Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What do you guys think about a potential Fw 187 with Jumo 213E/J/S? I guess it would be in the same class as the DH Hornet. In its original Form it had as slim a fuselage and engine nacelles as the Hornet.
My database says the fastest piston twins were as follows:
1. Dornier Do.335 at 474 mph
2. de Havilland D.H. 103 Sea Hornet at 472 mph
3. Arado Ae.240 C at 454 mph
4. Mitsubishi Ki-83 at 438 mph
5. Grumman F7F Tigercat at 435 mph
The fastest piston twin was supposed to the Bugatti R-100 Speed Record plane at 500 mph, but its speed was never proven in actual flight ...
All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.
The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.
What do you guys think about a potential Fw 187 with Jumo 213E/J/S? I guess it would be in the same class as the DH Hornet. In its original Form it had as slim a fuselage and engine nacelles as the Hornet.
All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.
The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.
I think the FW 187 with DB605 or with Jumo 211J or P would have been good enough, especially as the DB605 soon reached 1700, 1850 and even 2000hp. It would have bypassed much of the effort dedicated too and ulimatly wasted on the Ta 154.
Up untill about October 1943 or so the Jumo 211J was more powerfull than the equally heavy DB605A at low altitude.
Ta 154, really just a slightly improved wooden version of the FW 187 could take the Jumo 213 and BMW 801 as well as Jumo 211.
My database says the fastest piston twins were as follows:
1. Dornier Do.335 at 474 mph
2. de Havilland D.H. 103 Sea Hornet at 472 mph
3. Arado Ae.240 C at 454 mph
4. Mitsubishi Ki-83 at 438 mph
5. Grumman F7F Tigercat at 435 mph
The fastest piston twin was supposed to the Bugatti R-100 Speed Record plane at 500 mph, but its speed was never proven in actual flight ...
All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.
The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.
i'm not sure that pr mk 34 did see action in WW2, EDIT i just found a detachment started recce mission from july '45
the engines were not 113 or 114?
I think the FW 187 with DB605 or with Jumo 211J or P would have been good enough, especially as the DB605 soon reached 1700, 1850 and even 2000hp. It would have bypassed much of the effort dedicated too and ulimatly wasted on the Ta 154.
Up untill about October 1943 or so the Jumo 211J was more powerfull than the equally heavy DB605A at low altitude.
Ta 154, really just a slightly improved wooden version of the FW 187 could take the Jumo 213 and BMW 801 as well as Jumo 211.
Thanks Siegfried
But 335 definitely didn't "consistantly exceded expectations." E-Kdo 335 report clearly stated that their Do 335s were slower than what had been claimed by Dornier and predicted that fully service equipped production planes might well be up to 20km/h slower still.
Juha
The Ta 154 was a night fighter, something that would have been difficult with the tiny fuselage on the Fw 187.
The Germans did experiment with single engined FW 190 and Me 109 equiped with Neptune radars. They found that after staring into the osciliscope that the pilot lost his night vision. FW 187 was built as a two seater and thus could have provided for the all importan radar opperator and navigator. While it would have lost performance and perhaps and lacked the space for a full electronic fitout it was certainly better than a single engined aircraft. More important it might have been fast enought to catch a mosquito.
The P-38 was mentioned earlier. Lockheed reportedly had P-38L versions in the 440 range however that was with 150 fuel and more that 60in MAP conditions the AAF didn't test for. In combat pilots often pushed the throttles "Through the Gate"( one pilot of a P-38H noted he hit 86"MAP it must have been scooting along!), but were to busy to note speed. Also at 30,000ft 440 is getting near the speed the P-38 gets into compressibility, and drag really climbs as an aircraft nears compressability, so it couldn't go that fast in that flight regime
At 60" MAP the fastest P-38 was the P-38J-1 through J10 at 421mph.
Some of these other aircraft mentioned in this thread were faster than that - though they may not have been in as much combat or made as much of an impact.
Bill
Quoted to bump.I would agree here. Power to spare and would have been fairly easy to put into production as a bomber-killer, even late in the game.
Question about the "Falke" though...How well did the proven (i.e. initial) design perform (aerodynamically) at altitude; i.e. 7-8km? This has always been something I wondered about and I've found little documentation on the matter (not that I've really searched that hard).
To carry a little further along the same train of thought...I can't understand why there was no effort put into a severely "stripped-down" Me 410 (i.e single seater, bombing and defensive gear/gunner removed, battery of nose cannon [4 x Mk108 a la Me 262] and an "armoured bathtub", proof to .50 HMG) as a high speed/armoured bomber destroyer? Were there aerodynamic/performance issues (at altitude) in this case? One would think that this would be an even more expedient route to achieving the same ends, as opposed to reviving the Fw 187 design...perhaps some weight and balance issues (from removing the barbettes at the rear)? The moment arm is still not that far relative to the C of G so I don't see it presenting a huge problem. A few kilos of ballast (at a greatly increased moment arm) should surely address a minor issue like this this.
Surely someone must have thought of/proposed this?
I realize that all bets are off once the P-51 is present in numbers, but performance (i.e. survivability) would certainly have been better than that of the modified 190A's, historically employed. I fully recognize the fact that such a platform (Me 410) imposes a much greater burden upon already strained resources.
Comments? Anyone?
Ron
I would agree here. Power to spare and would have been fairly easy to put into production as a bomber-killer, even late in the game.
Question about the "Falke" though...How well did the proven (i.e. initial) design perform (aerodynamically) at altitude; i.e. 7-8km? This has always been something I wondered about and I've found little documentation on the matter (not that I've really searched that hard).
To carry a little further along the same train of thought...I can't understand why there was no effort put into a severely "stripped-down" Me 410 (i.e single seater, bombing and defensive gear/gunner removed, battery of nose cannon [4 x Mk108 a la Me 262] and an "armoured bathtub", proof to .50 HMG) as a high speed/armoured bomber destroyer? Were there aerodynamic/performance issues (at altitude) in this case? One would think that this would be an even more expedient route to achieving the same ends, as opposed to reviving the Fw 187 design...perhaps some weight and balance issues (from removing the barbettes at the rear)? The moment arm is still not that far relative to the C of G so I don't see it presenting a huge problem. A few kilos of ballast (at a greatly increased moment arm) should surely address a minor issue like this this.
Surely someone must have thought of/proposed this?
I realize that all bets are off once the P-51 is present in numbers, but performance (i.e. survivability) would certainly have been better than that of the modified 190A's, historically employed. I fully recognize the fact that such a platform (Me 410) imposes a much greater burden upon already strained resources.
Comments? Anyone?
Ron
Quoted to bump.
Anyone?