Westland Whirlwind vs Fw-187 vs P-38

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

@Shortround6

Just what airplane are you talking about?

I just talking about a normal development evolution.
You have put the P38 from 1943/44 in the discussion.

Bf 109: Bf 109D, Jumo 210G, 2160 kg; Bf 109 E, DB 601 A, 2573 kg; Bf 109 F-4,DB 601 E, 2890 kg; Bf 109 G-6,DB 605 A, 3200 kg; Bf 109 K-4,DB 605 DC, 3500 kg

Bf 110: Bf110B-0, Jumo 210G, 6150kg Bf 110 C-4, 2x DB 601, 6750 kg, Bf 110 G-2, 2x DB 605, 7790kg (destroyer/fighter bomber/escort fighter)
Bf 110 G-4 (Nightfighter 1943/45),2x DB605, 9800kg

I am also trying to figure out just what FW 187 night fighter you are talking about since none of the planes that were built ever carried radar.
You seem to talking about paper airplanes that never had a metal cut for them.

Please read my post Nr. 27. A nightfighter version of the FW 187 was ready for development and production at 1942/1943 because the LW wanted badly a better and faster nightfighter than the Me 110. This FW 187 nightfighter version (1942) was in heavy discussion bei the the RLM at the end of 1942.
The Jumo 213 and the heavier weightloading were the points for the JU 88 G.
If you want data, i will post them.

And besides no Bf 109 G or Bf 110G had a metal cut at 1940/41/42.
So about what do we talking? About normal design evolution or negate all as paper launches?
The basic design was produced and had shown her potential in real flights.

The FW 187 is a bit more of a problem. It has a bigger wing than the P-38 so it can easily carry the DB engines it was designed for. However the performance numbers for the prototype may very well be for an unarmed version and the low drag surface evaporative cooling system was a no-go for a service aircraft..

I don't know if you have read my post Nr.27 but the V4 and V6 were armed at their flights, it was no evaporative cooling system and it was ready for service for pressure water/glycol engines.

It's non-adaptability to the night fighter role makes it's adaptation in place of the ME 110 a problem down the road as does it's perhaps slightly less suitability for the fast bomber role. While it might have the power to lift a pair of 1100lb bombs it's smaller wing might mean a longer take off run. Same could be said of the P-38 but the US and British seemed to have plenty of long runways for other aircraft that the P-38s could use.

To the non-adaptability to the night fighter role I have said all. (The FW 187 could carry a 1000kg bomb)
Do you realy think that a FW 187 with 8200kg take off weight would need a longer take off run then a Bf 110G-4 with 9800kg. I think in germany were also plenty of long runways. And we are talking here about a nightfighter version not a single seater escort version.

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

@drgondog

but confused a little by reference to Germany's lack of focus on applying a concentration of fighters at concentrated points of attack. Perhaps I misunderstood your point but the LW developed very solid tactics to concentrate their fighters on the bombers.

I agree but to my opinion it is also important to have the possibility to concentrate fighters in the air.
That is very difficult with a Bf 109 and her short combat radius.
Also I'm not a friend of the tactic to attack only bombers, for me it is important also to attack the escort fighters.
The LW tactic functioned only at long raids, at a raid to the Ruhrgebiet, there is not enough time to attack only bombers without escort fighters or time to wait that the escort fighters are on their way home.

1.) immediately put more day fighters in the west with instructions to attack both escorting fighters and bombers, 2.) concentrate more Gruppe's in the center of gravity of German defenses to enable more concentrations on any particular bomber course, 3.) accelerate the development of the Fw 190D by re-prioritizing the DB/Jumo engines to get both better high altitude performance and more range

I agree!
Point 3, to my opinion the high altitude performance is a major key element. And the high altitude performance is one of the major problems of the LW in 1943/44.
The FW 190 D-9 was a help but not a major because the Jumo 213A wasn't a high altitude engine, best altitude outputperformance 6600m. Only the Jumo 213E with the three-speed two-stage supercharger was a real high altitude engine.
The "normal" Bf 109G6 was outclassed at high altitude against P 47 and P 38 especially with "normal" pilots.
This wasn't only the fault of the Bf 109G, most of the problem was the DB 605.
It took more then one and half year to solve all engine problems and go back to normal development with the DB 605AS or DB605D. With this engines the Bf 109G was back to state of the art (at high altitudes)but one and half year is a very very long space of time.

So it would be important to have a design that could match with "normal" DB 605 the allied escort fighters at high altitudes.
I tend to say the FW 187 could be this design. I can't proof this and it is speculative but from all I have read and the potentials of the real live flights, it is my opinion, that the FW 187 was the better and faster design then the Bf 109 and would be better at high altitudes because the lag of performance would be lower compare to the Bf 109G and the allied escort fighters.

davebender · Sep 2, 2010

I'm confused as to why the Jumo 210 engine keeps appearing in this discussion. The Fw-187 was designed for the DB600 / DB601 engine and that is almost certainly how it would have been mass produced. Which is why my very first post states the Fw-187 will have the same engine current in the Me-109 series.

One can argue that the RR Merlin might not have made it into the Whirlwind due to redesign problems. No such arguement exists for the Fw-187.

drgondog · Sep 2, 2010

DonL said:
@drgondog

I agree but to my opinion it is also important to have the possibility to concentrate fighters in the air.
That is very difficult with a Bf 109 and her short combat radius.

I think we are complete agreement. My point about central germany concentration of most of LuftFlotte Reich was to enable the 109 to intercept most bomber tracks with higher concentrations of fighters - north-south-west
The downside to such concentrations is that it makes the task of sweeping escort fighters to intercept (or attack the airfileds) easier.

Also I'm not a friend of the tactic to attack only bombers, for me it is important also to attack the escort fighters.
The LW tactic functioned only at long raids, at a raid to the Ruhrgebiet, there is not enough time to attack only bombers without escort fighters or time to wait that the escort fighters are on their way home.

After the introduction of the Mustang and P-38 in sufficient numbers (~ 6 total Fighter Groups) to provide target escort, they could cover the bombers in most cases from the time the P-47 groups turned back, to the target and back to the point where P-47s replaced them for withdrawal. From April 1944 there were rare circumstances when bombers were unescorted on the return.

I agree!
Point 3, to my opinion the high altitude performance is a major key element. And the high altitude performance is one of the major problems of the LW in 1943/44.
The FW 190 D-9 was a help but not a major because the Jumo 213A wasn't a high altitude engine, best altitude outputperformance 6600m. Only the Jumo 213E with the three-speed two-stage supercharger was a real high altitude engine.

It would have been superior at attacking altitudes than the FwA-7 and 8 and better able to defend itself against the Mustangs at all altitudes - but agree that the Jumo 213E was a superior solution.

The "normal" Bf 109G6 was outclassed at high altitude against P 47 and P 38 especially with "normal" pilots.
This wasn't only the fault of the Bf 109G, most of the problem was the DB 605.
It was even more outclassed against the Mustang at high altitudes of interest (20-30,000 feet). The P-38 remained vulnerable to the 109G for two reasons - first, until the late P-38J with manuevering and dive flaps, the 38 rolled slowly and could not chase or escape a 109 in dive due to compressibility. second, - the P-38 was very easy to identify at long distance often giving the 109 time to decide to fight or flee based on tactical situation.

The P-47 outclassed both the Mustang and 109G at altitudes above 31,000 feet but did not have the range to fight over Germany.

It took more then one and half year to solve all engine problems and go back to normal development with the DB 605AS or DB605D. With this engines the Bf 109G was back to state of the art (at high altitudes)but one and half year is a very very long space of time.

Too long. That and decision to avoid escorts gave the 8th AF Fighter Command to develop almost uninterrupted time to develop tactics, pilot skills and leadership. When the Mustangs came into the theatre, experienced and talented fighter groups made the conversion quickly and forced the fight over Germany with an equal or better performing airframe.

So it would be important to have a design that could match with "normal" DB 605 the allied escort fighters at high altitudes.
I tend to say the FW 187 could be this design. I can't proof this and it is speculative but from all I have read and the potentials of the real live flights, it is my opinion, that the FW 187 was the better and faster design then the Bf 109 and would be better at high altitudes because the lag of performance would be lower compare to the Bf 109G and the allied escort fighters.

I don't know enough about the Fw 187 to speculate regarding its air to air capabilities against the Mustang or the P-47 and later version P-38J/L.

Milosh · Sep 2, 2010

How did the Me410 fair against American fighters? I would imagine an up engined Fw187 would fair the same.

The initial roll response of the P-38 was slow but once it started rolling it wasn't that bad.

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

@ Milosh

you can't compare this two designs. That's like apples and beans.

Me 410: 2x DB603A 1750hp each, empty weight 6627kg. loaded between 8000-10000kg, max highspeed 624 km/h at 6700m

FW 187 V6 2x DB600a 1000hp each, empty weight ~4500kg, loaded ~5800kg, max highspeed 634km/h

The FW 187 could achieve 10km/h more max highspeed with 1500hp less.
And the supercharger of the DB 600a wasn't that good as the superchargerr from the DB 603A.
The DB 600a was the engine without direct fuel injection

Also the Wing area of the Me 410: 36.20 m² (390 ft²) compare to the FW 187 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²).
Me 410 Wing loading 221kg/m²(44.42 lb/ft²) / FW 187 Wing loading: ~190.79 kg/m² (38.35 lb/ft²)
You can't argument with this comparison.

Milosh · Sep 2, 2010

Don, if the DB600 could be fitted to the Fw187, then there is no reason why a DB605 or even a DB603, could not have be fitted. This is what I meant by up engined. What engine did the Bf109 start with and what did it end up with.

Speaking of the DB603 engine, this is what should have been installed in the long nose 190.

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

Don, if the DB600 could be fitted to the Fw187, then there is no reason why a DB605 or even a DB603, could not have be fitted. This is what I meant by up engined. What engine did the Bf109 start with and what did it end up with.

Sure I understand you. I agree to the DB 605, the DB603 was too heavy. DB605 (750kg); DB 603 (910kg)

But you can't compare a FW 187 with DB605 to the Me 410.

The difference in weight between a DB 600a and a DB 605a are 140kg each. So a DB 605 powered FW 187 as a two seater gain weight about 400kg.

FW 187 VX 2x DB605a 1475hp each, empty weight ~4900kg, loaded ~6200kg, max highspeed XX.
Perhaps something about 720 km/h with 950hp more then the V6 version.
FW 187 Wing loading: ~203.95 kg/m² (41.00 lb/ft²)

How do you want to compare this with a Me 410?
You can compare this with a P38J and to me it looks better on paper. And the basic design FW 187 V6 was a real flight.

Speaking of the DB603 engine, this is what should have been installed in the long nose 190

No the FW 190D-9 was installed with the Jumo 213A and the Tank 152H1 with the Jumo 213E.
But the DB 603 and Jumo 213 were constructed as uniform engines so you can put a DB 603 in a FW 190 D.

davebender · Sep 2, 2010

The Fw-187G would get the DB605 engine at the same time as the Me-109G. That's just a normal development of the DB601 series.

The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605
I doubt the Fw-187 would receive the DB603, Jumo213 or BMW801 as those engines were always in short supply. In any case the Fw-187 G10 doesn't need a DB603 engine anymore then the Me-109G10. Both aircraft will perform just fine with newer versions of the existing engine like the 1,800hp DB605AM.

rank amateur · Sep 2, 2010

Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.

Colin1 · Sep 2, 2010

rank amateur said:
Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P-38, how many twin engined fighter desigs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking Bf110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or Me262 vs P-51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.

Well
I've read that a P-38 could be. It took a better than average or experienced pilot to get the best out of the P-38 and once he'd mastered the type, he could turn with his single-engined opponent, feathering the inside engine whilst revving the outside engine, this would turn the P-38 inside the target and give the pilot the necessary lead for a solution. It was described as 'WWII thrust vectoring' and it was the ability to use this technique (according to the piece) that gave rise to the opinion that it required an experienced pilot to get the best out of the P-38.

rank amateur · Sep 2, 2010

Like I said: apart from the p38

tail end charlie · Sep 2, 2010

rank amateur said:
Like I said: apart from the p38

Obviously the Avro Anson is right up there
quote
In June 1940, a flight of three Ansons was attacked by nine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Remarkably, the Ansons downed two German aircraft "and damaging a third before the 'dogfight' ended" [2], without losing any of their own
unquote

I dont know if I believe the above but I have read it in several places, must be the best piece of shooting in the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Colin1 · Sep 2, 2010

rank amateur said:
Like I said: apart from the p38

I was just testing you - you passed
The Whirlwind could hold its own with the Bf109 at low level

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

There were several comparative flies between the Bf 109 B and D with Jumo 210 or Jumo 21G and the Fw 187 V4 with 2x 210G at Rechlin.

The report tells that the FW 187 was equal in turning, climbing and increasing speed but much faster.
This is one of the main reasons why we are discussing in general about the FW 187 as a fighter.

Besides when you are looking at all single engine long range fighter (which can carry a lot of internal fuel) of WWII, then it is obvious that the radial engines have an advantage.

I know only two inline designs with a huge internal fuel load . The Mustang P51 and the Tank 152H1.
So if "you" have only an average radial engine or a bad one but "you" have good inliners you must try to find other ways for long range fighter, especially early forties.

Colin1 · Sep 2, 2010

Lost me a wee bit Don
what's 'inline fuel'?

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

what's 'inline fuel'?

Thats the fuel that the bird carrys without an external or droptank.
For example in the wings or the fuselage.
Internal fuel.

Sorry for my bad english

Colin1 · Sep 2, 2010

I got you - internal fuel
you threw me a bit because you mentioned an advantage over radials in the same sentence

DonL · Sep 2, 2010

Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.

Grumman F7F Tigercat 8)

tail end charlie · Sep 2, 2010

rank amateur said:
Probably not the time and the place, but apart from the P38, how many twin engined fighter designs were really a match for their single engined counterparts in a one to one confrontation? And I am not talking BF110 against Pzl11's over Poland 1939 or me 262 vs P51 over Germany 1945. I mean comparable technology.

It depends what you mean by holding its own, what each side was trying to do. A mosquito, for most of the war could outrun single engined fighters and so could choose whether to fight or not. With 4 cannon and 4 machine guns if it hit a single engined fighter it would cause serious damage. With any combat twin or single engined the winner is the one with the crucial advantage.

Westland Whirlwind vs Fw-187 vs P-38

Banned

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads