Twin boom question (1 Viewer)

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

If you want a twin engine fighter with a conventional fuselage then the Fw-187 is the solution. Powered by 2 x DB605 engines I suspect the Fw-187 would have eaten the P-38 for lunch.
33858.jpg
 
If you want a twin engine fighter with a conventional fuselage then the Fw-187 is the solution. Powered by 2 x DB605 engines I suspect the Fw-187 would have eaten the P-38 for lunch.
33858.jpg

It had a top speed of 330 mph and a service ceiling of under 33,000 feet. I hope it "would of" been maneuverable!
 
It had a top speed of 330 mph and a service ceiling of under 33,000 feet.
Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
The pre-production Fw-187 A-0 had a top speed of 545 kph when powered by 2 x 675hp engines. What do you think the top speed will be when powered by 2 x 1,450hp DB605 engines? Everything I have read suggests that the Fw-187 will be faster and have a rate of climb superior to the Me-109 when equipped with the same engine.
 
Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
The pre-production Fw-187 A-0 had a top speed of 545 kph when powered by 2 x 675hp engines. What do you think the top speed will be when powered by 2 x 1,450hp DB605 engines? Everything I have read suggests that the Fw-187 will be faster and have a rate of climb superior to the Me-109 when equipped with the same engine.
"Will be, would have been."

Was it ever fitted with the DB605s? No - The aircraft was never developed any further and even with the more powerful engines there was no guarantee that this aircraft's performance would have greatly improved. Tank went on to develop the Ta 154 which showed much more promise.

Remember, this aircraft was designed during the time when the Me 110 was supposed to be this devastating fighter - look what happened then.
 
The Fw-187 was designed during the same time frame as the American P-38. We know that the DB601/DB605 engines will fit as one of the prototypes was powered by DB600 engines. If we are comparing the P-38 to contemporary twin engine fighter aircraft then the Fw-187 is as close as we can get. It's certainly a better comparison then the British Mosquito.
 
The Fw-187 was designed during the same time frame as the American P-38. We know that the DB601/DB605 engines will fit as one of the prototypes was powered by DB600 engines. If we are comparing the P-38 to contemporary twin engine fighter aircraft then the Fw-187 is as close as we can get. It's certainly a better comparison then the British Mosquito.
Then even the early P-38s were superior to the Fw 187 in the form that it was actually produced, but I agree about the British Mosquito comparison.
 
Hi Flyboyj,

>Was it ever fitted with the DB605s? No - The aircraft was never developed any further and even with the more powerful engines there was no guarantee that this aircraft's performance would have greatly improved. Tank went on to develop the Ta 154 which showed much more promise.

The Fw 187 was designed for DB 600-series engines and only "down-engined" initially when the Jumo 210 was the Luftwaffe's standard engine. Several DB 601-engined aircraft were built, with the V-5 reaching 635 km/h at low altitude in one speed measurement run.

Kurt Tank actually planned to beat the absolute world speed record of (at the time) 755 km/h with a Fw 187V-7, powered by the same type of DB 601 record engines used by Heinkel's and Messerschmitt's record aircraft, and this attempt only was stopped by the outbreak of the war.

Focke-Wulf had actually been building B-0 pre-series aircraft with DB 601 engines at the beginning of the war, but the B series was canceled at the outbreak of the war for reasons that have not been recorded for history.

The Fw 187V-5 was used for testing purposes until early 1942, so the data for the DB 605-engined variant the RLM ordered into development in mid-1942 had a solid basis. The Me 109 and Me 110 show that it was not difficult to fit a DB605 to an aircraft designed for a DB 601, and Focke-Wulf did in fact plan to convert the existing V-5.

(The orders Focke-Wulf received in 1942 first for the development, then for preparation of series production of the DB 605-engined Fw 187C were clearly motivated by the problems encountered by the generally similar Me 210.)

Before the prototypes and the preparations for series production could be completed, the Fw 187C was cancelled in late 1942, again for reasons that are poorly documented.

In addition to the Fw 187C, Focke-Wulf also suggested a Fw 187H high-altitude fighter as superior alternative to the Fw 190 high-altitude variants they were then developing (which would finally evolve in the Ta 152H). The DB 605-engined Fw 187H would have had superior characteristics to the projected DB 603-engined Fw 190 Kurt Tank was envisioning at the time.

The Ta 154 in fact was not a "more promising" aircraft, but supposed to be a cheap night fighter due to the use of non-strategic material and an older engine, the Jumo 211. It seems that the performance of the Ta 154 even re-engined with the late-war Jumo 213 engines was at about the same level as that of the Fw 187C with mid-war DB 605 engines.

(I'm relying on Hermann/Petrick's "Focke-Wulf Fw 187" and Hermann's article on the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 in Flugzeug Classic 3/2009.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Great info Henning - I still believe the P-38 was superior for a host of reasons although it "would of" been interesting to see this aircraft with the 605.
 
Flyboyj, sorry for being off topic but I've wondered this for a while now and thought I'd take the opportunity to ask, why is it that you write 'would of' instead of would have or would've?
 
Flyboyj, sorry for being off topic but I've wondered this for a while now and thought I'd take the opportunity to ask, why is it that you write 'would of' instead of would have or would've?

Because I see a lot of folks talking of hypothetical situations that might of changed a situation - "would of, could of, should of" is a saying in my neck of the woods implying one is trying to adjust their hindsight goggles....
 
Thanks for settling my curiosity. I've seen people use that phrase here too, its the use of the word 'of' instead of 'have' that I find strange:)
 
Sorry if I am reviving an old topic, but it appears to me that one serious advantage of the FW 187 over the P-38 is that you can alter the armament to a significant degree or expend a heavy load of ammunition without changing the trim of the aircraft even with all armament near the centerline. The guns and ammunition on the P-38 (and P-39 and P-63 for that matter) are all way forward of the center of gravity.

- Ivan.
 
Sorry if I am reviving an old topic, but it appears to me that one serious advantage of the FW 187 over the P-38 is that you can alter the armament to a significant degree or expend a heavy load of ammunition without changing the trim of the aircraft even with all armament near the centerline. The guns and ammunition on the P-38 (and P-39 and P-63 for that matter) are all way forward of the center of gravity.

- Ivan.

There were never any adverse conditions C/G wise with the P-38 expelling its ammunition as far as I know, all you had to do is maintain the MAC below 32% wheels up. The P-39 and P-63 had a much narrower C/G range and even had C/G limits along their water line. Aircraft with "usable weight" (fuel, ammunition) forward of the C/G are fine provided you can trim out adverse stick forces. I see nothing to show the FW 187 would have offered any advantage in this area and I can tell you that any aircraft is continually trimmed in flight to compensate for spent fuel, ammunition, ordnance, etc. regardless of C/G location.
 
Last edited:
Think Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar. Load from the rear - clear access. Equally open for para-drops (and in Korea the C-119 was the air-drop workhorse). In general twin boom creates 'alternatives' - for specialization. Guns in the nose - the P-38 AND the Bell Airacobra - both Bell and Lockheed were designing the fighter around its guns. Two approaches - P-38 and P-39 - to the same specialization.

MM

Thx FB
 

Attachments

  • C113.jpg
    C113.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 139
Last edited:
Two approaches to guns in the nose. The turbojet makes a huge difference.
 

Attachments

  • vampire.jpg
    vampire.jpg
    140.2 KB · Views: 103
  • P-63.jpg
    P-63.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 103

Users who are viewing this thread

Back