Do you think that the Fw 187, had it been cleared for production, could have been developed into a fighter which
was on par with the De Havilland DH 103 Hornet boasting with similar performance and capabilities?
The proposed dive bomber variant had a different fuselage again as well as the BMW engines, so we are looking at three different fuselage configurations for different roles. The Fw factory drawings all show different fuselage and engine combinations that are distinct from one another. It simply was not a multi-role aircraft in its initial form. It could have been a single-seat twin-engined day fighter, OR a two-seat day fighter bomber with no photo-reconnaissance capability, OR a two-seat twin-engined dive bomber, BUT NOT a Zerstorer, or a night fighter, nor all of those things in the one airframe that so many enthusiasts claim it could be.
Very practical though since it would reduce weight, complexity and probably some maintenance requirements. The only downsides I can see would be that it must have made the pilot's scan pattern awkward and removed his ability to contol their ambient lighting for visibility.Later nightfighter variants of the Me 110, such as the G, still had some engine dials on the inner engine cowlings, this feature seems to have endured throughout the entire 110 production, although with some differences in grouping. I always thought this an odd feature for the 110.
A good number of german aircraft put the instruments on the engine cowling. Hs-129, some versions of the Ju-88, and I want to say early 111s or Dorniers too.
A good number of german aircraft put the instruments on the engine cowling. Hs-129, some versions of the Ju-88, and I want to say early 111s or Dorniers too.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do if you can avoid it. At least those other aircraft weren't single-seat night fighters. The Bf 110 and Ju 88 etc had the benefit of other crewmembers. As for the Hornet Spicmart, like I said, the Fw 187 early production model was over 100 mph slower than the Hornet at a time when 20 to 30 mph is considered a big performance margin. That's a lot of drag reduction that needs to be done to get it to anywhere near the Hornet's performance, and you're talking about adding more for it to do?
The Fw 187 couldn't even match the performance of its closer rivals of the time; the Gloster F.9/37 fitted with 1,000hp Taurus T-S(a) radials achieved 360mph at 15,000ft, weights were similar; the Grumman XF5F and XP-50 with 1,200hp Cyclones managed 380mph at sea level and had a very impressive 4,000ft/min rate of climb; the Westland Whirlwind was another very similar aircraft and much closer in terms of engine power with the 885hp Peregrine and also managed 360mph at 15,000ft but it did climb slower. The Lockheed P-38 was in an entirely different level of performance.
The later twin-engined fighters developed during the war were impressive performers, matching big high-power engines with refined aerodynamics. The Hornet's empty weight was the same as a loaded Fw 187A-0, it had a smooth skin from the wooden monocoque, Redux-bonded Alclad lower-wing surfaces, laminar-flow wings, slim engine nacelles, handed propellers, leading-edge ducted radiators and over 4,000hp from its Merlin 130/131 engines. Nothing was going to match that kind of pinnacle of aerodynamic and engine technology before 1945.
The closest Focke Wulf came was the Ta 154, getting about 400mph at 23,000ft out of two Jumo 213Es and 3,000ft/min climb out of the production A-1 nightfighter, roughly matching what the Mosquito was capable of and both sharing a comparable method of construction. The Ta 154V-1 with Jumo 211N engines did reach 440mph but was a prototype and not a production aircraft or fully equipped.
With the exception of the P-38 with its superior aerodynamics and engine power, none of these late 1930s single-seat twin-engined fighters actually progressed very far nor were they missed, arguably the P-38 had to find its niche too having been designed as an interceptor and then expected to be an escort fighter before finding its forte in ground attack. They were designed as high-altitude bomber-interceptors, a role that soon passed. Even the Hornet found itself mud-moving rather than tussling with single-seat fighters in its brief career. I'm not sure that the concept was missed by any of the combatants, single-engined fighters were superior and cheaper to build and the two/three-seat multi-role twin-engined type was far more versatile to spend wartime resources on.
The Fw 187 could barely fit the pilot, let alone a second crewman, so Focke Wulf was probably best in going back to the drawing board and its not clear that Luftwaffe doctrine had any more place for a single-seat twin-engined fighter than the RAF or USAAC did at the time.
The Fw 187 was really a relic of a bygone era even by the late 1930s. Design work on it commenced in February 1935, at a point when the only engine available for fighters was the rather weedy Jumo 10 (later known as the 210). At that point, literally every fighter design was intended to feature the Jumo - the Ar 80, Fw 57, Fw 159, He 112, Hs 124, Bf 109 and Bf 110. The Fw 187 wasn't classified or referred to as a Zerstoerer until much later - it was originally a 'Leichter Jagdeinsitzer' in the same category as the Bf 109 and He 112, as Hood points out.
It's telling that when other designs started being specified with the DB 601 (first mention in RLM development charts is Oct 1, 1936; the first two designs to be specified with it being the Fw 259 and Bf 109) the Fw 187 kept the 210. The 601 was a larger engine in every dimension and given the 187's compact dimensions Focke-Wulf would presumably have had to completely redesign the aircraft to accommodate them.
I think perhaps the Fw 187's 'modern' looks give people the wrong idea about it.
In fact, when the aircraft got its second revival in 1942 (Erhard Milch found a brochure for it lying around in his office and asked Focke-Wulf to investigate whether the design could be modernised - that's literally how Milch himself describes what happened) it did have to be redesigned in order to suit either the DB 605 or DB 628.
Even after the Fw 187 had been rejected for the third time and even when the Ta 211 (Ta 154) was in development, Focke-Wulf continued to design twin-engine low-wing single-seat fighters. There's a couple of drawings for one powered by two BMW 801 As, dated May 1943, kicking around somewhere.
The Fw 187 was really a relic of a bygone era even by the late 1930s. Design work on it commenced in February 1935, at a point when the only engine available for fighters was the rather weedy Jumo 10 (later known as the 210). At that point, literally every fighter design was intended to feature the Jumo - the Ar 80, Fw 57, Fw 159, He 112, Hs 124, Bf 109 and Bf 110. The Fw 187 wasn't classified or referred to as a Zerstoerer until much later - it was originally a 'Leichter Jagdeinsitzer' in the same category as the Bf 109 and He 112, as Hood points out.
It's telling that when other designs started being specified with the DB 601 (first mention in RLM development charts is Oct 1, 1936; the first two designs to be specified with it being the Fw 259 and Bf 109) the Fw 187 kept the 210. The 601 was a larger engine in every dimension and given the 187's compact dimensions Focke-Wulf would presumably have had to completely redesign the aircraft to accommodate them.
I think perhaps the Fw 187's 'modern' looks give people the wrong idea about it.
In fact, when the aircraft got its second revival in 1942 (Erhard Milch found a brochure for it lying around in his office and asked Focke-Wulf to investigate whether the design could be modernised - that's literally how Milch himself describes what happened) it did have to be redesigned in order to suit either the DB 605 or DB 628.
Even after the Fw 187 had been rejected for the third time and even when the Ta 211 (Ta 154) was in development, Focke-Wulf continued to design twin-engine low-wing single-seat fighters. There's a couple of drawings for one powered by two BMW 801 As, dated May 1943, kicking around somewhere.
Why should complete redesign needed? People always appear to assume that excuse and discard the viability of succesful modification. Other planes of that era, just take the Spitfire and Bf 109, were upgraded, not redesigned but their basic designs stayed until the end of the war
The Fw 187 was really a relic of a bygone era even by the late 1930s. Design work on it commenced in February 1935, at a point when the only engine available for fighters was the rather weedy Jumo 10 (later known as the 210). At that point, literally every fighter design was intended to feature the Jumo - the Ar 80, Fw 57, Fw 159, He 112, Hs 124, Bf 109 and Bf 110. The Fw 187 wasn't classified or referred to as a Zerstoerer until much later - it was originally a 'Leichter Jagdeinsitzer' in the same category as the Bf 109 and He 112, as Hood points out.
It's telling that when other designs started being specified with the DB 601 (first mention in RLM development charts is Oct 1, 1936; the first two designs to be specified with it being the Fw 259 and Bf 109) the Fw 187 kept the 210. The 601 was a larger engine in every dimension and given the 187's compact dimensions Focke-Wulf would presumably have had to completely redesign the aircraft to accommodate them.
I think perhaps the Fw 187's 'modern' looks give people the wrong idea about it.
In fact, when the aircraft got its second revival in 1942 (Erhard Milch found a brochure for it lying around in his office and asked Focke-Wulf to investigate whether the design could be modernised - that's literally how Milch himself describes what happened) it did have to be redesigned in order to suit either the DB 605 or DB 628.
Even after the Fw 187 had been rejected for the third time and even when the Ta 211 (Ta 154) was in development, Focke-Wulf continued to design twin-engine low-wing single-seat fighters. There's a couple of drawings for one powered by two BMW 801 As, dated May 1943, kicking around somewhere.
Why should complete redesign needed? People always appear to assume that excuse and discard the viability of succesful modification. Other planes of that era, just take the Spitfire and Bf 109, were upgraded, not redesigned but their basic designs stayed until the end of the war
I seem to recall this same discussion playing out with regard to 'why didn't they fit the Whirlwind with Merlins'. The DB 601 was not only physically larger than the 210 but also 30% heavier and with a displacement of 33.9 litres compared to 19.7 litres. It wasn't as simple as unbolting the 210s and shoehorning a couple of 601s in. If that had been that easy, Focke-Wulf would have done it, at least experimentally, rather than see the 187 (and with it a substantial investment from the company) thrown away.
I'm pretty sure Focke Wulf outlined it with up-engining in mind, like most aircraft design company probably. The Bf 109 started with a Jumo 210 as well and went to DB 605 in the end. Focke Wulf had a drawing of a Fw 187 with two BMW 801s, an engine which was heavier even than the Jumo 213 and DB 605.
A good number of german aircraft put the instruments on the engine cowling. Hs-129, some versions of the Ju-88, and I want to say early 111s or Dorniers too.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do if you can avoid it. At least those other aircraft weren't single-seat night fighters. The Bf 110 and Ju 88 etc had the benefit of other crewmembers. As for the Hornet Spicmart, like I said, the Fw 187 early production model was over 100 mph slower than the Hornet at a time when 20 to 30 mph is considered a big performance margin. That's a lot of drag reduction that needs to be done to get it to anywhere near the Hornet's performance, and you're talking about adding more for it to do?
That smooth rivetless skin and laminar flow wing just about accounts of the largest causes of drag. The Fw 187 looks fairly narrow and clean in photographs but the devil is in the details that only wind tunnel test data can give us.Apart from its smooth skin and laminar flow wing I don't see why the Fw-187 should take much less load than the Hornet given that equipment weight and dimensions were similar.
If anything the Ta 154 was a much better candidate for a laminar-flow wing.Focke Wulf planned a Ta 152 with laminar flow wing which due to the course of the war never materialzed. Why should that not be possible for the 187?
The Ta 154A-1 only achieved 650km/h (400mph) with two Jumo 213Es. Still lagging some 115km/h behind the Hornet.The Hornet might be a bit faster than such an Fw 187 but not by much.
An Fw 190D equipped with Jumo 213EB (let alone a Jumo 213J) was capable 787 km/h. Install two of them into a Fw 187.
I'm pretty sure Focke Wulf outlined it with up-engining in mind, like most aircraft design company probably. The Bf 109 started with a Jumo 210 as well and went to DB 605 in the end. Focke Wulf had a drawing of a Fw 187 with two BMW 801s, an engine which was heavier even than the Jumo 213 and DB 605.
Looking through Hermann and Petrick, it appears as though Focke-Wulf went to huge amounts of effort to re-engine the Fw 187 with the 601 following its first revival but couldn't manage it. The drawings showing the two BMW 801s are the completely redesigned 187 I mentioned earlier.
I have the book of Hermann/Petrick as well. The Fw 187 was to be equipped with the DB 605. "Although this C-version was projected 4 years after the A-series, the differences were small" p.114 of the German edition. The Me 109E sported a DB 601, so why would this not have been possible in case of the Fw 187 ("despite huge amounts of efforts"-hyperbole?)? The basic airframe stayed the same as quoted, it might have been improved and strengthened, like in other planes' evolution. It was an up-engining effort, not a complete redesign.
How much would the second crewmember plus accomodation weigh?Re-reading the relevant part of Rudiger Kosin's The German Fighter since 1915 (Putnam, 1988), its clear how much of an orphan it was from birth.
The 1934 technical requirements called for a single-engined fighter and a multi-seat Zerstoerer. Having failed with the Fw 159 previously, Kurt Tank went his own way with a twin-engine fighter and in November 1935 succeeded in gaining a development contract from the RLM despite the lack of any official requirements that matched the design. By the time it flew (late) it was, as pointed out earlier by me and newsdeskdan, a Leichter Jagdeinsitzer which put it up against the Bf 109 and He 112.
The V2 only had two 7.92mm MG 17, already the Bf 109 had three MG 17 and the option of one 20mm MG FF cannon. The Fw 187 despite having two engines was only 35km/h (21mph) faster (496km/h compared to 460km/h at 4,000m). Focke Wulf should have emphasised the additional range but seemingly never pressed its advantage. The RLM rejected it and the whole concept of a twin-engine Leichter Jagdeinsitzer. Instead they wanted a second crewman, two MG FF and two MG 17. Weight increased by a third and speed and range fell.
Kosin quotes from some LC II quarterly reports; (3 Sept 1938) "Fw 187 two-seat fighter with heavy armament and small range. Zero-series under construction, active service not currently planned... Project preparation includes the light combat aircraft as heavy dive-bomber and heavy fighter." Kosin notes that the light combat aircraft classification then included aircraft of the size and weight of the Ju 88A.
It seems like Focke Wulf was given Fw 187 contracts without any real intention of building any series fighters in its original single-seat form, it could be speculated they wanted to keep the company busy until other production programmes (Fw 190 would begin in 1938) bore fruit. The RLM even took the 8-187 designation away and re-assigned it to Junkers for the Stuka developments (Ju 187) - that shows the level of interest the RLM had in it by 1938-39.
That smooth rivetless skin and laminar flow wing just about accounts of the largest causes of drag. The Fw 187 looks fairly narrow and clean in photographs but the devil is in the details that only wind tunnel test data can give us.Apart from its smooth skin and laminar flow wing I don't see why the Fw-187 should take much less load than the Hornet given that equipment weight and dimensions were similar.
The Hornet weighed around 15,800lb gross weight, the Fw 187A-0 11,023lb, which is 269lb less than the Hornet weighed empty despite being largely made of plywood. So the Fw 187 would need serious structural beefing up to add 4-5,000lb of gross weight for equipment, larger engines and fuel.
Why the Ta 154?If anything the Ta 154 was a much better candidate for a laminar-flow wing.Focke Wulf planned a Ta 152 with laminar flow wing which due to the course of the war never materialzed. Why should that not be possible for the 187?
The Ta 154A-1 only achieved 650km/h (400mph) with two Jumo 213Es. Still lagging some 115km/h behind the Hornet.The Hornet might be a bit faster than such an Fw 187 but not by much.
An Fw 190D equipped with Jumo 213EB (let alone a Jumo 213J) was capable 787 km/h. Install two of them into a Fw 187.
In fairness the weight of the guns and drag of the Matratze antennas for the FuG 212 C-1 Lichtenstein did reduce speed by about 25km/h, so a cleaned-up radar-less two-seat Ta 154 weighing about 19,600lb should be capable of 675-685km/h. Even the He 219 with DB603s did not exceed 670km/h at this altitude.
I think what you are really advocating is a Fw 187/Ta 154 hybrid, an all-metal single-seat Ta 154 with a laminar-flow wing and Jumo 213 engines. That would be nothing structurally or conceptionally similar to either the Fw 187 or the Ta 154.
Would the result be good as an interceptor or Zerstoerer engaging US bomber streams?
I think I would prefer the Me 262 for superior performance by the latter stages of the war. Even then it proved not quite agile enough to match the P-51 and Tempest in turning combat, a twin-Otto fighter would probably not fare any better either. The Hornet might have fared better against single-engine fighters, but the key to its success would probably be the abundance of power to claw its way through the air, the German DB603 and Jumo 213 falling just short of that 2,000+hp bracket (even before we get into high-octane fuel issues etc.).
I have the book of Hermann/Petrick as well. The Fw 187 was to be equipped with the DB 605. "Although this C-version was projected 4 years after the A-series, the differences were small" p.114 of the German edition. The Me 109E sported a DB 601, so why would this not have been possible in case of the Fw 187 ("despite huge amounts of efforts"-hyperbole?)? The basic airframe stayed the same as quoted, it might have been improved and strengthened, like in other planes' evolution. It was an up-engining effort, not a complete redesign.
So why didn't Focke-Wulf succeed in re-engining the Fw 187 with a DB 601, since a successful installation would have cured the aircraft's shortcomings?
Sorry, I sense bias. Do you think that the Germans couldn't install a DB 601 (pardon me, a lowly but important engine in the evolutionary rank of German propulsion up to 1945). When they had to enlarge the engine nacelles they would install an annular radiator which is drag-efficient.
The 187 was originally designed for(and eventually flew with) DB600s. A single seat, 1400hp DB 601 powered Fw187 would have been a 400+mph fighter.
Additionally I don't know what the point of comparing the 187 to the much later and higher horsepower hornet is. Figure out the drag count of the 187 and the like if you want to evaluate its relative aerodynamic merits.
Wait, there was a proposed dive-bomber variant?
Hermann and Petrick seem to have got confused. There was no dive-bomber variant.
So why didn't Focke-Wulf succeed in re-engining the Fw 187 with a DB 601, since a successful installation would have cured the aircraft's shortcomings?
If you have primary source evidence of Focke-Wulf giving consideration to different engines for the Fw 187 before 1939, I would be glad to see and discuss it.
There wasn't one built, but two were proposed, a single-seater and a two-seater. There's a factory drawing of the two-seater powered by BMW 801s dated 28 September 1940. It looks like it has a completely different wing, fuselage and engines compared to the existing aircraft. It would have been a completely different aeroplane to what was actually built.
Hermann and Petrick were not correct in linking those designs to the Fw 187.
Why do you compare a Fw 187A-0 which was produced in summer of 1939 with DH F.1 Hornet which entered production end of 1944?!?
Not a fair comparison.
Hermann and Petrick were not correct in linking those designs to the Fw 187.
Possibly, but regardless of whether the specs mention the aircraft doesn't mean that Fw didn't produce a design for them. The drawing on p.99 doesn't name the aircraft as an Fw 187, but its lineage is obvious. Granted it has a different fuselage, wing, engines etc, its vertical tail is the same shape etc as the Fw 187, so it's easy to draw that conclusion. The Fw 187 was likely used as a basis for the design.
Additionally I don't know what the point of comparing the 187 to the much later and higher horsepower hornet is. Figure out the drag count of the 187 and the like if you want to evaluate its relative aerodynamic merits.
The comparison was not made by me, but spicmart, who simply asked if the Fw 187 could be made into a Hornet-like fighter. My answer is it's possible, but much work has to be done to achieve near the performance of the Hornet. A lot of drag reduction from its basic design.
And what are you basing "a lot of drag reduction" on. Have you calculated the flat plate area? The wetted area? The drag count? Because if not you shouldn't be making assumptions like that.
I disagree. The Petrick and Hermann book has the chapter heading 'The Fw 187 as a Twin-Engined Dive Bomber' and states: "Focke-Wulf subsequently tried to modify the Fw 187 for the dive bombing role."
This is simply not true. The Baubeschreibung Nr. 233 and Nr. 235 designs represent new aircraft - they are not modifications of the existing Fw 187.
I have a fair degree of familiarity with Focke-Wulf project descriptions - see my collected list of there https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/focke-wulf-flugzeugbau-gmbh.9751/
If a new project used components from an existing type, Focke-Wulf pointed that out. Any cost savings that could be made by reusing existing components might influence any decision made on the project by the RLM. There is, as I said, no mention of this in the Nr. 233 and Nr. 235 documents.
I don't see how it can easily be concluded that a design is a modification of an existing type based solely on the shape of its fin - when the fuselage, wings and engines are all new.
And what are you basing "a lot of drag reduction" on. Have you calculated the flat plate area? The wetted area? The drag count? Because if not you shouldn't be making assumptions like that.
Do I need to? Compare the speeds of the Fw 187 with that of the Hornet and it is plainly clear that the former requires drag reduction to achieve anywhere near the performance of the Hornet. You don't need to be an aerodynamicist to figure that out.
I have questions for you, if you were wanting to increase the Fw 187's given speeds by 100 mph, how would you do it? Would you simply put more powerful engines on it, given what was available to the Germans at the time, or would you investigate drag reduction measures as well, given that it needs to go into a wind tunnel to assess the result of new cowls, cooling modifications etc?
So yes, I'd say you need to do some basic math before making claims like that.
And this is because you cannot simply eyeball this stuff, and you certainly need to have a very solid understanding of aerodynamics before you claim one airframe is draggy than other based off photos.