Focke-Wulf FW-226 Flitzer

Spey_Phantom · November 28, 2008, 04:57:43 AM

since revell re-released the FW Flitzer, i have been thinking.
to be honest the flitzer has enormous whiff potential.
im not a real enthusiast about German aircraft, but the Flitzer is something special to me

i was thinking, if the Flitzer was not inducted into service by 1946, what if the aircraft was constructed by another country after the war under a new designation.

we could have seen the flitzer bieng build for other armed forces

for exsample:
-Netherlands (build as the Fokker S.15 Flits (Flash))
-Belgium (build as Sabca as the S.1)
-Germany (build post war by Focke-Wulf/Dornier for the new luftwaffe in 1948)
......

they could eventually get armed with missiles such as the AIM-9B

or even be configured for COIN missions with rocket- and Gunpods

Weaver · November 28, 2008, 09:58:23 AM

The problem with taking the Flitzer much further on after WWII would be the same as with the Me-262: the short life and unreliability of the engine. It wasn't until the late 1950s that it became possible to produce a reliable axial-flow engine that small, and if you were going to totally re-engineer the German engine, why would you keep it that small? German-derived engines such as the Atar quickly grew in size to meet the new performance demands.

Of course, with enough ingenuity, you can concoct a whif scenario to account for all this. The Russians depended heavily on their captured German engine technology for their first generation of jets: maybe if Stalin had been less scornful about (apparently) blatant copies of German aircraft, they'd have put an RD-10-powered Flitzer-clone into service, or at least built one for trials. How about another country with no jet engine industry of it's own and no allies with one? Argentina? Brazil? China?

Another thought - since it's so small, how about a 2-seat trainer based on it? It could even have a pusher turbo-prop....

GTX · November 28, 2008, 12:24:05 PM

For something different - maybe a the designers go to either Switzerland or Sweden and develop it there, maybe with British engines.

Regards,

Greg

Spey_Phantom · November 28, 2008, 01:17:01 PM

i guess engines would be a problem after the war, as germany could no longer develop or build them.
so i was thinking, "what if Germany developed a larger version of the Flitzer"?

i did some modification and came up with this

the Focke-Wulf FW.260 Krähe (Crow)

it has an extended fuselage, revised intakes à la F-105 and it was the first Jet aircraft in the world to incorporate Canard foreplanes. these would function just like a normal tail surface.
the ailerons on the canards would be connected to those between the tailbooms, making the Krähe more agile, a perfect match against anything the allies could get into the air

perhaps even a 2-seat trainer/night fighter

ChernayaAkula · November 28, 2008, 02:19:48 PM

Were the engines inherently unreliable or was that down to production problems and shortage of proper materials?

Quote from: Nils on November 28, 2008, 04:57:43 AM
<...> they could eventually get armed with missiles such as the AIM-9B <...>

Flitzer + AIM-9B = 100% Win!

Looks like I may have to get another kit. I've got one slated to become an Italian machine.

The Krähe looks pretty cool, too!

kitnut617 · November 28, 2008, 02:57:34 PM

A good book to read is Turbojet-History and Development 1930-1960- Vol.1 Great Britain and Germany by Antony L.Kay (Crowood). This goes a long way into understanding jet technology back during the war. IMHO, a lot of the Luft'46 is just a lot of desperate designs which came too late to influence anything. There is a lot of substance to Greg's (GTX) idea, because I think that is what just happened, only the aircraft that resulted in this was the Saab Tunnen. Some time ago I wrote this little article (see below), which does touch on this, after reading a lot of reference material and sort of put two and two together, I've got it posted on the ATF forum but I'll add it here too. Whether you agree with it is up to you but a lot of coincidences led to me thinking about it and trying to put it into words.

Robert

EDIT:

http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/about7195.html

kitnut617 · November 29, 2008, 08:05:09 AM

erm! sorry about that guys, I thought I had added an attachment to my post, but it appears not to have worked

sequoiaranger · November 29, 2008, 10:33:54 AM

>I've not been able to find out if there was an actual prototype built of the Ta.183, or if it was even flown. <

It was a paper project only--not flown, no prototype, no metal cut.

David Myhra is a VERY unreliable source for truth, but has a GREAT imagination.

kitnut617 · November 30, 2008, 08:11:29 AM

Quote from: sequoiaranger on November 29, 2008, 10:33:54 AM
David Myhra is a VERY unreliable source for truth, but has a GREAT imagination.

Interesting, how so?

Mossie · November 30, 2008, 09:11:34 AM

There's another possibility & that's with a victorious Germany. The desperation paid off to some extent & post war they were able to consoldate some of the better designs & improve on them.

I'd thought a little bit about this for my kit, following a scenario based on the 'Fatherland' book by Robert Harris. A silver or NMF finish, with pre-war style markings. I'd wondered about deleting the rocket motor, converting it to a conventional fuselage machine, or even a twin engined aircraft.

sequoiaranger · November 30, 2008, 09:32:39 AM

A LOOONG time ago (mid nineties?) I was part of the Luft '46 newsgroup or whatever they are called. I "talked" to David several times via e-mail because I liked the Luft '46 stuff and was interested in the other members of the group. This was just before he published his first book. I came to the conclusion, and later, so did several others, that David was not in his right mind and suffered from many delusions that he truly believed. As I said, he has a great imagination, and his works on "alternate history" German projects is fascinating stuff, but several other avid aviation historians I know have found many errors of fact in his works, and David is/was un-apologetic and never corrected them. Truly, it was so long ago that I don't remember details, and I am always reticent to "slander" anyone without cause. The vague generalities above are all I can muster.

Just keep in mind that David Myhra's facts may not be correct--he is definitely one of those "journalists" who feel that facts shouldn't get in the way of a good story.

kitnut617 · December 01, 2008, 06:37:12 AM

Isn't that just typical

Some of the material that he used can be cross referenced though, and I had asked Phil Butler to look over my article too. He made a couple of comments about changing a couple of things (presentation mainly) but said on the whole it was not bad for a starter.

gooberliberation · December 05, 2008, 01:12:26 AM

Is it just me or do the flitzer's intakes seem too small?

Mossie · December 05, 2008, 05:52:37 AM

Not for that era of aircraft, if you look at the Vampire or P-80 they're a similar size. I think they're actually a little larger than the Vampire's.

Mossie · January 12, 2010, 04:43:59 AM

I found a page with some very intersting mock up photos & plans on the Flitzer, along with alternative proposals. Here are the alternative variants, more stuff on the link.
http://skyraider.allaboutwarfare.com/files/luftwaffe/Flitzer/Flitzer.htm

Pure jet engine variant, it was planned that the Flitzer would enter service without the rocket.

Fw-281 turboprop, there are pics by Gino Marcomini on Luft '46:
http://www.luft46.com/gmart/gm281.html

A pure jet version with a cannon in the nose & revised nose wheel layout