He isn't here to defend himself or that argument. However the discussion is of a long range strategic bomber, you don't need a particularly long range to reach most of England from Germany and a He 111 could reach the Whole of UK and did, in 1940, from occupied land.
Which was the best night fighter?
- Thread starter d_bader
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The point is made pretty clearly in that pic SR posted, there is no way the Fw 187 could have carried that camera, not without removing an extra crew member or fuel tanks. Let me point something out for you. Aeroplanes are not made of Lego - you can't just remove fuel tanks and extra crew positions without major redesign work, which takes up time and valuable resources, which then interrupts production lines when implemented, which then introduces delays to deliveries. That this sort of thing was frequently done is remarkable, and a reflection on the individual design of an aircraft and the design team, but, this quality has to be designed in first and, in terms of space, as I have pointed out, there is no provision in the drawings in Hermann and Petrick's book for the location of cameras in the Fw 187.
The Bf 109 could only carry one camera, and it was size and weight limited, which reduced its useability and operational scope. The PR Spitfires, were purposely designed for the carriage of a range of different cameras, which required the removal of operational equipment to save weight. I'm sure Messerschmitt could have done the same with the Bf 109, but they didn't. Now, I'm sure it could have been done with the Fw 187 too, don't get me wrong, but once again, you are having to do so much to the airframe in order to do it - the exclusively PR Spits were unarmed, remember and couldn't function as anything but PR Spitfires. There were Fighter Recon variants, but, like the Bf 109, they had one camera only.
The standard Fw 187C that everyone bangs on about simply does not have the space to do it. Not unless you do what the Spitfire designers did, that is, create a special recon variant, which I'm sure could have been done. The fuselage could have been modified like the Spitfire's or Mosquito's, but, like the Spit - it would have had to have been a single-role exclusively PR variant, unlike the Bf 110, that was multi-role, because it had space.
Like I keep saying, you can have a dive bomber, you can have a Zerstorer, you can have a recon machine, you can have a night fighter, but you can't have them in the same airframe. Tank knew this. Every iteration he drew up had a different fuselage.
Oh, and the night fighter, no, simply because there is no space for radar in the nose. The prop arcs preclude extending the nose, that is, unless you move the cockpit further back, which then upsets the C of G and requires, guess what, yet another fuselage.
I'm not sure why is such a beef against the Fw 187.
Need a high-performing fighter? DB 601 installation was done, unike the Merlin on Whirly Fw 187 being a bigger A/C was easier to do the engine upgrade. Toss the Bf 110 in the bin, and Me 210/410 just after the Bf 110. No Ta-154 hussle.
Need LR recon? Ditch the guns, and second crew member if needed, install the camera(s) - take a page from Spitfire PR.
Radar was not in the nose of German aircraft, aerials were outside the nose. Much easier to turn a bigger Fw 187 into a night fighter than the smaller Fw 190, yet 190 was turned into a radar-outfitted NF sometimes. More guns on a NF? Stick two cannons under the fuselage. Need more firepower on a day fighter? Just one crew member, but 4 cannons in the fuselage sides.
Need a high-performing fighter? DB 601 installation was done, unike the Merlin on Whirly Fw 187 being a bigger A/C was easier to do the engine upgrade. Toss the Bf 110 in the bin, and Me 210/410 just after the Bf 110. No Ta-154 hussle.
Need LR recon? Ditch the guns, and second crew member if needed, install the camera(s) - take a page from Spitfire PR.
Radar was not in the nose of German aircraft, aerials were outside the nose. Much easier to turn a bigger Fw 187 into a night fighter than the smaller Fw 190, yet 190 was turned into a radar-outfitted NF sometimes. More guns on a NF? Stick two cannons under the fuselage. Need more firepower on a day fighter? Just one crew member, but 4 cannons in the fuselage sides.
Shortround6
Major General
The British cameras used it the Spitfire and the Cameras used in the 109 used film that was about 1/4 the size of that big camera per photo. This meant you need about 4 photos to get the same detail per photograph (negative) assuming the same grain size/structure of the emulsion. Taking more photographs closer in succession helps but you either need to fly twice on parallel courses or fly lower (with a lot more photos taken) or some other work around.
British cameras.
Three on the left use 5 in X 5 in negative size and the two on the right use 8.5 in x 7in negatives. The cameras could be fitted with different length lenses.
Changing the film magazine on a camera in a 109.
Some 109s used two smaller cameras.
The Fw 187 may or may not do what you want it to do. It probably isn't going to cover the range of camera setups the 110 could hold.
Yup, I'm not saying a specialised PR variant couldn't have been built, not at all, but in the proposed airframe that was the Fw 187C? Not a chance. Like I said, no room and no provision for it in the drawings Tank produced.
And that's precisely why the Fw 187 was not ideal. The prop arc would have knocked those aerials right off! You have to redesign (eyeroll) the fuselage to accommodate them - move the cockpit back, relocate fuel, change the CG, all that. Again, not possible in the Fw 187C and according to the drawings that Tank produced of the single-seat night fighter, there WAS no provision for radar in the nose - avionics (and extra fuel) were located to where the rear seater previously sat in the Fw 187C.
The Fw 187 would have been a terrible night/all-weather fighter. Its cockpit was small and its instrument layout was not conducive to instrument flying - engine instruments were OUTSIDE the cockpit! Combine that with no radar and no back seater (remember, the night fighter/heavy fighter variant was a single-seater) and you have a near useless night fighter.
I'm not hating on it, don't get me wrong - I think it's an awesome aircraft, but it wasn't what most people make out that it was. It wasn't a multi role aircraft. It simply could not have been all those things in the one airframe.
The Luftwaffe was almost incapable of attacking Britain's Eastern Seaboard and naval approaches, especially to the North. The Ju 88 was just too short ranged. The He 111 and Ju 88 might have theoretical ranges of 1600 but in reality it was less than 1200 when a bomb load was carried which leads to a radius of action of little over 400.
Last edited:
He 111H-4 theoretical range was beyond 2500 km with 2x1 ton bombs hanging out in the breeze, in February of 1940. link
It was not the range of German bombers that needed extension, but the range of their Bf 109s. He 111s were bombing Belfast during the BoB.
Im pretty sure you're misreading that chart. It gives a usefull payload specification "Nutzlast" but the fuel consumption figures are for a bomber equipped with bomb racks "abwurfgeraete" but without actually carrying the bombs SD1000 or LMB mines). It's also rather lightly armed wit 3 MG15 and a skeleton crew of 4.
Finally it academic, the Luftwaffe lacked the range to attack the shipping approaches to the east of England which drove Goering furious
Last edited:
You are that misreading the chart
This is a recurring theme. Who was he furious with and why? Why didn't he vent his fury on the man who had been in charge of aviation since 1933? Or the man who was Plenipotentiary from 1936 and did such a great job he was named Reichsmarschall in 1940 getting another baton and a nice pair of boots.. Having plunged the world into a world war, he then spent more and more of his time blaming anyone and everyone for not having what was needed and even complaining that his enemies were not fighting the war he wanted. Since he has been dead for 75 years it is staggering that people continue with these arguments. Any suggestion that Goering was furious about anything can be answered with "You were in charge of the whole deal and you took part in starting the war"
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,956
- Jun 25, 2013
Wasn't Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe, including its procurement? Or, in the style of bad administrators in general, did he blame others for his errors?
Only Aviation from 1933, he only became head of everything from 1936.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,956
- Jun 25, 2013
So any hardware shortcomings after about 1940 were his fault.
Yes I did take a while to work it out but it's still not a realistic range in the sense that you can't just allow 15% and halve it. This because this is a planning document that gives fuel burn at each phase So that a detailed flight plan can be calculated.
1 The aircraft lands with only 200L or about 44 gallons reserve.
2 No allowance for headwinds, this is still air range.
3 Carrying only 4 crew and 3 x rifle caliber MG 15 is not survivable. Ventral and waist gunner needed.
4 No allowance for combat fuel
5 The 2500km range while in between econ cruising speed range (2800km) and fast cruise (2250km) is optimistic in British airspace. Must fly max speed.
5 no allowance for forming up or different altitudes.
6 it was the ju 88 in particular that was a disappointment in range.
Range would be better without external load.
Three men were put in charge: Udet Germany's highest ranking ace and Jenkoschenk. Both men suicided. Milch was eventually kicked out of the job because he had an argument apparently over the Me 262 bomber. Jenkoschenk made a miscalculation by stating the supply of the 6th Army in Stalingrad by airlift was possible. When Jenkoschenk realised his error and wanted to tell Hitler Goering wouldn't let him tell Hitler because it would embarrass Goering.
Hitler had made a public speech saying there would be no retreat and when the gravity of the Stalingrad situation was realised he was relieved that the airlift gave him a way out. Had Hitler been told the truth he likely would have ordered a breakout which might have saved half the 6th Army.
A guy called Siegfried Kneymeyer took over I think. He was regarded as highly competent and was certainly a man of action.
Udet was a well liked man but in over his head in politics and technology.
In my opinion everything from 1933 was his fault, he was head of aviation, he has to say what he intends to do and whats he wants to do it, he was Hitlers second in command, if he doesn't know then who does? His position after 1936 had him in charge of rearmament and the LW. With tens of millions dead and Europe wrecked Hitler was convinced that he had been let down, not the other way around. Goering was exactly the same, not only furious with his organisation that he built and ran but also with his enemies for not following the "plan". When he was made Reichsmarschall in 1940 the UK alone was out producing him in everything that mattered, he was too dim to realise it and did nothing until 1942/43 by which time it was too late.
Goering was in charge of the LW he told Hitler or was responsible for Hitler being told. Hitler took forces from the sixth army before Stalingrad and was late providing reinforcements. Hitler as usual forbade retreat or surrender to people in a hopeless position I have no idea what the air lift was supposed to achieve, Germany had no chance of closing the gap and relieving Stalingrad and the occupants had no chance of breaking out. Obviously not Adolf or Herman's fault though, they were "let down".
Whats the benefit of Bf110 big cameras, since it did not have the speed to penetrate the enemy airspace even in 1940? There was no comparison Fw187 recce vs Bf110 recce. It was small photos and optical observation against no photos at allThe British cameras used it the Spitfire and the Cameras used in the 109 used film that was about 1/4 the size of that big camera per photo. This meant you need about 4 photos to get the same detail per photograph (negative) assuming the same grain size/structure of the emulsion. Taking more photographs closer in succession helps but you either need to fly twice on parallel courses or fly lower (with a lot more photos taken) or some other work around.
British cameras.
View attachment 610460
Three on the left use 5 in X 5 in negative size and the two on the right use 8.5 in x 7in negatives. The cameras could be fitted with different length lenses.
Changing the film magazine on a camera in a 109.
Some 109s used two smaller cameras.
The Fw 187 may or may not do what you want it to do. It probably isn't going to cover the range of camera setups the 110 could hold.
We've seen that the Fw 187 could have a second cockpit added by simply lengthening of the cockpit area. That's plenty of space for the biggest of cameras.
Obviously i agree with you
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
