Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sure, with the potential modifications to the airframe of continued development for another 3-4 years, lots of things could be possible. (6 MG 151/20s or 4 MK 108s doesn't seem unreasonable either: by no means a drop-in mounting in the existing 1939 airframe, but it seems plausible -I'd think bulk in horizontal dimensions for the guns+ammo would be more the factor for MK 108s than weight or recoil, but two in the cheeks/sides and two in the lower nose/belly seems realistic, perhaps with some bulges)I think four 20 mm MG 151/20 should be possible for the Fw 187.
The 2 gun Bendix chin turret weighed over 700 pounds with ammo. Thats a lot of weight for not much firepower.
But with the additional weight and drag, there will be a performance penalty and for what offensive gain?The mosquito fighter bomber was already fitted with 4 x .303 in the nose. I wasnt thinking about a turret with 180 degree coverage but a smaller arrangement of about +/- 30 degrees.
I can say this about the Fw 187. Germany was in need of its own "Mosquito," and the people in power actually making the decisions didn't see that in the Fw 187 ... and those were the very guys who needed it. So, a bit later when the need became great, none of them thought the Fw 187 was worth even resurrecting.
So I have a hard time understanding why all this after-the-fact-praise is heaped upon it when the very armed forces who created it out of a rtequirment decided it wasn't worth production.
I'd say they were a LOT closer to the real facts of the aircraft than we are.
It doesn't stop me from liking the Fw 187, but liking it and saying it was a large missed opportunity are two different things. The RLM had a solid-performing airframe and they decided the Fw 187 had no function they needed. That could have been political, and it wouldn't be alone there, it could have been personal animosity, it could have been many things, but the RLM elected not to procure it.
I can say the same for a number of otherwise-apparently-first-class aircraft in the USA and other countries that also were not procured. Curtiss-Wright got out of the airplane business when the XF-87 Blackhawk was not accepted ... and it met the spec it was designed for. Northrop never sold an F-20 Tigershark and it more than met it's design goals. The F-23 was not selected for production and it was the only one of the two submitted types that met the stealth spec. The F-22 didn't and doesn't. When the F-22 didn't meet the stealth spec, the government's answer was to lower the stealth spec. The XP-40Q was a solid airplane. The XP-72 looked like one, too. The list is long and distinguished.
Nice selection of twins, Just Schmidt. I like 'em too.
I haven't seen any reasonable claims that the RLM avoided the Fw 187 for legitimate technical reasons. It didn't fit their standard doctrine as the Bf 110 did, so on that technicality (and inflexibility/shortsightedness) it was held back. But beyond that, the prevailing argument seems to be sheer bias towards everything Messerschmitt. This seems to apply to the Me 210 and 410 as well, while the Ar 240 was given less attention, and when the RLM did finally request a fast twin-engine heavy fighter from Focke Wulf, they insisted it be made of wood. (rather ironic given Heinkel would have been the better firm to pursue there as far as experience in wooden construction AND fighter aircraft design -Gotha had more extensive use in service, but not so much in the fighter or high speed types; even then, wood was a poor option late-war due to restricted resources -the Mosquito likewise would have been impossible to build in the UK with similar resource shortages, or even lesser shortages given how specialized De Havilland construction was)GregP, just because the RLM didn't opt for it, doesn't mean that it was the right decision. The Techniches Amt under Udet wasn't the most competent.
I say it would be a bit different than all of those, lighter than the P-38, likely able to reach service early, useful in 2-seat configuration from the start (with potential for further development in 2 or 1 seat configurations). The limited reports seem to at least imply it had good overall control and roll rate (in common with the Whirlwind though with much lower wing loading).The FW 187 is viewed by it's adherents much the same (only more so) as the Whirlwind and it's supporters. Trouble is the FW 187 has about zero combat experience to look at, and no real world numbers with the engines it's fans propose to use.
They also want to split it into 2 or 3 different lines of development.
Some say it could have been the German P-38. Much closer in size and a possibility. But a bit more limited for multi-roles.
It wouldn't have been a good replacement for the 109 due to cost (even the 190 had disadvantages there that makes more heavily modified Bf 109s seem more attractive -in sheer cost and serviceability, but not necessarily raw performance).I am a DB 601 Fw 187 fanboy for the specific circumstances of the Battle of Britain. Clearly the issues of radio and combat persistence are important and it was the issue of the radio that caused the rejection of the single seat Fw 187. However, a He 111 could have easily carried a fighter type radio in addition to its longer ranged radio and could thus have communicated with single seat escorts.
I wasnt thinking about a turret more like the arrangement for the B 17 rear gunner but controlled by the co pilot. This may allow a shot on an AC without having to turn inside to get a lead or "follow" a rolling/diving aircraft, the pilot of a mosquito already has a lot of front firing firepower with the 4 cannon. It was just an idea.But with the additional weight and drag, there will be a performance penalty and for what offensive gain?
Also, if you look at the effectiveness of the bomber's turrets against enemy aircraft in combat, you'll see they required a great deal of rounds expended in order to score hits. This was on much slower, steady flying bombers. Now put a turret on a much smaller aircraft, placed in a fluid combat situation and I imagine it would be virtually impossible to train the weapons on an enemy and register effective hits.
You are back to the major stumbling block of the 'turret" fighter. Trying to co-ordinate the thoughts/movements of two men. In your turn scenario any misjudgment of the turn ( or shakiness on the stick) while throw the "gunner" off. And at 250-300mph in the turn comments/instructions on course correction (and the turn is not likely to be flat but either climbing or diving to some extent) from the "gunner" is likely to get results too late to be much good.
it may enable shots to made on occasion but are the occasions often enough or successful enough to warrant the increase in weight and/or drag and the resulting loss of performance?
You are back to the major stumbling block of the 'turret" fighter. Trying to co-ordinate the thoughts/movements of two men. In your turn scenario any misjudgment of the turn ( or shakiness on the stick) while throw the "gunner" off. And at 250-300mph in the turn comments/instructions on course correction (and the turn is not likely to be flat but either climbing or diving to some extent) from the "gunner" is likely to get results too late to be much good.
it may enable shots to made on occasion but are the occasions often enough or successful enough to warrant the increase in weight and/or drag and the resulting loss of performance?
Roughly a US .50 cal Browning gun weighs about 3 times what a .30 cal or .303 Browning does. Ammo weighs about 4-5 times as much. 2000 rounds of .303 (500rpg) weighs as much as 400 rounds of .50 cal (200rpg). Then whatever the power mounting weighs. Restricting traverse and elevation will help restrict bulk but may not do much for weight. You still need pretty much the same motors or hydraulic system if you are traversing 45 degrees or 180 degrees. You need rate of traverse and acceleration to stay on target.