bay.
- Eliminate structural strengthening required for bombing.
I would seriously consider powering the fighter aircraft with two DB605 engines rather then the larger and heavier DB603. That should save quite a bit of weight and allow the aircraft to be smaller in size. It also allows you to build the Do-335 anytime after 1942 rather then waiting for DB603 engines to become available in 1945.
If you want the Do-335 as a fighter aircraft it could be quite a bit smaller and lighter in weight. That should improve maneuverability, which is what you want for a fighter aircraft.
- Eliminate the bomb bay.
- Eliminate structural strengthening required for bombing.
I would seriously consider powering the fighter aircraft with two DB605 engines rather then the larger and heavier DB603. That should save quite a bit of weight and allow the aircraft to be smaller in size. It also allows you to build the Do-335 anytime after 1942 rather then waiting for DB603 engines to become available in 1945.
wuzak
Captain
The systems as used on the Me209 and He100 were total loss systems - the cooling fluid exited the aircraft as steam never to be used again.
The system used by the Macchi MC72 and Supermarine S6B and their predecessors was surface cooling, where the cooling water would change to steam and then be condensed back to water in surface radiators. Rolls-Royce tested such a system with the Goshawk version of the Kestrel.
The Fw187 system, as I understand it, was much the same as used on the Schneider Trophy races. A closed system evaporative cooling system with surface radiatiors/condensors.
IIRC the HE112 was also originally fitted with such a system, though it was later changed for a conventional radiator.
The surface cooling system required a lot of surface area to work effectively, and thus it was especially vulnerable to enemy fire. I doubt that the system was ready for a production aircraft, and if it was the Luftwaffe would be reluctant to have it on one of their aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
Actually the high speed light bomber was but one version of the Do335. Another was the heavy fighter version, and a night fighter version also proposed/constructed.
I agree that the DB605 could have been substituted for the DB603, saving quite a bit of space (the DB603 being quite a bit longer IIRC) - so more fuel could be carried or the fuselage made shorter.
Still like the idea of moving the pilot forward, and the front engine brought in behind him, with each engine driving one half of a contra-rotating pusher prop setup.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Put someone competent in charge of RLM engine procurement.
October 1935.
DB601 / DB605 engine program receives 50 million RM as originally planned rather then being scaled back to 20 million RM.
.....Enough DB601 engines available to allow mass production of the inexpensive He-100 from 1940 onward. Germany can sell it to allied nations such as Hungary and Bulgaria.
.....Fw-187 could be produced too. However we will forego that program in favor of the Fw-190C.
1936.
Daimler-Benz begins development of DB603 engine. Essentially a scaled up DB601.
1937.
DB603 engine program receives 50 million RM rather then being cancelled as happened historically.
1937.
Dr. Tank expresses a desire to power his proposed Fw-190 fighter aircraft with the DB603 engine.
RLM tells him to make it so. The DB603 will enter mass production by 1941 at the rate of 400 engines per month. However the proposed Fw-190C must meet these specifications:
- 700 liters of internal fuel. Twice as much as the Me-109. About a third more then the historical Fw-190A.
- 3 x 20mm cannon. One firing through the prop hub plus one in each wing.
- Cockpit a bit roomier then the Me-109. We don't want the pilot too cramped on long missions. Maybe we will also provide a really comfortable seat, an excellent cockpit heater and a clip to hold a thermos of coffee.
A Fw-190C with 700 liters of internal fuel plus a 300 liter drop tank under each wing should have enough endurance for most German bomber escort missions. Three 20mm cannon (including 1 on centerline) will provide plenty of firepower.
We will cancel the Me-110 aircraft and BMW801 engine. That will provide funding for the Fw-190C plus DB603 engine.
October 1935.
DB601 / DB605 engine program receives 50 million RM as originally planned rather then being scaled back to 20 million RM.
.....Enough DB601 engines available to allow mass production of the inexpensive He-100 from 1940 onward. Germany can sell it to allied nations such as Hungary and Bulgaria.
.....Fw-187 could be produced too. However we will forego that program in favor of the Fw-190C.
1936.
Daimler-Benz begins development of DB603 engine. Essentially a scaled up DB601.
1937.
DB603 engine program receives 50 million RM rather then being cancelled as happened historically.
1937.
Dr. Tank expresses a desire to power his proposed Fw-190 fighter aircraft with the DB603 engine.
RLM tells him to make it so. The DB603 will enter mass production by 1941 at the rate of 400 engines per month. However the proposed Fw-190C must meet these specifications:
- 700 liters of internal fuel. Twice as much as the Me-109. About a third more then the historical Fw-190A.
- 3 x 20mm cannon. One firing through the prop hub plus one in each wing.
- Cockpit a bit roomier then the Me-109. We don't want the pilot too cramped on long missions. Maybe we will also provide a really comfortable seat, an excellent cockpit heater and a clip to hold a thermos of coffee.
A Fw-190C with 700 liters of internal fuel plus a 300 liter drop tank under each wing should have enough endurance for most German bomber escort missions. Three 20mm cannon (including 1 on centerline) will provide plenty of firepower.
We will cancel the Me-110 aircraft and BMW801 engine. That will provide funding for the Fw-190C plus DB603 engine.
wuzak
Captain
What aboutthe bombers that used the BMW 801?
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Mine would be a bastard, a Frankenstein of ideas that were good. Airframe, start with the P-63. Bubble canopy, no doors. The nose would house a 20mm. The wing design would still be laminar, but the gear would retract forward to allow more room for wing stores or drop tanks. Like the Mustang, it would have wing tanks, inboard of the gear. The wing would be large from the fuselage to the area of the guns, then the aileron area would have a forward taper towards the wingtip. 2 - .50 cals in each wing just outboard of the gear. It would also have a belly radiatior, freeing up the wing roots for fuel. Griffon V-12 produced by Chrysler, so Packard could keep making Merlins in the U.S.A.
- Thread starter
- #39
P-38 was managing to have good low-speed characteristics because of it's Fowler-type flaps, since those both increase wing area and wind camber (sp? - curvature?). Hence the airstrips used did not needed to be that long - typically under 2000 ft, and never more than 2500 ft, comparable with early P-40s.
Mine would be simple: Take your best single-engine fighter and make it a twin or Zwilling.
- reduced development risk
- much shorter development
- cost effective due to commonality of parts, tooling and labour
- faster entry into service for the same reasons as above
- reduction of logistical efforts
- reduction of training due to similarity cockpits and probably similar behaviour in many ways.
Unfortunately the one Me 109 Z proto never got off the ground so there are only estimated performance figures are available. But these are at least as good as contemporary conventional twins. The F-82 shows that this arrangement works.
- reduced development risk
- much shorter development
- cost effective due to commonality of parts, tooling and labour
- faster entry into service for the same reasons as above
- reduction of logistical efforts
- reduction of training due to similarity cockpits and probably similar behaviour in many ways.
Unfortunately the one Me 109 Z proto never got off the ground so there are only estimated performance figures are available. But these are at least as good as contemporary conventional twins. The F-82 shows that this arrangement works.
