Focke-Wulf Stuka

[Tophe]

Dear Wurger suggested that I present also these ones, Focke-Wulf Stukas

has never been discussed here according to the Search tool. I discovered it in Herbert Léonard’s book (of 1997, out of print alas now), discussed in the EF82 topic:

I am the happy owner of a copy of the book "Stukas!"* by Herbert Léonard, Heimdal publ. 1997... and I don't find inside the Ju EF82, even in the many unbuilt projects that are presented, and even in the "false Stukas" chapter of airplanes having dive bombing as secondary mission, despite their big weight and big wing loading. I may ask Herbert Léonard if the EF82 was still unknown in 1997 or if it was rejected for some good reason, that may be interesting for all of us.
* : http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/521885/Leonard-Herbert-Les-Stukas-Livre.html (8 times cheaper than on another site...) out of print it seems, but wonderful!

There are 20 unbuilt projects in the index, apart of the built ones

I am going to translate/summarize the text with it in this book.

 

[Tophe]

I am going to translate/summarize the text with it in this book.

- Focke-Wulf project Stuka. Studied in 1940, two-seater, no code in the archives, maybe involved in the same program that gave birth to the similar Me 210. The port turret is more forward than the starboard one, probably for room availability reason. (picture above)
- Focke-Wulf P.82114. No date, dive bomber with parasol wing and DB 600 engine of 950hp. (no picture)
- Focke-Wulf (no code). Another project for level-bombing, recon, dive-bombing, with two engines DB 603C of 2,000hp. 2 guns or machine-guns in the nose and in the tail. (no picture)

 

[Maveric]

I am going to translate/summarize the text with it in this book.

- Focke-Wulf project Stuka. Studied in 1940, two-seater, no code in the archives, maybe involved in the same program that gave birth to the similar Me 210. The port turret is more forward than the starboard one, probably for room availability reason. (picture above)
- Focke-Wulf P.82114. No date, dive bomber with parasol wing and DB 600 engine of 950hp. (no picture)
- Focke-Wulf (no code). Another project for level-bombing, recon, dive-bombing, with two engines DB 603C of 2,000hp. 2 guns or machine-guns in the nose and in the tail. (no picture)

Hi Tophe,


the Focke-Wulf FWP.82114 (Source: Die deutsche Lüftrüstung", Nowarra)

 

[Jemiba]

The tiwn-engined type is a derivative of the Fw 187, see here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5355.msg42625.html#msg42625

 

[toura]

Hi all
I suppose the F.W.159 younger than the P.82114 ?

 

[Jemiba]

Hi all
I suppose the F.W.159 younger than the P.82114 ?

Indeed, the Fw 159 designed during 1934 and first flown in 1935, whereas the
P.82114 designed for the Stuka competition in 1936.

 

[Flitzer]

Hi
On the Fw Stuka at top of thread....would the wings have been the same as the 187?
If so I think we could do a profile from the side view.


P

 

[Justo Miranda]

Please see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5355.msg42625.html#msg42625

 

[Tophe]

On the Fw Stuka at top of thread....would the wings have been the same as the 187?

No word about it in Herbert Léonard's text, sorry.

 

[Flitzer]

I thought I'd make a start.
Using the side view I've done a top view. Front view forthcoming.


Am I on the right track?
Comments and advice please.


Many thanks
P

 

[Wurger]

Peter,

You`ve done it again ;D !

Great, as always!!

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks...
A little more progress.
There are issues with the tail on top view, which I have to fix.


And if anyone spots something else wrong, I'm all ears and eyes.


Any feelings as to which way the second crew member should face? Both crew to face forward or should the Navigator face to rear?


Many thanks
P

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Justo Miranda]

Rear

 

[Tophe]

Wouldn't the rear part of the cockpit be glazed, different from H.Leonard's source?

 

[Flitzer]

Great.
Many thanks....corrections to be done soon.
P

 

[Justo Miranda]

Wouldn't the rear part of the cockpit be glazed, different from H.Leonard's source?

source

 

[Tophe]

Even if the wings may be the same as a Fw-187, that does not prove the fuselage is the same, yes?

 

[Flitzer]

This is getting very interesting, but I am a little confused. (Well it is me... )


My attempt at the front view at least is not the most accurate maybe but now I'm not sure which way I should try and adjust.
I, as feeble as it turned out, used the Kampfzerstorer variant as the base for the top view adjusting it via the original Stuka side view and then tried to do the front view from the two of them.


I've done a diagram that may show my dilema better than my waffle.


P

 

[Justo Miranda]

My opinion

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks Justo.
As always your opinion is always worth its weight in gold.


So basically I should base the Stuka more on the Kampfzerstorer and adjust the original side view to suit?
I always thought the side view was quite a departure from the recognisable 187 variants.


Itching to get going on this one.
P

 

[Wurger]

Hi guys,

my historian education would respect the original drawing to the limit, not "reinventing" based on other projects. The stuka is not the "kampfzerstörer"! Bare in mind that the original drawing isn`t the one from Herbert Leonard`s book. What do you think?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Why not?
They are very similar projects ... :-\

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi Flitzer some paneling on wings & tailplane useful info

 

[Flitzer]

Excellent Justo...many thanks.


Well here goes....
Another attempt to match the original side view to an acceptable front and top view....fingers crossed.
Final paneling etc as per Justo's reference to be applied of course.


P

 

[Flitzer]

Latest adjustments.
Comments and advice as always welcomed with open arms.
I realise there are a few more adjustments to make.


I've just had another thought...I ask if the underside cockpit floor window would still be included do you think?


Many thanks
P

 

[Jemiba]

The view for te rear gunner seems to be not very good.The lateral guns probably would have been aimed
in the same ways, as those of the Me 210/410, with a movable sight from the rear seat, but here view would
have been severly obstructed, I think. So, either the rear part of the canopy should be transparent, too, or
there should be bulged windows, as in the Me 210/410:
(photo from Waffenarsenal "Rohrwaffen in Flugzeugen der Luftwaffe bis 1945")

 

[Justo Miranda]

I agree

 

[Justo Miranda]

Latest adjustments.
Comments and advice as always welcomed with open arms.
I realise there are a few more adjustments to make.


I've just had another thought...I ask if the underside cockpit floor window would still be included do you think?


Many thanks
P

I agree

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks Justo.
Brilliant help again.
P

 

[Flitzer]

Another progress update.
I think its pretty close this time, mainly thanks to Justo.


P

 

[Tophe]

Is the glazed rear part of the canopy matching the very source? Maybe.

 

[Jemiba]

Is the glazed rear part of the canopy matching the very source? Maybe.

It certainly doesn't match the drawing in Herbert Léonards book, but quite well that posted by Justo
(#12), probably an original. Would have to be a blown perspex part without further framing apart from
the edges. And in a line drawing, that's hard to determine. Do you remember, what the first reconstructions
of the Iguanodon looked like ?
(from http://www.fossilien.de/artikel/modelle/historische-modelle/iguanodon1850.htm)

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hey look at this!

 

[Justo Miranda]

Please see triple gun barbette...

 

[Jemiba]

Justo's right, the drawing for the "Baubeschreibung Nr.235" mentions two MG 151 and
four MG 81 as flexible weapons. Seems to be an early development of a remote controlled
turret, as the idea of the mixed calibre turret obviously was abandoned later, maybe due to
issues with the different ballistic characterstics.

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks.
I'll fix the barbettes. It sort of makes sense why they are staggered. If each barbette has so many guns, they must be too tight for room on the inside of the fuselage for side by side symmetrical mounting.


As far as the rear cockpit glazing goes, it's not a problem to do either way. And as I do not have the historical wisdom I'm happy to go with the flow.
I understand that the rear of the cockpit on the original drawing is not glazed but.....


Many thanks...
P

 

[Justo Miranda]

Is the glazed rear part of the canopy matching the very source? Maybe.

It certainly doesn't match the drawing in Herbert Léonards book, but quite well that posted by Justo
(#12), probably an original. Would have to be a blown perspex part without further framing apart from
the edges. And in a line drawing, that's hard to determine. Do you remember, what the first reconstructions
of the Iguanodon looked like ?
(from http://www.fossilien.de/artikel/modelle/historische-modelle/iguanodon1850.htm)

Some evolution samples...

 

[Flitzer]

Thank you Justo.


Hope this is getting closer...a bit more progress...


P

 

[Stargazer]

Getting really, really good now !