WI: The Fw 187 gets proper engines

Deleted member 1487

Not in the term of performance, but in term of availability. Let's recall that Ta 154 was to be powered by Jumo 211 engines at 1st, and those were not at substantial disadvantage vs. DB 601/605 under 5-6 km. The HS 21Y will provide power between Jumo 210 and DB 601 (340-350 mph?), while being light weight, and can help bridge the problems of available DB engines in 1939-40.
The Ta-154 was to be powered by a souped up late model Jumo 211R that never got the kinks worked out, which is why they gave it the 213.

The low level power isn't really that great for sprints though for the Jumo, while the Hs is just under powered for an aircraft like the Fw187. There won't be a shortage of DB601s in 1939-40, because there will be fewer Fw187s than Bf110s due to entering production later than the Bf110 did.
 
Methinks that Fw 187 needs more than one production surce, if LW is to take full advantge of the aircraft's potential - even the Bf 110 was produced in 5-6 different factories, one being the Focke Wulf with 354 produced. Aim for 2000 pcs, in 1939-40; the Bf 109E was produced in more than 3500 pcs for example.
 

Deleted member 1487

Methinks that Fw 187 needs more than one production surce, if LW is to take full advantge of the aircraft's potential - even the Bf 110 was produced in 5-6 different factories, one being the Focke Wulf with 354 produced. Aim for 2000 pcs, in 1939-40; the Bf 109E was produced in more than 3500 pcs for example.
Sure the Bf110 was made by more than just Messerschmitt.
 
I think that would be the DB601N. The estimates I've seen are somewhere around 380mph top speed, perhaps give or take 10mph. Range clean for the fighter version would have been around 1000 miles. Loiter depends on any number of factors, but its range was nearly 3x that of the Me109 or Spitfire and a bit less than double that of the Bf110. With a drop tank it would easily get up to 1500 miles despite the increased drag depending on the size of the tank.

Sorry to resurrect a sleeping thread here. When reading about these different engine types a fuel octane confusion intermingles. Would these suggested values be dependent on 100 octane fuel or work with 87 octane?
 

Deleted member 1487

Sorry to resurrect a sleeping thread here. When reading about these different engine types a fuel octane confusion intermingles. Would these suggested values be dependent on 100 octane fuel or work with 87 octane?
IIRC it was the 87 octane with normal DB601A engines.

The numbers I mentioned were not for the 601N, which used the 100 octane or whatever the German equivalent in 1940 was. The issue is that the 601N didn't achieve the predicted power, so it wasn't really live up to what the DB605 ended up doing with standard 87 octane fuel (B4 fuel in German coding). Later the DB605 with C3 high performance fuel could do 1800hp and even later versions 2000.
 
IIRC it was the 87 octane with normal DB601A engines.

The numbers I mentioned were not for the 601N, which used the 100 octane or whatever the German equivalent in 1940 was. The issue is that the 601N didn't achieve the predicted power, so it wasn't really live up to what the DB605 ended up doing with standard 87 octane fuel (B4 fuel in German coding). Later the DB605 with C3 high performance fuel could do 1800hp and even later versions 2000.

Thank you. If you imagine what COULD be done then with 1940's tech we are talking about some 400-420 mph and what 1200/1800 miles range if equipped with 601N engines and the newly introduced C3 fuel.

I know this would not be high volume use, but if I understand correctly then (beyond its BOB use) it could provide access to targets such as Scapa Flow and fighter cover beyond Iceland and the Faroese gap from Norway?
 
I would not be so sure that 'Daimlerized' Falke would've been close to 420 mph mark on 1940's best German engine and 100 oct fuel. The DB 601N was doing 1175 PS at 4900 m (1160 HP at 16000 ft) with C3 fuel. Lets allow for ram effect, that means rated altitude is, say, 3000 ft higher on max speed = 19000 ft. Add 10% of exhaust thrust, so we're at ~1275 HP. The P-38G, when using 1225 HP at 22600 ft, with 2 guns removed and just 60% of the fuel was doing 404 mph.
But then, a 370-380 mph Falke with DB 601A would've represented quite an asset during the BoB. The 601A was allowed for over-revving some time in late 1940, so we'd see probably the 390 mph Falke. And then 400 mph in late 1940/early 1941, if Germany has 601N engines and C3 fuel to spare?
 

Deleted member 1487

I would not be so sure that 'Daimlerized' Falke would've been close to 420 mph mark on 1940's best German engine and 100 oct fuel. The DB 601N was doing 1175 PS at 4900 m (1160 HP at 16000 ft) with C3 fuel. Lets allow for ram effect, that means rated altitude is, say, 3000 ft higher on max speed = 19000 ft. Add 10% of exhaust thrust, so we're at ~1275 HP. The P-38G, when using 1225 HP at 22600 ft, with 2 guns removed and just 60% of the fuel was doing 404 mph.
But then, a 370-380 mph Falke with DB 601A would've represented quite an asset during the BoB. The 601A was allowed for over-revving some time in late 1940, so we'd see probably the 390 mph Falke. And then 400 mph in late 1940/early 1941, if Germany has 601N engines and C3 fuel to spare?
Wasn't the P-38G heavier and with more drag due to longer wings and being longer?
 
The P-39G in this comparison (from here, pdf) is at 13900 lbs, rather light since is has 2 Brownings and their ammo removed, plus it has just 180 gals of fuel on board. The historical Falke was at 10800 lbs, per German Wikipedia. No protection? Add the DB engines, heavier cooling systems, heavier prop, necesarry strengthening, protection - 2500 lbs+?
The wing area (and profile, and thickness of course) is determing the drag, rather than span. Longer wings of same area ('high aspect') will make less drag at high altitudes, so P-38 is not in disadvantage here. I'm not sure that length of the aircraft puts it in disadvantage. Plus, the P-38G from above makes it's high speed at 3000-4000 higher altitude, where it has the advantage of thinner air.
 

Deleted member 1487

The P-39G in this comparison (from here, pdf) is at 13900 lbs, rather light since is has 2 Brownings and their ammo removed, plus it has just 180 gals of fuel on board. The historical Falke was at 10800 lbs, per German Wikipedia. No protection? Add the DB engines, heavier cooling systems, heavier prop, necesarry strengthening, protection - 2500 lbs+?
The wing area (and profile, and thickness of course) is determing the drag, rather than span. Longer wings of same area ('high aspect') will make less drag at high altitudes, so P-38 is not in disadvantage here. I'm not sure that length of the aircraft puts it in disadvantage. Plus, the P-38G from above makes it's high speed at 3000-4000 higher altitude, where it has the advantage of thinner air.
In 1940 'high altitude' is something a little different than in 1944. At lower altitudes that were being fought at in 1940 over Britain shorter wings means less drag. I guess the question is what is the speed at what altitudes?
 
The typical altitudes involved in BoB were in perhaps 10000-20000 ft range. Lower in case of late low level attacks by Bf 110s, and if LW can catch RAF fighters returning to the base with low ammo and/or fuel.
Attacker will try to position it's escorts a bit above the bombers, so it can dive on the interceptors. Flying lower than 15000 ft means RAF can put in advantage the high power of their Merlins (due to high boost, and that was due 100 oct fuel and low compression ratio the Merlins used) and hence good climb & speed capability of it's fighters. Low alt flying by escorts puts the said escorts obviously in disadvantage.
Once the DB 601A was allowed for over-revving (from 2400 rpm to 2600, above ~5000 m with ram), LW pilot can, and probably should use it to it's advantage.

100 oct fuel adds no advantage above 16000 ft on Merlin III and XII.
 

Deleted member 1487

The typical altitudes involved in BoB were in perhaps 10000-20000 ft range. Lower in case of late low level attacks by Bf 110s, and if LW can catch RAF fighters returning to the base with low ammo and/or fuel.
Attacker will try to position it's escorts a bit above the bombers, so it can dive on the interceptors. Flying lower than 15000 ft means RAF can put in advantage the high power of their Merlins (due to high boost, and that was due 100 oct fuel and low compression ratio the Merlins used) and hence good climb & speed capability of it's fighters. Low alt flying by escorts puts the said escorts obviously in disadvantage.
Once the DB 601A was allowed for over-revving (from 2400 rpm to 2600, above ~5000 m with ram), LW pilot can, and probably should use it to it's advantage.

100 oct fuel adds no advantage above 16000 ft on Merlin III and XII.
Sure, but the DB601N was rated for higher altitudes and the Fw187 was designed as a high energy fighter that would dive on its foe like a falcon, hence the name. So likely in fights it would fly top cover and dive on its target.
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_N.html
Rates altitude 4,9km (over 16,000 feet). It apparently had an improved supercharger. Also the Daimlers had fuel injection, which the Merlin's lacked, so in dives they would have issues due to the negative G effect, while the Me109s with the Daimlers had no problem at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain#Handling_and_general_overview
The Merlin engine of the British fighters had the drawback of being equipped with a float-type carburettor which cut out under negative "g" forces. The fuel injected Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine gave the 109 an advantage over the carburettor-equipped engine; when RAF fighter attempted to "bunt" and dive away from an opponent as the 109 could, their engines would temporarily cut out for the duration of the negative-g forces. This ability to perform negative-g manoeuvres without the engine cutting out gave a 109 pilot better ability to disengage at will.[10]
 
Improved supercharger was one of the things 601N have had over 601A. Another was that it was initially rated for 2600 rpm, while 601A was for 2400, that is where most of the power diferential and rated altitude came from. Admitedly, the 601A was also rated for 2600 rpm in short order, for the flights above the rated height (the horsepower/altitude figures for the 601A at 2600 rpm are a mistery?).
The higher compression ratio also added few % to the power, but probably played havoc with reliability (max power setting for just 1, and then just for 3 min??), while also limiting the boost despite the use of hi-oct fuel. 1.42 ata boost, stipulated in the manual for the Bf 109F1/F2 was never achieved, 1.32 being maximum (vs. 1.30 for the 601A), or +4.8 lbs/sq in - less than Merlin achieved on 87 oct fuel.
We can also recall that RR was not sitting on the laurels, in 1940 they came out with Merlin XII (a bit better at high altitudes than the Mk.III) and the Merlin XX, a bit better performer than DB 601N.

The fuel injection was indeed the advantage of the German engines all the way until RAF adopted injection carbs. Not just for instand diving, but also for no nedd to protect from icing (= cost in engine 'breathing' where float-type carb is used, hence lower usage of ram effect), and ram air enters directly in the supercharger (= better usage of ram effect for the 'injected' engine). Carbs are cheaper, however, and probably can be produced faster than fuel injection machinery. Injection carbs added, for example, 10 mph to the Spitfire V in tests.
The Germans named the Falke as other people did, after the bird of prey. The Jumo 210 engines were low-level engines even for standards of 1930s.
 
I would not be so sure that 'Daimlerized' Falke would've been close to 420 mph mark on 1940's best German engine and 100 oct fuel. The DB 601N was doing 1175 PS at 4900 m (1160 HP at 16000 ft) with C3 fuel. Lets allow for ram effect, that means rated altitude is, say, 3000 ft higher on max speed = 19000 ft. Add 10% of exhaust thrust, so we're at ~1275 HP. The P-38G, when using 1225 HP at 22600 ft, with 2 guns removed and just 60% of the fuel was doing 404 mph.
But then, a 370-380 mph Falke with DB 601A would've represented quite an asset during the BoB. The 601A was allowed for over-revving some time in late 1940, so we'd see probably the 390 mph Falke. And then 400 mph in late 1940/early 1941, if Germany has 601N engines and C3 fuel to spare?

Rather than putting the P38 into it, is it not simpler to estimate what 200 hp's would do to the 601A Falke?
I guess its a little better than your estimates (400 mph+, didn't say it had to be 420), which adds up to quite a remarkable Bob fighter.
Indeed, with such speed, range and climb, it could have limited own losses quite dramatically.
If I understand it correctly.
 
Do we know, for sure, how good was the Falke with DB 601A, assuming 'classic' cooling, in combat trim (weight with guns, ammo, how much of fuel, how many crew members, radio + mast)?
And yes, I agree that Daimlerized Falke would've been quite the asset for the LW.
 
The closest comparison for the 'Daimlerized Falke' might be the IMAM Ro.58. The (second hand?) DB 601A on board, smallish size - between Whirlwind and Falke, doing 378 mph. 13420 lbs for take off.
 
The closest comparison for the 'Daimlerized Falke' might be the IMAM Ro.58. The (second hand?) DB 601A on board, smallish size - between Whirlwind and Falke, doing 378 mph. 13420 lbs for take off.

It seems like part of the family. But a two seater with a Lumb cockpit and DB601a engines. I guess its not unreasonable to have the Falke with DB601N and C3 fuel a bit faster from this comparison.
BTW, IOTL the 601N's and C3 went to the Me-110's so that seems an even trade resource wise.
Except the falke would use more fuel because it wouldn't get shot down as much.
 
The engine in question looks to be either the DB 601A, or 601Aa. Same source ('Dimensioni cielo no.3') says 1st that take off power was 1175 PS (=601Aa engine) and then that max speed was attained at 5200 m (=601A engine?). Main difference between 601A and 601Aa being a bit lower supercharger gearing on the 601Aa - good for lower altitude and for take off, not as good for higher altitude as 601A.

With that said - yes, IMO the Falke with 601N engine (= must use C3 fuel) should've been somewhat better than Ro.58, above ~5 km it would mean 25% more power than 601A, and another fraction more than 601Aa.
 
Top