German heavy fighters - maneuverability

[Romantic Technofreak]

Another hypothetic question to specialists for flight characteristics, because both airplanes did not really see combat, although their action could have been a crucial one too.

I mean the Focke-Wulf FW 187 and the Dornier Do 335. If you don´t take Simon´s stating of a "Heinkel war" too strictly, the FW 187 seeing action during the Battle of Britain could have caused a different turn. But - as fast as it might have been, it is a two engined conventional fighter, and its mass distribution must be a lot worse than the one of a single-engined fighter, especially if heavier high-performance engines were applied instead of the original Jumo 210.

And for the Do 335, the comparedly short wing makes me wonder about the aileron effectiveness and the long fuselage is doubtful for me considering the ability to move quickly around the horizontal axis.
However - literature says, maneuverability of both airplanes was "excellent". Any comments?

[BuzzLightyear]

Wing loading was pretty good on the Fw-187, about 33.7 lbs/sq ft.
It probably did have a fairly good instantaneous turn with that wing loading. Its speed was much better, in general, than that of the Bf-110, which would have been very important. I think it would have faired better than the Bf-110 had it been used over Britain instead.

The Do-335 was very fast, with very high wing loading - about 51.2 lbs/sq ft. I can't imagine it turned very well. Aileron effectiveness was probably pretty good though, given the short wings. Were they boosted? I think they may have been. With regards to the Do-335, characterizing the manueverability as "excellent" is highly subjective. The manueverability of the Do-335 probably was excellent when compared to, say, a V-2 rocket. Against a P-51 it was probably pretty poor. It was danged fast, though.

[tenmmike]

i concur with buzz here all he stated is quite logical..although im suspicious of the boosting but will provide any update when one of my books comes back in a week or so

[GregP]

OK, let's stick to metric units.

Plane Span (m) Wing Load (kg/m^2) Pwr Load (kg/kW)

Bf 110C 16.2 175.3 4.1
Bf 110G 16.2 244.8 4.3
Fw 187 15.3 164.5 4.6

Do 335 13.8 257.4 3.6



From the above numbers we can infer some information. To wit, The Bf 110C and the Fw 187 are in the same class of wing loading with the Fw 187 having a slight edge. Maneuverability in pitch is, therefore, about the same with the Fw 187 having a slight edge. When we move to the Bf 110G, the Fw 187 starts to look like a Zero in comparison ... but all WWII fighters gained weight in development, so I infer the Fw 187 would have done so as well ... to what extent, I can't say, but probably less than the Bf 110 since the Fw 187 was a single seater and so woukld not have been fitted with radar or whould have been developed into a 2-seater if it WERE fitted with radar.

The Fw 187 had a shorter span, and I infer a faster roll rate in consequence, assuming similar airfoils and ailerons. I have no data to back this up but, generally, a shorter wing span means faster roll rate, all else being equal.

The Fw 187's power loading was slightly worse than the Bf 110, but it's rate of climb was better than the Bf 110! Go figure ... either the Fw 187 had a much better wing or much better propellers. We KNOW it had less form drag and was faster. Since they both were conventional twin-engined fighters, the engines were about the same distance from the centerline, and so roll inertia was about the same.

This being the case, I think the Fw 187 would have been better than the Bf 110 as a fighter, but still would not have been competitive with a single-seater in maneuverability.

The Spitfire V, for instance, had a wing loading of 136.9 kg.m^2, and so was a bit more maneuverable tahn the Fw 187 or Bf 110. The Spitfire XIV had a wing loading of 175 kg/m^2 and this looks like it favors the twins until you understand that the Spitfires spanned only 11.2 mand so could roll away at will ... and had power loading in the 2.5 to 2.8 kg/kW range, meaning they could also climb away easily or simply open the distance with speed.

Bottom line: Fw 187 would have been better at fighter-v-fighter combatm but would have fared no better at it than the Bf 110. The Bf 110, on the other hand, was multi-seat, and so could be fitted with radar for night fighter duties.

This analysis, of course, lacking in real-world data. The P-38J had about the power loading of the German fighters and about the same wing span as the Bf 110, but it could roll VERY well with boosted control surfaces and climbed better than the power loading would indicate. So, there is every possibility that the Fw 187 would have been far and away better than the Bf 110.

Since there is no direct comparative flight data, this remains a "what if ..." situation due to lack of ability to compare the two in a meaningful manner.

the Do 335 had a wing loading of 257.4 kg/m^2, and so it was PROBABLY less maneuverable in pitch than the two twins. But it had a span of only 13.8 m, so it was probably much more maneuverable in roll. The power loading was on the order of 3.6 kg.kW, so it was better than the 187 or the 110 in climb and ability to accelerate, but still not up to the spiteliness of the single engine, single-seaters. Short span DOES not inhibit roll effectiveness, unless the designer is an idiot, and not many were.

Think of the Lockheed F-104 or the Northrop F-5 ... tiny wings and incredible roll rates.

About the "excellent maneuverability" comments, I have a theory. Most pilots of the day rated the maneuverabilty of an aircraft against other aircraft in the same general class. That is, the B-25 might be "excellent" in maneuverability compared with a B-26, but neither one was "excellent" compared with a P-51. So, the literature of the day is subject to interpretation in the dark ... we have no opportunity to question the report writer, so we can't really SAY what he meant at the time.

All I can really say is that mass has inertia. Basic Physics. A 5000 kg aircraft with similar wing loading to another 6750 kg aircraft has better instantaneous maneuverability due to less inertia to deal with. The same holds true in roll. Planes with similar wing spans and similar ailerons may well develop the same roll rate when the aircraft has done, say, 2 cxomplete rolls. But if one has engines that weigh 2/3 of the other, then the plane with the lighter engines will have a faster initial roll rate die to inertia of the engine masses.

The above discussion assumes that "all else is equal" and, in this case, we do not klnow that to be true, so the reasoning is valid, but may or may not have any relationship to reality.

Perhaps the Focke-Wulf 187 had the world's best ailerons at the time and the Bf 110 had ailerons that were slighty less effective than average.

A classic example is the Grummann Hellcat versus the Vought Corsair. They had the SAME engine and propeller, so their level flight performance was about the same except in the main supercharger stage (the Corsair used ram air in the main stage and the Hellcat did not). However, the corsair rolled MUCH better than the Hellcat. They found out the Hellcat COULD have been made to roll as well as the Corsair by eliminating the dihedral in the outrer wing panels, but the Navy declined to interrupt production to do it.

Looking at the two German fighters, the Fw 187 appears to have dihedral in the outer wing panels (like the Hellcat), and the Bf 110 appears to have overall less dihedral with the outer wing panels being the same dihedral as the inner wing panels.

If we think of that way, the Bf 110 might well roll better than the Fw 187, even with almost 1 meter more wing span.

I have not seen ANY data about roll rates of either aircraft, or degrees per second of initial or sustained turn rates for ANY WWII fighters ...

If you have seen these data, please post 'em and we can make some comparisons that MEAN something!

This is a BIG recommendation for GOOD test flight programs and test flight data collection points, but test flying was nowhere NEAR as good before WWI as it is now, so we will probably never see the WWII real-world performance figures for roll and pitch. About all we DO know are items like max speed, climb rates, stall speeds, and armament comparisons ... only about half of the real meat of fighter performance in a dogfight.

The instantaneous and sustained turn and roll rates are THE MOST IMPORTANT data points of all in a dogfight.

[BuzzLightyear]

GregP wrote:
A classic example is the Grummann Hellcat versus the Vought Corsair. They had the SAME engine and propeller, so their level flight performance was about the same except in the main supercharger stage (the Corsair used ram air in the main stage and the Hellcat did not). However, the corsair rolled MUCH better than the Hellcat. They found out the Hellcat COULD have been made to roll as well as the Corsair by eliminating the dihedral in the outrer wing panels, but the Navy declined to interrupt production to do it.

I knew this, I have "R-2800: Pratt and Whitney's Dependable Masterpiece", too [:p]. But I never really bothered to try and figure out why (never gave it two seconds thought). What is it about the F6F configuration that allows for ram air to be fed to the auxillery stage, but no the main stage?

[simon]

Just to add something in here, but according to my books the Fw187 was considered fairly early on for adaption to Nightfighter, but it was decided that the narrow fueslage precluded installation of those bulky early radar sets, plus one book claimed that by that point Tank had become disillusioned and disinterested with the project as a whole.

Overall I don't think that the Fw187 would have drastically altered the Battle of Britain, if you take the chronological events over which it could have had no influence the switch to attacks against London would still have occured prior to the point in which Fighter Command could have been decisively beaten. Equally most of my sources seem to indicate that although the pilots preferred the Falke, it had poorer "pure" performance, in particular speed than the Bf110C, however as Greg points out this is only part of the story when considering an aircraft's worth in combat.

A very good point regarding manouevrability Greg, and one I often take issue with, especially when comments like "The Ju88 had the manouevrability of a fighter..." abound. Which fighter, or indeed which aircraft is the comparison being made with? There's rarely that important qualifier when people are making blind statements like these!

I think the nearest comparisson to the Fw187 is probably the Westland Whirlwind, which is externally at any rate fairly similar.

As for the Do335, I don't think turn would have been too much of an issue, the type as far as I understand was supposed to be used as a fighter-bomber and bomber interceptor, all it needed to do was be able to run, fast, and hit hard. Turning it could leave up to the dogfighters.

[Romantic Technofreak]

I hope it is not boring for the audience if this starts to become a basic lecture of aerodynamics for me. If the wingspan does not matter for maneuverability, why using wings at all? I think, wings can be short, especially for very fast airplanes like supersonic jet fighters or cruise missiles, but not in our topic. For example, if you take a look on the Horton Wingless airplane:

http://www.aerofiles.com/horton02.jpg

Horton had to add auxiliary small wings to make it steerable. The roll rate of the Do 335 was excellent, because its mass distribution. So, let us make a thought experiment. Take the Do 335 and cut the wings, more and more. Maybe you use the downward fuselage structure of the McDonnell P-67 as balance. What happens when you create a "lifting body" out of the Do 335 in extreme?

For Simon: Given the FW 187 two DB 601 engines, it would have run estimated 650 km/h and been the fastest fighter of 1940. There are very few data available about it, especially considering Greg´s question for roll and turn rates. But a website in Spanish is courageous enough to tell the range by 1.400 km, what should be realistic. Whatever political decisions would have been made during the Battle of Britain, the FW 187 had been able to give a lot more day cover to German bombers or entangle British fighters in combat in areas where the Bf 109 never could, while the Bf 110 needed fighter cover itself.

[GregP]

A couple of answers.

Buzz, the Hellcat and the Corsair had two or three stages of boost. Main (unboosted), and boost (supercharged) ... or Main, low boost and high boost.

Grummann elected to not use ram air in the main stage because they wanted to eliminate the possibility of carburetor icing. Ram air sends the ambient sirflow into a channel that gets smaller as it gets close to the carb. By Mr. Bernouli's Principle, the air speeds up and gets slightly warmer. Ram air has the effect of jamming more air into a given carb size, and it increases the chances for carburetor ice.

Grumman's option was vindicated. Hellcats were not lost to carb icing in the landing pattern of a carrier. Corsairs WERE.

The aerodynamics question.

Wing size DOES matter. I never said wing size is irrelevant, I said shorter wings roll better in general.

First, ALL aircraft are a compromise. There is NO single aircraft that is good for all purposes.

As wing span increases, the efficiency gets better. Form drag also increases, and the roll rate gets slower. Go fly a sailplane. The roll rate is VERY slow, but it glides very well. This is due to aspect ratio, among other things. Asect ratio is the wing span divided by the average cord. As aspect ratio gets larger, the stall speed drops, efficiency gets better, range gets better, ground effect gets higher ... and roll rate gets slower.

So a fighter is a compromise. What roll rate (usually in ° per second)meets the requirements? What is the service ceiling requirement (needs a proper engine and wings designed for the altitude) ?

The airfoil also comes into play. There are, literally, thousands of airfoil shapes, and they all do something pretty well ... but not necessarily the same thing. Some airfolis lift heavy weights well (good coefficient of lift) and others allow much higher speeds (better high-speed aerodynamics ... usually at the expense of low speed handling). Others offer abrupt stall while retaining roll control (aerobatic aircraft).

The ailerons are a factor in roll. Many aircraft have small ailerons and spend most of their time in level crusing flight. Fighters must roll well (usually the desire is to roll as well or better than the enemy), so their ailerons must have relatively more power than a transport.

Stability is a factor. The center of lift must be above the center of gravity. Using a lot of dihedral makes a plane very stable, but fighters need to be agile, so they usually have only a small dihedral or sometimes none at ll. A few even have anhedral (both wings tilt downward from root to tip). Think of the F-104 Starfighter. It had anhedral.

Back to the Fw 187.

The inner wing panels appear flat (I can't say for sure) and the outer panels appear to have dihedral. This makes for a stable aircraft that tends to remain in a wings-level condition. Good for a transport, but not for a fighter. The designer can tailor the stability, and I have no idea how stable the Fw 187 was, so I can't say. Neither can anyone ELSE, unless they were around at the time. There are no more Fw 187's to test.

Oh yeah, I looked up the Fw 187 and read more. The performance numbers claimed are usually quoted from the airframe that was fitted with DB 600 engines of 1,000 HP each, so the power loading was better than the Bf 110 ... which explains the better climb rate.

Power loading is in pounds per horespower or kilograms per kiloWatt. Lower is better. Power loading tells you the relative climb and acceleration rates between two aircraft. The aircraft with the lower power loading will usually climb and accelerate better. This assumes the designers both used decent propellers, and they usually did.

Wing loading is in pounds per square foot or kilograms per square meter. Lower wing loading means better turn rate in ° per second, which CAN mean better maneuverability. In the aircraft with lower wing loading, each square meter of wing must lift less weight than the other aircraft.

Manueverability is a composite term. The most maneuverable aircraft has a faster rate of roll in ° per second and a lower wing loading. So, it can not only turn faster due to low wing loading, but it also rolls faster, and so can roll away from the attacker, and out-turn him, spoiling the aim of the enemy pilot. The more maneuverable aircraft then gets on the tail of the less maneuverable aircraft and uses his better maneuverability to keep the other plane in his sights and shoots him down.

Many people also factor power loading into maneuverability (incorrectly so, but it happens nonetheless).

Usually in a dogfight, one aircraft will roll better and one will turn better. This becomes a cat and mouse game if the both aircraft do one better than the other. The better roller will roll away and turn hard, then stop turning and roll away again. The better turner will pull some "G" and get away, roll some, and then pull some more "G".

If one or the other climbs or dives significantly better than the other, they can aklso use that to gain separation, reform, and attack from the position that best fits their machine.

A Spitfire, for instance, was better than the Japanese Zero if the speed was kept above 250 mph, and they tried to stay above 270 mph. If the Spitfire pilot tried to stay with a Zero atm say, 230 mph, the Zero would eat him alive due to better low-speed maneuverability.

About your question on lifting bodies. They are dogs. A lifting body has a purpose. The only real purpose I can think of is re-entry from orbit. Wings tends to melt off, and a lifting body CAN fly (though bot very well) so it can land after de-orbiting. I can't think of another reason to use a lifting body vehicle. The stall speeds are high, roll control is weak (too fast, usually ...), and they simply don't fly well in general ... but they CAN fly.

Probably not possible in WWII, and not really desireable even today unless necessary to control local heating during re-entry.

Anyway, aerodynamics is a specialized branch of fluid flow. Air behaves like water, and some boats are fast while others are better suited to haul cargo. Same goes for aircraft. They do different things well, but they can't do EVERYTHING well.

That is what hurt the U.S.A. in the 1950s and 1960s. We were trying to design a fighter to do EVERYTHING. Ergo, the McDonnell F-4 Phantom. It was fast, but not the fastest. It could carry a lot of ordnance, but not the most. It could perform fighter duties, but wasn't the best turner of the crowd. And ... it didn't have a gun in the early and mid-life versions. If you look at it, you will also note that the designers didn't think anyone could sneak up behind it ... due to its speed, so they eliminated rearward visibility.

All in all, it DID go into production, but was not the best fighter-bomber, the fastest, or the best fighter. But it could do all these task to an acceptable level (acceptable to whom is another question ... the plane was bought purely on ploitics, like MOST US fighters).

Hope this helps, but maybe not, huh?

[BuzzLightyear]

GregP wrote:
Grummann elected to not use ram air in the main stage because they wanted to eliminate the possibility of carburetor icing. Ram air sends the ambient sirflow into a channel that gets smaller as it gets close to the carb. By Mr. Bernouli's Principle, the air speeds up and gets slightly warmer. Ram air has the effect of jamming more air into a given carb size, and it increases the chances for carburetor ice.

Ok.

Now, if the rammed air is warmer, why is the carb more prone to icing than if it was fed unrammed air?

Thanks.

[GregP]

Hi Buzz,

Ice forms at certain temperatures. Usually, carb air is colder than ambient as it is moving as fast as the aircraft plus whatever acceleration the air gets from the induction system. The net effect is usually about a 25°F drop in temperature.

If the air is humid ... full of water vapor (as in carrier ops), it is very prone to icing at ambient temperatures of about 40°F to 65°F.

Ram air gets colder than ambient air due to acceleration, though not as cold as "chill facotr" might suggest due to warming that occurrs when it is squeezed. So, the net result is that ram air tends to cool about 10°F to 25°F more than ambient air in piston engine operation.

OK, we're flying in the Pacific Ocean. Temperatures at sea range from a low in the 40's to a high in the 90's. That means the Hellcat induction air was slower than the Corsair's, and was about 15°F to 65°F when it entered the carburetor. 25°F to 40°F is the ice zone, give or take a bit, and the temperatures in the Pacific were mostly in the range of 55° to 80° at sea, so the Hellcat carbs saw air at 30°F to 55°F. Since icing was NOT a problem with the Hellcat, I infer slightly higher temps than stated above, but the Hellcat's carb also had slower air in the Main stage.

The Corsair, on the other hand, cooled down a bit more, and its carb saw 5°F to 35°F air moving at higher velocities ... ICE zone.

The temps are probably off somewhat, but the underlying logic is not. The Corsair's carb saw temperatures from 15°F to 25 or 30°F cooler than the Hellcat, and that accounted for the difference.

In the ETO, in winter, carb ice was not a propblem very often since the air was too cold to form carb ice. It was much more of a problem in the spring and fall of the year.

If you fly something like a Cessna 152 today, just look in the Pilot's Operating Manual for info on carb ice. It is still with us. Yet another reason to go with fuel injection.

[Corsarius]

I was going to be a commercial pilot, before a certain medical condition intervened (damned pancreas!) and I can confirm that at Armidale airport, in NSW, that produces the most frustrated pilots of Australia. Even in the summer, while waiting for clearence, you can ice up your carburettor, suffering a nasty loss of power JUST as you take off. It's a bum, it's a pain, and unless they get a GREAT BIG excavator and lower the airfield by a couple of hundred metres, not likely to change.

Hey, the Heinkel War was MY idea (at least on this forum). Personally, I don't think the BF-110 was much chop, but it was useful. I think it had more development potential than, say, the FW product.

I'd agree with the assessments on Test Pilot Opinions. "Fighter-like handling" can mean a lot of things. The Handley-Page Hampden was reputed to have "fighter-like handling" pre-war. Unfortunately for it, as it turned out. Maybe the 'fighter' they were comparing it to was a mistakenly-identified Battle, or a Defiant? My favourite anecdote, probably of the war, was the test pilot's assessment of the "Okha" guided (manned) missile. He called it (in regards to performance) a "flying coffin". How apt.

I'm not a maths wizard, so I'll leave the calculations to those who can do better. My knowledge is based mostly on books, and even more on the memories of pilots I have met. I have known plenty of commonwealth pilots, a few poms, some americans, two Germans, and a swiss pilot, all from WWII. Their experiences and stories shaped my life, and it is that why I pursue the 'what ifs' as well as amassing a huge file of anecdotes.

For example, my Great-uncle SAW the Red Baron shot down, and claimed on his deathbed it was Australian fire that bought him to his end. He saw the tracer go into the cockpit. He was also in the honour guard during his burial, and the honour guard for the field knighting of Sir John Monash. He had the specially-commisioned medals that were only issued to those who were there to prove it.

And I've gone WAAAY off topic.

Looking at the evolution of tactics in WWII, it seems that 'manoeverability' was not the be-all and end-all it was at the beginning of the war. The Japanese and Italians found this out the hard way. Look how things have evolved in prerequisites for fighters:
WWI: Ability to get off the ground and carry at least one gun (maybe). Effective landing optional.
Late WWI: Sterling turn and climb above all else.
Interwar: Development of above ideas, with the beginnings of speed invovled
WWII: High-manoever aircraft are on their way out, but some have a last hurrah: CR.42, Gladiator, Zero. Later aircraft would treat these with scorn.
Late WWII: High speed and climb, for rapid slashing attacks, and the ability to dive away from the enemy. Beginning of Jet Fighters, which were outmanoevered by their piston opponents, but had 'speed and climb' in abundance.
Korea: Development of 'speed and climb' idea (F-86) over manoeverability (MiG-15... Mig's motto, btw, is 'speed and altitude).
Viet Nam to late 70s: Similar story, aircraft becoming hefty, heavy beasts with large engine power and little turning ability, or rear-view. Examples: F-4, MiG-23, F-104, F-111 (yes, it was developed as a fighter) Some Sukhoi fighter I can't remember the name of.
Early-late 80s to 90s: Development of fighters with requisite high speeds (or in some cases lower speeds than the previous generation) that also combine high manoeverability. Examples: F-15, F-16, F-18, and of course the incredible 'tailslide' of the MiG-29, and the 'cobra' of the Su-27 series.

[simon]

Well, to me I think the key is in Greg's comment: "I think the Fw 187 would have been better than the Bf 110 as a fighter, but still would not have been competitive with a single-seater in maneuverability"

The estimations I'd read for the Fw187 put its range at about 800 miles, but this is purely speculative as I haven't found any hard numbers, but in any case yes, it would have been able to escort the bombers further, but would have found itself outmatched against the Hurricanes and Spitfires, maybe slightly more able to fight its way out of trouble, but hampered by the lack of rearward defence, perhaps this would have balanced things out.

Only three were built as far as I know, and these 1940 era planes were powered by DB600s. Assuming the RLM had authorised mass production after Norway, assuming the design was re-engined which wouldn't have taken much, assuming Focke Wulf got the production line up and running relatively quickly, service Fw187s could conceivably have been in combat by around October 1940. Too late to influence the Battle of Britain.

Sorry Corsarius, should have creditted the Heinkel war comment to you, not stolen all the glory... ;)

In modern aircraft 1970s onwards, Avionics really play an important part. Speed has really dropped off as the pre-requisite, good Radar, avionics and command and communication systems are predominant now, with manouevrability important to out-turn missiles. I think the important thing that came from early experience in Vietnam was the return of cannon armament as a back-up for when missiles have been used or aircraft get really close.

[Romantic Technofreak]

That is what I think I have learned from all aerodynamics here: The FW 187 probably had a less good roll rate than a single-engined fighter because of the mass inertia of its wing-mounted motors. The Do 335 expectedly had a less good pitch behaviour than a single-engined fighter because of its long fuselage. By the way, it also had boosted ailerons like the P-38 (somebody in the German forum mentioned that).
Both were very speedy, we all know. But I started this thread because for me it is not advisable to rely on only one good trait. Contrary to this, the person from the German forum said about the FW 187 "with that speed you don´t need to roll much". The designation of the FW 187 was the one of a long-range escort fighter, not a nightfighter, not a reconnoisater or whatever. In this roll, also given the fact of enough ones produced in summer 1940 and topping the Bf 110 of this time by 110 km/h, it could have outrunned also the Spitfire of this time easily, making air superiority by the Luftwaffe possible.
The fact of having no rearward firing gun, I think, meant nothing. Did it help the Bf 110? On the other hand, did the Mosquito need it?
My literature even says, for a fast bomber, defensive armament is a hamper considering speed. One of the reasons of the Mosquito´s superiority was the renunciation of defensive armament!

Corsarius, of course the statement of the "Heinkel war" is originally yours. Simon´s citing must have overwritten that in my head, sorry[:I].

[simon]

Even at an estimated 650 km/h that's not overwhelmingly faster than contemporary fighters, and that's assuming it could was re-equipped with DB601s, the prototypes were all enginned with DB600s, and again given typical development and testing periods it would not have even reached service units for conversion training much before September 1940. If you allow a realistic period of say 3 months (In my earlier post I gave a very generous minimum of 1 month) conversion training that puts it going into operations in December. If this seems unfair, the time between the Westland Whirlwind reaching units and becoming operational was around 9 months.

Allowing for retooling and redesigning to DB601s could add another month or two easily, so then it's reaching service slightly earlier than Spitfire MkVs.

Would it's speed have been enough? Bf110s were faster than Hurricanes and they were still shot down by them, at least when a Bf110 tried to run for it the rear gunner could fire back with his single MG, a lucky hit might save a crew.

The comparison to a Mosquito is not really that fair, Mosquitoes operated as fighter-bombers and bombers, not escort fighters. Mosquitoes needed to hit fast and run, not tangle with intercepting fighters for prolonged dogfights.

My point is that it would have been about as much of a Battle of Britain winner as the Fw190, neither could have reached the operational units and become operational in time.

Even if the estimates of performance picked for a what-if... fighter from what-if... decisions to re-engine it are accurate, so what? The Fw190A-1 was superior to its British contemporaries but arrived too late to influence the crucial battles, the same would be true of the Fw187.

Don't misunderstand me. I like the aircraft, but I just fail to see the missed opportunity, war-winner that many others see in it.

[Froonp]

Just to say that I found the discussion very interesting, especially with GregP explanations of manoeuvrability.

Cheers,

[Romantic Technofreak]

Surely, Simon, we are free and mature enough to afford dissenting opinions. My data of timely comparable aircraft say the following:

FW 187: 650 km/h (estimated)
Spitfire Mk V: 602 km/h
Bf 109 E: 570 km/h
Bf 110 C: 541 km/h
Hurricane Mk II: 541 km/h

Of course, there are insecurties, as long as the value for the FW 187 is estimated and with the other ones, there might have been height differences. But comparability prerequisited, an advantage of 48 km/h for me IS overwhelming. And the aircraft had its maiden flight in spring 1937, so there was pretty much enough time to get it completely developed and at least two fighter wings equipped with it by summer 1940!

[BuzzLightyear]

Thanks, Greg.

[Corsarius]

Uh, I just re-read my post, and I forgot to put a 'happy face' next to my 'heinkel war' comment. I don't mind if someone else takes the credit, well, not much anyway. It's the nature of the idea that is important.

Here is a few happy faces to make up for it.:D:D:D:D:D

[simon]

Romantic Technofreak, please don't take it personally if I disagree with you, one of the things I enjoy most about this forum is the opportunity to debate in an adult manner with likeminded people. I take this opportunity to disagree with and question almost everyone's opinions, including playing devil's advocate against opinions I may even agree with. (See Corsarius' posts on the "Best Transport" thread for a classic example!).

The reason for this is simple, when debating most people are at there best when their opinions are being questioned, and I have learned a lot on this forum from others simply by challenging them on a point.

If I come across in as arrogant and argumentative, which unfortunately I am aware I have a tendency to do some times, then please accept my apologees.

Back to the Fw187 though, re-reading my sources it seems that the DB600 craft (Prototype V-6) was the one that achieved the startling high speed, however the pre-production A-0 series which in Luftwaffe craft which for Luftwaffe aircraft had the lower performing Junkers Jumos, so it seems fairer to use this as the basis for a "What if..." question. For other contemporary Luftwaffe aircraft first flight to squadron service seems to be a little over 3 years, this compares favourably with other airforces of the time, so a first flight in May 1937 would equate to A-0 and A-1 versions beginning to enter service in June-July 1940, again bear in mind these are the much slower Jumo engined versions.

So, accepting that it's role would be to hang around and try to outfight the RAF fighters which it was less manouevrable than and in production series actually slower than, how would it have faired? I doubt it would have done that favourably. I believe the Fw187 would find itself in only a slightly more favourable position than the Bf110, which it would be complimenting rather than supplanting.

As a fighter bomber and nuisance raider, especially if it reached production as a DB600 or DB601 enginned "B" or "C" series it probably would be excellent, and may have proven formidable in the medittenean where its speed, armament and range would have made it a formidable antishipping aircraft, but I doubt these would have reached service much before summer 1941.

In the long run though by 1943 the Bf110 production lines would probably have to be restarted (Unless the lucky destruction of the Tegofilm plant didn't happen), as the Fw187 would need serious modification to accept radar.

This is just my alternative "What if...?" history of the Fw187, please feel free to pick holes if you wish. ;)

[Romantic Technofreak]

Completely no problem at all, Simon. I just appeal to your fantasy:

1. State-of-the-art of German fighter engines in early 1940 is the DB 601, while the Jumo 211 was only considered as bomber engine (unless after the war when Czechs converted their Avia B.199 out of leftover Bf 109s and this engine). If I would have been asked, I would never have sent an aircraft with Jumo 210 to the front!

2. Given a conversion of production from Bf 110 to FW 187, there should be an amount of engines big enough available to at least equip two fighter or "one-seated destroyer" wings.

3. Of course you need strategic fantasy enough for seeing the need of producing a long-range fighter capable to struggle for air superiority over a distance of at least 500 km away from its bases.
Given that, for me there is no obstacle to build up production lines early enough to bring that fighter into service by at least early 1940. The campaigns on Norway and France were only successfull because of Allied inconsequence. Some more Allied resistance, and the FW 187 would have been required also over northern Norway and central France, some time later it would also have been necessary to escort bombers over the Ural mountains, if it ever were able to make THAT range.

4. What is the problem to equip a FW 187 with DB 601 engines? I am sure the plane flew very well from the beginning. Maybe you have to put a little balance weight in the rear and finished. The Bf 109E and Bf 110C already got it in middle 1939. So, foreseeing enough, FW 187s running from the production lines in late 1939 could have brought into service in early 1940!

[simon]

1. State-of-the-art of German fighter engines in early 1940 is the DB 601, while the Jumo 211 was only considered as bomber engine (unless after the war when Czechs converted their Avia B.199 out of leftover Bf 109s and this engine). If I would have been asked, I would never have sent an aircraft with Jumo 210 to the front!

2. Given a conversion of production from Bf 110 to FW 187, there should be an amount of engines big enough available to at least equip two fighter or "one-seated destroyer" wings.

True, however designers frequently had to make do, especially given that aircraft already in production generally had priority. I would also say that the designers at Focke-Wulf must have disagreed with you over the Jumo 210 otherwise they wouldn’t have built their pre-production aircraft with it, and again within the Luftwaffe the A-0 series with only minor detail changes always formed the basis of the initial production runs as far as I have read. Therefore the combat “A” series would be very closely based on the Jumo enginned A-0. A change of engine is not a minor detail change.

3. Of course you need strategic fantasy enough for seeing the need of producing a long-range fighter capable to struggle for air superiority over a distance of at least 500 km away from its bases.
Given that, for me there is no obstacle to build up production lines early enough to bring that fighter into service by at least early 1940. The campaigns on Norway and France were only successfull because of Allied inconsequence. Some more Allied resistance, and the FW 187 would have been required also over northern Norway and central France, some time later it would also have been necessary to escort bombers over the Ural mountains, if it ever were able to make THAT range.

I disagree with you on this, like I said even in the build up to re-armament in the immediate pre-war period first flight to squadron service took a bit over three years, given that and the fact that there would have been no real impetus to speed up development of new and existing types (Following the defeat of France German aircraft production decreased as everyone expected Britain to sue for peace), so if you take as a reasonable development time based on contemporaries 3 years to start equipping front line units and 2 to 3 months for conversion training for the crews, you get the type starting to appear in combat by somewhere between June and August 1940.

It could be hurried into production, but as no other aircraft in Europe at that time was, there is no reason to expect that an unproven design would be rushed and given priority when production of proven designs was be reduced.

4. What is the problem to equip a FW 187 with DB 601 engines? I am sure the plane flew very well from the beginning. Maybe you have to put a little balance weight in the rear and finished. The Bf 109E and Bf 110C already got it in middle 1939. So, foreseeing enough, FW 187s running from the production lines in late 1939 could have brought into service in early 1940!

And Spitfires could have been in service from 1937, they weren’t though…

Unfortunately it’s not simply a matter of putting in a more powerful engine and letting the new plane fly. The engine mounts may well need modified, stress testing of the airframe to make sure it could cope with the increased strains, wind tunnel testing of the new mounts and cowlings, balance testing, alterations following these tests will need testing themselves to make sure then the wait for the RLM to authorise series production and place an order. Again to enter production that quickly would be pretty much record setting by pre-war standards, so why assume that this would be the case for this aircraft. And that’s all assuming the RLM could be persuaded to divert priority for the DB601 away from the Bf109 and Bf110. Bear in mind that the capability to produce prototypes and pre-production models does not indicate that the production lines were set up and ready waiting for orders, these too would have to be properly established before series production could begin.

I enjoy playing “What-if…?” however one thing I have found is that if you’re going to come up with an alternative history, the best thing is to try and keep things as close to reality as possible, so asking “What if the Fw187A entered production and squadron service?” is a fair one, but there are too many factors to take into account to start questioning the designer’s choice of engine as well, and to add to that accelerating the production and design schedules ahead of other contemporary aircraft…

[Romantic Technofreak]

I would also say that the designers at Focke-Wulf must have disagreed with you over the Jumo 210 otherwise they wouldn’t have built their pre-production aircraft with it,

No, no. I just read an old article again. The Jumo 210 was never ment to be the aircraft´s operational engine. It was only used because Focke-Wulf was not given DB 600´s or DB 601´s, which could have been available from 1935 or 1938 on. Before the success of the FW 190, Kurt Tank and his firm were not very high on the RLM´s prestige list.

and again within the Luftwaffe the A-0 series with only minor detail changes always formed the basis of the initial production runs as far as I have read. Therefore the combat “A” series would be very closely based on the Jumo enginned A-0.

This is only a assumption, or a matter of experience. There is no duty always to act this way.



3. Of course you need strategic fantasy enough for seeing the need of producing a long-range fighter capable to struggle for air superiority over a distance of at least 500 km away from its bases.
Given that, for me there is no obstacle to build up production lines early enough to bring that fighter into service by at least early 1940. The campaigns on Norway and France were only successfull because of Allied inconsequence. Some more Allied resistance, and the FW 187 would have been required also over northern Norway and central France, some time later it would also have been necessary to escort bombers over the Ural mountains, if it ever were able to make THAT range.

---

I disagree with you on this, like I said even in the build up to re-armament in the immediate pre-war period first flight to squadron service took a bit over three years, given that and the fact that there would have been no real impetus to speed up development of new and existing types (Following the defeat of France German aircraft production decreased as everyone expected Britain to sue for peace),

This is exactly the problem, Simon. The axis leaders did not want to see which kind of war they were starting. If they did, and if they wanted to win on any chance, knowing to be horribly outnumbered, one of the things they absolutely had to care for is technological superiority. Starting from this point, a lot of different decisions would have been necessary to make than were made in reality.

And Spitfires could have been in service from 1937, they weren’t though…

This is not a counter argument, this is a support!

so if you take as a reasonable development time based on contemporaries 3 years to start equipping front line units and 2 to 3 months for conversion training for the crews, you get the type starting to appear in combat by somewhere between June and August 1940.

Would have been better than never (seen from the axis position)! The struggle for air superiority over Britain could have been continued until early 1941, and this would have been the right time for an invasion (don´t know what Roosevelt and Stalin would have done if they had to watch German troops approaching London, but this topic is for another forum!).

It could be hurried into production, but as no other aircraft in Europe at that time was, there is no reason to expect that an unproven design would be rushed and given priority when production of proven designs was be reduced.

What do you think Galland and his grumbling comrades might have said when you imagine their fat and arrogant leader not humiliating them, but showing them a new single-seated, two-engined long-range escort fighter? Do you believe Galland still requesting for a squadron of Spitfires to Göring if he knew the FW 187 coming soon?

A change of engine is not a minor detail change.
Unfortunately it’s not simply a matter of putting in a more powerful engine and letting the new plane fly. The engine mounts may well need modified, stress testing of the airframe to make sure it could cope with the increased strains, wind tunnel testing of the new mounts and cowlings, balance testing, alterations following these tests will need testing themselves to make sure then the wait for the RLM to authorise series production and place an order. Again to enter production that quickly would be pretty much record setting by pre-war standards, so why assume that this would be the case for this aircraft. And that’s all assuming the RLM could be persuaded to divert priority for the DB601 away from the Bf109 and Bf110. Bear in mind that the capability to produce prototypes and pre-production models does not indicate that the production lines were set up and ready waiting for orders, these too would have to be properly established before series production could begin.

Sure. I know I was provocatively shortening the problem. But the FW 187 was flying succesfully in summer 1939 with the DB 600, and the weight difference to the DB 601 was only 35 kg (140 kg to the Jumo 210). The German high-performance engines were all interchangable very easily, this was a construction principle. Building up the production lines early enough was a matter of strategical perspective, as I mentioned earlier above.

I enjoy playing “What-if…?” however one thing I have found is that if you’re going to come up with an alternative history, the best thing is to try and keep things as close to reality as possible, so asking “What if the Fw187A entered production and squadron service?” is a fair one, but there are too many factors to take into account to start questioning the designer’s choice of engine as well, and to add to that accelerating the production and design schedules ahead of other contemporary aircraft…

Playing "what if" is always walking on thin ice. The one player is more cautious, the other one more courageos. But it is the best if you have a competitive partner in this game at all!

[simon]

OK, I'll concede this one and accept that contrary to my previous opinions DB601 equipped Fw187s could have been produced in sufficient numbers to equip a couple of Zerstorer Geschwader by summer 1940, and been flying in combat during the Battle of Britain.

The comments about the Spitfires was merely trying to illustrate that to a pre-war government the amount of time that elapsed between prototype acceptance and aircraft reaching service was quite lengthy as no-one wanted to gamble bankrupting their nation and jeopardising future development by having the best equipped peacetime airforce that never fought!

I still do not belive that the FW187 would have proved decisive in itself, the struggle for Malta showed how even inferior fighters could cause severe casualties among bombers escorted by apparently better fighters, however I do believe that you're correct in that the Fw187 would certainly have given Fighter Command a harder time, and certainly proved a more difficult foe than the Bf110.

As for the struggle over Britain continuing until 1941 I think that too is debatable, but perhaps belongs on a different thread...

I have to admit I've enjoyed this debate, and I have learned a l;ot about the Fw187. :)

[Romantic Technofreak]

Really fine, Simon. Let´s do some more![^]