Taking the Hs 123 back in production during WW2 ?

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

Why would it need to be replaced? If the Fw-189G program is fully supported then it will receive upgrades.

By 1943 the Fw-189G would probably carry a BK 3.7cm cannon ILO the original 3cm Mk101 cannon. Rudel specifically mentions destroying IS-2 tanks with this weapon so it's powerful enough. AB 250 cluster munitions don't require replacement. I don't think anything better was available until the Vietnam era. Maybe RLM will even upgrade the BMW132 radial engines. I believe there was discussion of a 1,200 hp version.

And it will still cost half as much as a BMW801 powered Me-110. 8)
 
Still needs crew, escort (or falls to the Yaks and stuff), fuel, maintenance. With all the expenses, 'my' 110 will at least be able to operate without escort, while able to kill any Il-2, Pe-2 or B-25, instead to worry that they might get him. The Fw-189, even with 2 x 1200 HP (3 times more than for the real examples!) is still a non starter for the ETO and MTO for 1943 on.
 
A cannon armed CAS aircraft operates at an altitude of 200 meters. It's dead meat for any enemy fighter aircraft in the vicinity. Even a modern day Super Tucano CAS aircraft (which the U.S. almost purchased) could be intercepted by WWII era fighter aircraft flying @ 3,000 meters.
 
We can keep this into ww2 - what I'm suggesting is a faster A-20/Beaufighter for LW, what you are suggesting is the faster Hs-129, that features a tail gunner.
The 'original' DB-7 was proven to be able to survive vs. fighters Flak of 1940, fighters being some 30 mph faster. How much we need to add to 253 mp/h the Hs-129 was capable, in order to evade the Soviet oposition flying at 370 mp/h, let alone the western at 400 mph?

I admit that I don't follow your logic that a CAS plane flying at 200m is dead meat to the enemy fighter flying 3000m; the ground-creeping plane will far easier spot the plane above than vice versa, not only since the fighter above lacks the floor window
 
IMO speed has little to do with CAS aircraft effectiveness. More engine power = more payload. You can carry a more powerful cannon for destroying tanks, more bombs for suppressing flak and more armor to protect the pilot while still retaining an acceptable level of acceleration and climb.

Consider the A-1 Skyraider. Probably the best CAS aircraft in the world during the 1950s and 1960s yet maximum speed was only 322 mph. About 25 mph slower then a 1939 Me-110C.
 
It is a whole world of difference if the plane is to operate with or without the air superiority achieved. Ju-87 is a point in case here. If there was the air superiority, Stukas were a potent weapon, if not, the losses were unacceptable. Even the flying tank, the Il-2, was a cold meat for fighters. The plane that is fast can, once the air superiority is achieved, trade the speed for payload. Not the case for a plane that is already slow.
The USA gained the upper hand in WW2 as far the air superiority was the case, and they wouldn't let it slip away in the future. They had all the reason to tailor a slow, but good hauler CAS planes, from AD-1 to A-10. Not the case for the air force that cannot expect such a favorable environment; if they miscalculate, the losses are there in no time.
 
Getting bock on topic, or closer too it. Stick a 1000hp 9 cylinder radial in the HS 123, enclose the canopy, stick a 7.9mm machine gun in each wing in addition to the cowl guns, stress the wing for 150-200kg on each side, ditch the wheel spats and fit over sized tires. maybe just a tad more armor.
Should be able to operate out of a field or good sized meadow. Will be able to out turn practically any intercepting fighter if the bombs are gone thus frustrating a lot of attacks. Slow speed (stalling) means it can fly in conditions that many other planes cannot. Rate of climb on the original was almost 3,000fpm. it's ability to maneuver close to the ground should be good.

The original was prized for it's ability to operate from really crappy airstrips, often at night. it was never a tank buster. GO with it's strengths. Improve it's ability to strafe unprotected or lightly protected targets, increase it's bomb load or ability to use cluster bombs, install flare chute if not there already. Bomb and/or strafe enemy positions at night or in conditions so bad most enemy aircraft are grounded. Wing loading was 18.3lb/sq.ft. at 4884lbs.

Try to improve serviceability for fast turn around. Multiple strikes per night or time period.
 
That's not an upgrade. You've created an entirely new aircraft.
 
Not really. the enclosed canopy, machine guns in the lower wing and a higher powered BMW 132 (if not quite 1000hp) were all installed on the Hs 123V6, a prototype of the Hs 123C series. Along with an armored headrest which was fitted to existing aircraft.
The wheel spats were ditched in service although I don't know if bigger tires were fitted. All I am asking for is a little more bomb load under the wing and a bit more seat armor. that doesn't sound like an "entirely new aircraft" to me.
 
Geez, you want to stick 1000hp engines on planes designed for 465hp engines, sling 37mm AA guns under them add bombs and armor and you take me to task for asking for another 50-100kg under each wing of plane? Surely those German engineers could figure out how to beef up the spars a little. Drop tanks are not needed except for deployment flights if then. Proper place for this airplane is as close to the front line as you can get it without the field being hit by artillery.
 
How should a small aircraft like a Fw 189 be able to carry the spacious and heavy BK 3.7 or even absorb the enormous recoil?
I also doubt could could fit a radial engine to the Fw 189 without a lot of redesigning/strengthening the engine carrier and/or wing structure..
 

The Hs-129 was able to 'deal' with 7,5cm, so I have no objections for the Fw-189 carrying the 3,7cm. Hurricane was carrying 2 cannons of similar properties, despite being a smaller airframe.
 
davebender said:
Dr. Tank designed the Fw-189G, not me. I trust he knew what he was doing when he modified the existing Fw-189 design for 950 hp engines.
Click to expand...

Do you have any details of the "number of structural changes" that are mentioned for this version?

100lbs worth, 200lbs worth, 500lbs worth?

Some people claim the Grumman F5F was "modified" into or developed into the F7F.

Lockheed managed to stick 2000hp engines on an airframe that started with 750hp engines but it went through several intermediate steps and I have no idea how much of some the structure was actually interchangeable or how much just looks alike from a distance. A bit like a Bf 109C and a 109G, want to try to turn a C into a G just because you have a DB605 engine?
 
tomo pauk said:
The Hs-129 was able to 'deal' with 7,5cm, so I have no objections for the Fw-189 carrying the 3,7cm. Hurricane was carrying 2 cannons of similar properties, despite being a smaller airframe.
Click to expand...

were the "properties" the same? one of the big factors in sticking big guns in aircraft is the recoil impulse transmitted to the air fame. Recoil impulse can be held down by the weight of the gun, or the weight of the recoiling parts, and the length of the recoil or time taken for the moving weight to reach the fully recoiled position. That is for the recoil of one shot, higher cycle rates increase the total recoil load on the plane. The big guns (50mm and above) were essentially single shots (OK 2-3 shots per attack) and the ones adapted from anti-tank guns had recoil distances of several feet. A big muzzle brake, a heavy barrel, 3-4 ft of recoil and a second or more between shots can do a lot to cut stress on the airframe.
 
German 3,7cm BK has had many properties, a great RoF was not one of them. With under 3 rounds per second, the recoil was hardly something to worry about when compared with 7,5cm. And the Fw-187 still has only a half of the recoil forces the Hurri IID is experiencing.
 
The Hs 129 was designed as a ground attack aircraft so it already had a strengthened/stiffened and partially armored fuselage able to absorb recoils of big guns. They may have required some further strengthening to cope with the BK 7.5 recoil.
The Fw 189 was never designed to carry lots of big guns or bombs, even the armored attack prototypes did not carry heavier stuff than 2cm guns.
The Hurricane was known as good and stable gun platform and the wing was capable of holding lots of bombs or guns although it could't carry much more than the 4cm gun + one MG at the same time.
 
Good enough, so we'll strengthen the Fw-189 so it can withstand the recoil. We will not try to carry the 7,5cm, though.
As for Hurricane, no matter how the wings are strong, the fuselage is always stronger.
 
Somewhere I have seen a discussion on this and the Peak recoil load of the Vickers S gun wasn't much worse than a 20mm Hispano. The Vickers S gun was designed as an aircraft gun and was first mounted in a turret on top of a Wellington bomber. It used the long recoil method of operation in which the barrel recoils the entire length of the cartridge, the breech block is held back while the barrel returns forward and the Breechblock is released to move forward picking up the new round. SLow cycle rate but lower peak recoil force because of the time/distance the barrel is recoiling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
bf109xxl
Hs-129 use on the Western Front/MTO?
Replies
11
Views
3K
GrauGeist
T
Airships in the WWII era
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register