# Twin Engine Fighters



## GregP (Jul 24, 2015)

We have had some interesting discussions about the various twins and I thought I'd start a twin thread to get some discussions going. So here's my candidate for a sleeper, the Mitsibushi Ki-83. In post-war testing in the USA, we got it up to 473 mph at 23,000 feet on US 150-grade fuel.







Looks like general winner to me. Designed by the same fellow who did the very good-looking Ki-46 Dinah, Tomio Kubo. Seems like he had a flair for pretty airplanes. With two 30 mm and two 20 mm cannons, it had about as hard a hitting power as any fighter of the war. But it was in the prototype stage with only four completed when the war ended. It's existence took us completely by surprise as we didn't even know about it. Post-war testing was an eye-opener.

Despite it not being all that successful, I also like the looks of the plucky Westland Whirlwind.






Any other twins you like out there?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 24, 2015)

Why wasn't the Whirlwind all that successful?


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2015)

I think we covered that already, but if not, it didn't stay in service long and it's combat success seems quite hard to document. Lack of information about it makes me think it didn't do all that well. It is possible it did but, if so, why is it so hard to find out about? It wasn't used by many squadrons because there weren't all that many Whirlwinds built ... 114 or 116 total, including 2 prototypes. That won't go very far equipping an Air Force.

I can find a few writeups of Whirlwind battles with a few probable kills, but not much in the way of a total of aerial victories for the type. I asked in the forum and nobody posted a total for Whirlwinds, probably because it is relatively unknown when compared with other British aircraft.

Everyone can find out about Lancasters, Mosquitoes, Siptfires, and Hurricanes, but data about the Whrlwind are scarce ... or seem that way to me.

If you have some information on it, Milosh, please post it! I, for one, would love to see more information about it. I'm sure others would, too.

I like the looks of the P-38 Lightning, too, but I see one every weekend and so generally look at other twins with more interest since I can satisfy my own curiosity about it anytime. If I want to, I can get up on it and get in the cockpit, with the permission of the owners, of course ... but I can't do that with, say, a Tigercat. We get a few in as visitors but I don't know the owners and don't climb on visiting aircraft. I can get pics, but that's about it.

What's your favorite twin fighter of WWII?


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 24, 2015)

The post-war Hornet was a scorcher!


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2015)

Another great choice. The Hornet certainly was another very good-looking fighter.

I can't help but wonder at how the last generation of piston fighters would have stacked up against one another, had they ever met in combat. Another of my favorite obscure types was the FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu.






Alas, they only built one, and that was in 1950, but it was firmly rooted in WWII design. It used a pair of Merlin 604's. It clocks in at 460 mph and is decidedly better looking than the FMA Calquin that was still flying with the Argentinian Air Force at the time.

Another potentially great idea that never came to pass was the Grokhovsky G-38 with a pair of Gnome-Rhones. It had the same problem as the Whirlwind ... a pair of 900 HP engines,






Can't find any proof they ever made one, but it looks like a neat idea. I think it is a fantasy plane that some modeler dreamed up, but it could have been a design that was simply never built. I like the concept but then reality sets in and I know it wouldn't have had much potential for growth having been designed for a pair of Gnome-Rhones.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2015)

I believe the Whirlwind was the second smallest (if not lightest) of the twin engine fighters that made their maiden flights prior to the start of WWII and the smallest to see frontline service of any sort. The PZL.38 was smaller but never saw production and development halted with the fall of Poland. The Fw 187 is interesting, but the few A-0 aircraft didn't see significant enough action to really comment on and even then the information is sparse and questionable. (and that would be for the 2-seat 700 ps Jumo 210G powered version which did at least manage to outrun and outclimb the Bf 109E up to the 210's critical altitude around 3600 m)

The roll rates (especially initial roll response/acceleration) would be one of the defining characteristics of a really good twin engine fighter and the one area that it could otherwise fall behind single engine contemporaries. Those outboard engines add a lot of weight, so overcoming that limitation takes strong wings and effective ailerons while minimizing adding yet more weight. The Whirlwind and (with less detailed information) Fw 187 seemed to both have good roll response as did Gloster's F.9/37 (which was noted by test pilots for having all around good handling), but it's the Whirlwind that has more specific remarks on its good initial roll response.

With the Spitfire and (especially) Hurricane having problems with heavy or completely static ailerons at high speeds (or not so high speeds with the early fabric covered ailerons), the Whirlwind's good aileron response was very significant. The same was true for most American fighters which could usually out-roll Spitfires, including the much larger P-47 which was noted for having excellent roll response all around but especially at high speeds. (it couldn't out-turn the spitfire, but it could reverse a turn fast enough to out-maneuver it) The Bf 109 was noted for having sluggish control at high speeds, so it wouldn't be too hard for the Fw 187 to beat it there too.

The P-38 had much more serious problems with roll rate and that was its primary limiting factor in dogfighting early-war (the nose-down pitch in terminal dives was a serious problem but not one generally related to slower maneuvering centric situations). This problem wasn't resolved until hydraulically boosted ailerons were installed on the P-38J. The airframe was strong enough and ailerons aerodynamically capable of pulling off harder rolls, but the flight controls lacked the mechanical advantage to allow it. (using a flight stick instead of a yolk might have helped somewhat, but the better 1930s era technology solution would be using spring tabs or 'boost tabs' on the ailerons -the F4U did that, resulting in very light and effective ailerons) The problematic roll rate might have been a contributing factor for the diving problems on the P-38 as well, as diving would be one of the limited options for escaping or evading an opponent in a dogfight where the P-47 could use its roll rate AND diving effectively. (poor roll control would also limit some dive recovery techniques like rolling sideways to prevent further nose-down pitch and start bleeding off airspeed in a controlled, high speed banked turn -it's notable that the P-38's elevator was still effective at those high speeds, but supersonic flow over some portions of the wing cause a shift in lift forcing nose-down pitch, thus you could potentially still have control on the vertical axis if you rolled onto your side, taking gravity out of the equation for elevator control and putting it on rudder control while also turning, but overstressing the airframe with cross controlling would still be a consideration too -you could also roll inverted and recover upside down, but almost certainly red out in the process from high negative G) 



As to favorite, I'm honestly not sure I could pick one. On Aesthetics it might be the P-38 but the Fw 187 has that sleek nose and canopy (especially on the single seat prototypes). The whirlwind is neat, but it's got more angles I don't like the appearance that much. (P-38 wins hands down viewed from above or below)

But as overall aircraft, I think the Whirlwind could have been the best twin-engine dogfighter of the war (and probably was back in 1942) and the P-38 makes a better all-around multi-role fighter, fighter bomber, and even radar equipped night fighter.


There's certainly some others I'm omitting like the Beaufighter, A few Japanese heavy fighters, Fokker G.I, several German prototypes, Bf 110, 210, and 410, Fighter models of the Mosquito, and more, but as far as the real twins capable of acting in the roles of single-engine fighters and were flying at the beginning of the war, it'd be those top 3. (boost the P-38's ailerons and overboost the engines a bit and the P-38E and F would have made good low to medium altitude fighters ... above 20,000 ft in the ETO would be a real problem due to poor cockpit heating and greater problems with diving -cold air has a lower speed of sound and high altitude air is thinner meaning faster dive acceleration so a perfect storm for the P-38) In the 10-15k ft range, with a bit of engine 'abuse' it should have been one of the best performing fighters in the world at the time, fix the aileron problems and it'd be one of the best maneuvering as well. (like most American fighters, it had much better high speed controls than British, German, or Japanese fighters of the time) At USAAF heavy bomber altitudes, it was a poor match for the ETO until the P-38J finally solved cockpit heating and added dive recovery flaps. (P-47C was the best by far at 25-30k ft in 1942) The P-38 might be more useful for escorting RAF and USAAF medium altitude bombers, particularly B-25, B-26, and A-20s in daylight raids. (but those were used mostly in the PTO and MTO, where the P-38 performed best already)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JimX (Jul 25, 2015)

Would spoilers instead of ailerons have helped the roll rate?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2015)

It's probably no surprise that I would say the Ta154, Ar240 or the He219...

However, for the sake of fresh discussion, I would propose an often overlooked twin that held a great deal of promise: the RIKUGUN KI-93. The Ha-214 radials weren't delivering as much power as they had anticipated and this was being corrected. Before the problems could be worked out, the prototypes were destroyed in a B-29 raid.






There was also the Grumman XP-50/XF5F twin that was a real screamer. The XP-50 actually developed more speed than the Navy's version, but still looked like it was a winner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2015)

Now that I think about it, perhaps we should add Lockheed's XP-58 and McDonnell's XP-67, too!


----------



## Greyman (Jul 25, 2015)

Potez 631


----------



## GregP (Jul 25, 2015)

I really like the 2-seat "Destroyers" but they didn't fare well in combat. So I'm more drawn to the single-seat fighter twins. 

But the Potez 631 was probably as good a 2-seater as there was except for being slow. Very similar to the Bf 110 in concept, which was a very pleasant aircraft to fly by all accounts. It did everything well except fly combat against single-seater fighters. The Potez had no excess power to speak of but by all accounts flew well.

Likely the Potez was similarly well-mannered in flight.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 25, 2015)

Greg, that Grokhovsky G-38 looks kind of like a MiG-5 with the wing backwards, rear fuselage removed, and tail booms added behind the engines. The MiG 5 itself (or MiG DIS) is a neat twin engine fighter in its own right too, the cockpit and fuselage look a lot like the single-seat Fw 187 actually, but that wing is very distinctive and the engines obviously much larger. It looks nicer with the AM-37s than those ASh-82s. (I still say it would have made a really nice fighter-bomber with a pair of AM-38s instead)

Would be nicer with ejector exhaust stacks too. (nicer looking and probably a bit faster)













Actually, I think the MiG might be better looking on the whole than the Fw 187


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 25, 2015)

As my contribution, I did my research by my normal method of looking mostly at Wikipedia and made a list of aircraft ordered by their wing areas: 

Westland Whirlwind 250 ft² (23.2 m²)
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 30.40 m² (327.22 ft²)
Lockheed P-38 327.5 ft² (30.43 m²)
Arado Ar 240 A 31.3 m² (337 sq ft)
Focke-Wulf Ta 154 31.40 m² (333.7 ft2)
Kawasaki Ki-45 32.0 m² (344 ft²)
Mitsubishi Ki-83 33.5 m² (361 ft²)
de Havilland Hornet 361 ft² (33.54 m²)
Arado Ar 440 35,00 m² 376.74 ft²
I.Ae. 30 Ñancú 35.32 m2 (380.2 sq ft)
Messerschmitt Me 410 36.20 m² (390 ft²)
North American F-82 408 ft² (37.90 m²)
Dornier Do 335 38.5 m² (414 ft²)
Messerschmitt Bf 110 38.8 m² (414 ft²)
Nakajima J1N 40 m² (430 sq ft)
de Havilland Mosquito 454 ft² (42.18 m²)
Grumman F7F Tigercat 455 ft² (42.3 m²)
Heinkel He 219 44.4 m² (478 ft²)
Bristol Beaufighter 503 ft² (46,73 m²)
Junkers Ju 88 G-6 54.7 m² (587 ft²)
Yokosuka P1Y Ginga 55 m² (592 ft²)
Northrop P-61 Black Widow 662.36 ft² (61.53 m²)


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2015)

Interesting Kool Kitty. The G-38 DOES look like a MiG-5 modification, but I think the wing would be quite a bit smaller if sized for two Gnome-Rhones.

I always DID like the single-seat Fw 187, but it didn't make production along with some other VERY interesting one-off aircraft. I saw one report years ago that the Ki-83 really surprised us with it's performance when we tested it, but I never did get any hard numbers except for high top speed. I didn't get rate of climb, ceiling, etc. ... just a report of 473 mph at altitude on US fuel. That's the same speed that Wiki quotes, and it a bit surprising to see that speed in Wiki.

Cherry Blossom, I'm wondering where you are headed with the list. Are you headed for Wing Loading, Power Loading, wing area versus the weight of engines installed? Or what? I'm curious as I have all these in a file except weight of the engines. I also have span loading.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2015)

Cherry_Blossom, there's also the XF5F (and related XP-50) as well as Gloster's F.9/37, Mig 5 (DIS), the small PZL.38 and several others I'm forgetting at the moment.

Grumman XF5F 303.5 ft² (28.2 m²)
Gloster F.9/37 386 ft² (35.9 m²)
Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS 38.9 m2 (419 sq ft)
PZL.38 20.4 m2 (220 sq ft)

The XF5F has a shorter wingspan than the Whirlwind in spite of the larger area and was all around very similar in size. The originally planned engines were much more in the Peregrine's class too (R-1535 radials making 825 hp before development was discontinued to focus on other Pratt and Whitney designs) but those R-1820s it ended up using added several dozen feet of frontal area along with several hundred pounds added weight. (and larger propellers needing more clearance with longer landing gear, etc, etc) 44.13 inch diameter engines vs 54.25 inch. I'm not sure why they didn't go with R-1830s, still added weight but at least less gain in frontal area and the potential to adopt the high altitude 2-stage supercharged versions. (yet more weight, but in that case well worth it)

Still, the R-1535s would have given the lowest weight and best roll rate and should have been somewhat cheaper. A twin engine fighter also should have gotten hispanos into USN service more quickly given they could adopt pilot operated cocking mechanisms to clear stoppages as the P-38 did.

Putting those R-1820s on the XF5F seems a bit like sticking Bramo 323s on the Fw 187 or Pegasus engines on the Whirlwind.



GregP said:


> I always DID loike the single-seat Fw 187, but it didn't make production along with some other VERY interesting one-off aircraft.


I'm not sure the single-seater would have been all that much more useful if any given the advantages of a dedicated radio operator at the outbreak of the war, especially for a long range high endurance aircraft. Lack of interest in adapting beyond the standard Zerstorer requirements were more the problem and lack of interest in developing it with the Bf 110's engines. (as it was it smoked the similarly engined Bf 110B and could out perfom the 110C and match the 109E at low level) The ability to re-load cannon drums was useful on the Bf 110, but if heavy armament had been the serious limitation, I doubt it would be difficult to rectify. (further modifications to allow cheek mounted MG FF blisters or mounting them in the lower nose - I think the 187A-0 had glazing under the fuselage there somewhat like the F2A, but eliminating that doesn't seem like a critical issue) To be a good interceptor it really should have had more than 4 LMGs and 2 60 round drum fed MG-FFs. (the later Fw 190 upgraded to 4 20 mm cannons as soon as it could and with the nose mounted armament, they could have more options for MG-FF and MG-FF/M without synchronization limits)

Still a dead end without Fw being allowed to plan for the DB 601 (or at least Jumo 211) as its primary engine and using those 210s expressly in the interim (just like the Bf 110B did).


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2015)

Pretty much agreed, Kool Kitty. We could discuss it, but it has been and will continue to be the subject of much discussion for Luftofiles looking for any way to turn the war outcome around. I'm with you thinking it could have been very good ... but they didn't elect to develop it to be that way and then place it into production, so it's an interesting "might-have-been" at best.

The Bf 110 was a pleasant-flying plane, but wasn't an Fw 187 by any stretch of the imagination exceft for being faily close in speed in some configurations. With similar engines the Fw 187 was, I think, better by a significant margin. Still not sure it was enough of a margin to beat single-seat fighters or hold its own against same, but that's another thread we already did some time back.

Hi Graugeist, 

The XP-87 ws a neat-looking bird let down by underperforming engines, but as a neat bird nontheless. Rather unique looking and not aesthetically unappealing.

Though I love the P-38, I'm not a fan of the XP-58 Chain Lightning for several reasons, but the thread is about YOUR favorites, not specifically mine. So, good addition. If they had fixed some of the technical issues it could have been a service aircraft ... though even as an Allison fan I am not fond of double V-12 engines in one gearcase ... too many oil leak and heat issues. That is ... leak a little oil in between the engine cases and the heat of the middle exhaust will almost certainly ignite it fairly quickly. Ask any early He 177 pilot or crewmember. Still, had the issues been worled out .... who knows. I understand it was a maintenance headache due to engine access and systems located near them, but that might be inaccurate hearsay. I haven't done my due dilligence on it yet since it didn't get into service.

Thanks for the growing list.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 26, 2015)

Nakajima J1N1 Gekko


----------



## dedalos (Jul 26, 2015)

No boubt, the Ki 83 is among the most beautiful aircraft EVER. And its spesifications are remarkable.
If the 473mph/23000ft speed figure is true then we speek about a unique aircraft. 473mph at 23000ft (note the relatively low altitude)on single stage RADIALS plus TWO CREW members is not met in ANY other aircraft of the period . The do 335 used in Line engines, so did the hornet(plus two stage superchargers) and both in their two Seat vertions were slower. The F7F even on single Seat achieved around 460mph and was heavier.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...
> 
> Cherry Blossom, I'm wondering where you are headed with the list. Are you headed for Wing Loading, Power Loading, wing area versus the weight of engines installed? Or what? I'm curious as I have all these in a file except weight of the engines. I also have span loading.


I was trying to classify the various aircraft into families because for example, whilst a Ju 88 G-6 and a P-38 were effective combat aircraft in 1944, they were aimed at rather different roles. 

The list brings together some interesting pairs such as the Fw 187 and the P-38 as well as your Ki-83 and Capt Vick's Hornet (and the much later I.Ae. 30 Ñancú), which have similar weights and power as well as similar wing areas and speeds. It looks as if de Havilland and Mitsubishi were almost following the same specification to produce two beautiful aircraft.

However, that alone may not have ensured the success of the designs as the contemporary Nakajima J5N1 Tenrai was a dismal failure for the IJN despite being roughly the same size. According to Green's old books “Test flights revealed that longitudinal stability was bad and the rudder proved ineffective at low air speeds. One of the prototypes crashed while under test.” The Tenrai also failed to reach its required maximum speed.

Using only wing area and maximum speed, the Arado Ar 440 seems to group with the Ki-83 and the Hornet. However, it was significantly heavier and carried a two man crew and two remotely controlled barbettes. The Arado's high speed is a tribute to a low drag design and the use of nitrous oxide (GM 1). 

Lastly we can add a few more aircraft to our list. For example, Fokker can offer us the D.XXIII with the smallest wing that I have yet found (18.5 m² or 199 sq ft). It would have been interesting had it been flown with two Merlins although it might have been too small for a fighter rather a racer. The Fokker G.I (38.30 m² or 412.26 ft²) by contrast is similar in size to the Bf 110.

Of the French designs, the Potez 631 has already been mentioned but the SNCASE SE 100 with a similar sized wing (33 m² or 355 ft²) had more power and a much better performance.

Italy also produced several aircraft. They started with the Whirlwind sized IMAM Ro.57, which had a performance much inferior to the Whirlwind. However, with the DB 601 engines the slightly larger IMAM Ro.58 produced a performance that would have been impressive if it had flown two years earlier. Meanwhile Savoia-Marchetti were designing the SM.91 and SM.92 which are the subject of a web page at Might Have Beens: Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2015)

The SNCASE SE 100 has perhaps the most bizarre landing gear of any aircraft on this group or probably most any other group as well.

View attachment 297437


As the model above shows, the "main" gear was located in the bottom of the vertical tail and the "nose" gear looks to be the more substantial of the group, but it probably touched down on the tail gear. I haven't seen a videp clip of it, so I can't be sure, but that seems likely. I bet there were some substantial shocks above that tail landing gear and some really formidable tail spars.

Most "conventional gear" planes have two forward wheel sna one tail wheel. If this one can be classified as conventional, it has one forward gear and two tail wheels ... wonder if they were both fully swiveling or rixed. If fixed, the nose gear must have been steerable.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2015)

The tail wheels were retractable. Very doubtful the a/c landed on the tail wheels as the stab doesn't look strong enough to take the landing shock besides the almost nil suspension travel.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2015)

Milosh said:


> The tail wheels were retractable. Very doubtful the a/c landed on the tail wheels as the stab doesn't look strong enough to take the landing shock besides the almost nil suspension travel.
> 
> View attachment 297438


It would have to touch on the rear assembly first in order to land safely. I cannot see anyone in their right mind that would attempt to land an aircraft by touching the nose-gear first.

Once you have your flaps down and flare, your nose will be between the horizon and slightly up-attitude. Trying to keep the nose level or down-attitude during this process means you run the risk of spoiling your lift and you'll be touching down a hell of alot more than just the nose-gear.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> though even as an Allison fan I am not fond of double V-12 engines in one gearcase ... too many oil leak and heat issues. That is ... leak a little oil in between the engine cases and the heat of the middle exhaust will almost certainly ignite it fairly quickly. Ask any early He 177 pilot or crewmember.



The difference being that the Daimler-Benz coupled engines were upside down, so oil leaks went towards the exhaust, or pooled in the cowling near where the exhausts exited. The V-3420's exhausts were near the top of the engine, so most leaks would not go towards the exhausts.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2015)

B-47s and B-52s land nose high.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2015)

Milosh said:


> B-47s and B-52s land nose high.


Virtually all aircraft have a "nose high" attitude when landing.

An aircraft with conventional gear will be close to level as they flare, as their main gear touches down first, then the tail. An aircraft with tricycle gear will have a higher nose-up attitude to ensure the main-gear touches down before the nose gear.

In looking at the SE-100, it would be a tricycle gear style landing, contacting the tail wheels first and then the nose-gear. The tail assembly looks to be robust and also consider that as the plane is setting down, the wings are still generating enough lift to reduce the load on the tail structure (assuming it's a clean landing) until the nose-gear touches down.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2015)

The B-52 is the only aircraft I ever saw that lands on the front gear truck first some of the time, but not all of the time. When they do, it looks like driving a wheelbarrow, with the pilot all over the rudder.

I can't see the SE 100 landing front wheel first ... but then again, I have not see a flim clip of one landing. I can't imagine that landing on a rough field was not planned for in the design since most front-line airstrips in WWII were "rough fields" by definition. But, the plane WAS French and I can't say. It might have had a wine cellar, for all I know. I can say that since my last name IS French.

Remember that old saying about WWII airplanes: if it is wierd - it is British, if it is ugly - it is French, if it weird and ugly - it is Russian. At least that's the way U heard it said at several warbord meetings. Personally, I like the Lavochkins, Yaks, and MiGs. It is most of the other design bureaus that were a bit wierd and ugly simultaneously.

Never heard any jokes about German planes for some reason, and they had their share of the wierd and ugly, like everyone else did.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2015)

Yah, I saw a heavy touch down nose-first once. It was one of the ugliest landings I have seen.

As the nose touched, the tail started to swing wide to starboard (starboard wingtip dipping precariously) and then the main gear touched, causing the aircraft to shoot to the left towards the median. The pilot over-corrected causing the whole dog and pony show to careen to the right. He eventually straightened it out, using nearly every foot of runway.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2015)

I've seen that one, too, Graugeist. It's not pretty but is probably NOTHING like being the pilot and having to DO it to avoid the crash and suffering the embarrasment later.

Hi Wuzak, you have a point about which way the oil drips, but oil anywhere near an exhaust manifold is not a good thing to contemplate. Since both Vees lean outward, maybe the real danger point is the outside, the more heaviliy leaning-over side. And maybe the upright Vee layout made the double V-12 Allison 3420 a better animal. The regular V-1710 is VERY relaible and maybe the V-3420 could have been, too.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> The XP-87 ws a neat-looking bird let down by underperforming engines, but as a neat bird nontheless. Rather unique looking and not aesthetically unappealing.


I assume you mean XP-67 not the post-war Curtiss jet. 




















Neat ejector jet exhaust arrangement too.


Shame they considered switching to the V-1710 so late, going with that earlier and paralleling the P-38's power development up to that 2000 hp at 75" on 100/150 fuel if not beyond would have been far more realistic for a design that heavy and pretty close in size/weight to those 1430s. It might have avoided that self-destructive engine fire using V-1710s in testing too. It still might have been a bit underpowered given weight and size in the Mosquito and F7F class, but with the performance it managed in underpowered form, perhaps the low drag would have made up for the weight. Obviously the planned 37 mm cannons would have been better replaced by 20 mm or a combination of 20 mm and 50 cal guns.

The high tail, sleek design, and engine nacelle placement makes it LOOK like it should have been a jet aircraft, but I don't think the landing gear arrangement would have made that sort of conversion practical without a heavy redesign to the wing (and you'd want J33s or J35s in there given the size/weight). A mixed-power arrangement might have been easier to adapt using J30s embedded in the rear nacelles aft of the landing gear mechanism in line with the existing jet exhaust nozzle. (2x 2000 hp V-1710s + 2x 1600 lbs turbojets seems like an interesting arrangement, might have made for a better long range heavy fighter than Bell's XP-83 and more adaptable to the fighter-bomber and night fighter role) I know most mixed-power arrangements didn't work out all that well, but there's something about the Moonbat that seems like it might have made it work.

Hell, if it worked well enough in mixed-power form, it might have merited a heavier redesign into a pure jet as well. (I really don't see the J33 or J35 fitting in the proper position for weight/strength and CoG the basic XP-67 was designed for without the landing gear mechanism also getting in the way of the engines or exhaust)


That and those problematic near-stall characteristics seem like the sort of thing that could be solved (or greatly reduced) with slats or even fixed slots (like the Me 163) to generally avoid the tip-stall and spin regime of flight entirely. (or well enough to avoid it in typical maneuvers) Honestly, that seems like it would have been the simplest solution on the P-39 as well. (fixed slots add drag but that seems like a better option than adding nose ballast and should improve take-off performance -automatic slats add mechanical complexity, cost, weight, and a greater number of structural changes) I'm honestly not sure why slots weren't at least tested on more aircraft with dangerous tip-stall behavior, it might not have been the solution, but it seems like an obvious thing to at least try and if the Me 163 used them, there's obviously some room for compromise in high-speed aircraft. (the F4U also comes to mind)


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Neat ejector jet exhaust arrangement too.



Actually not ejector exhausts.

The XP-67 was fitted with a turbo for each of its IV-1430s. They were mounted so that their axis was horizontal, or nearly so, and the exhaust pointed rearwards. In the rear view you can probably make out that the "ejector exhausts" actually comprise two pipes - the exhaust proper and the wastegate pipe.

One of the design issues that the XP-67 ad was that there was no heat shield or firewall between the engine and the turbo. 

The best comparison for the XP-67 was the XP-49, Lockheed's tidied up P-38 (same wings, refined crew nacelle), which also used the IV-1430s with turbo. The performance for the two was very much teh same, and less than a standard P-38 at that time.

I believe there was a proposal to fit Packard Merlins to the XP-67.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> I assume you mean XP-67 not the post-war Curtiss jet.


Yeah, I had brought up the XP-58 and XP-67...so that was a typo...


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

Oops, yep, I meant 67 too. I may be noted for a few things, but great typing will never be near the top of the list. You have to admit, the bat is unique-looking aircraft. I happen to like the looks, but people who think the other way are out there, too.

One man's junk is another man's treasure, or something like that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2015)

The Moonbat was certainly an interesting design.

One of the few odd designs that had potential.


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

Wish they had sorted out the engines, but McDonnell went on to do great things anyway, didn't they?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 27, 2015)

GregP said:


> Wish they had sorted out the engines, but McDonnell went on to do great things anyway, didn't they?



Remember that the XP-67 was McDonnell's second design, and the first they built.

The first design that they did was even more radical.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 27, 2015)

The Westland Welkin and its less successful competitor the Vickers Type 432 were specialists aimed at high altitude. The Welkin could certainly fly higher than most fighters but I seem to recall that it had problems with compressibility when diving at high altitude. Wikipedia supplies a picture showing the wingspan



and there is a closer up image here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/unsorted/p8938-westland-welkin-fmki.html


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

The high-altitude propeller planes all experienced the "coffin corner" where the normal stall and shock stall were very close together. The early Lear 23 busniess jets did, too. When they got up to 49 - 51,000 feet, they were only a few knots from either stall or mach tuck.

Today a Grumman G650 business jet has something like 35 knots buffer between stall and Mach tuck, so life is easier.

In the case of the Welkin, when the Germans stopped flying the Ju 86P, the Welkin lost its mission and wasn't needed. I tend to never think much about the Welkin since it had so little production and was not needed in the end, but had the high-altitude threat been real, then it would have been an operational necessity.

Planes that were designed and built, but never needed might make a good thread, The Welkin would be in there with some very interesting aircraft.


----------



## thedab (Jul 27, 2015)

I do like the look of alot of the twin-engine fighers

the Ki-82 Ki-96 are good looking planes,the P38 the F7F both looked cool ,the Bf110 looked cool in a sinister way.

but in top place for me is the Hornet,that's one good looking plane.

I like the look of the Whirlwind,but I don't like how it can take over threads.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Remember that the XP-67 was McDonnell's second design, and the first they built.
> 
> The first design that they did was even more radical.


McDonnell's model 1 wasn't that bad of a design, but the tandem pusher prop driven by a single engine would be very questionable in a combat environment.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 27, 2015)

thedab said:


> I do like the look of alot of the twin-engine fighers
> 
> the Ki-82 Ki-96 are good looking planes,the P38 the F7F both looked cool ,the Bf110 looked cool in a sinister way.
> 
> ...



I don't think that's the planes fault lol


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

It's sort of like when you go over the a automotive forums and the ban the word "Hemi" because it takes over the thread ... ha ha. The Hemi advocates think it is best-ever and the Hemi-haters point to engines that are better but not Hemis. The battle rages on ...

The Whirlwind seems to have a similar effect that I don't mind because any civil talk about aircraft is OK with me, particularly if it is about WWII aircraft. It's one of my 2 - 3 favorite subjects. The battle about "best" WWII anything still rages on, too, even with tanks and handheld weapons. Maybe the Jeep wins it's category easily, but almost nothing else does. We'll probably have someone post about a "better Jeep," so that category might not be a shoo-in, either.

Hey Graugeist,

That McDonnell Model 1 looks neat, and you probably have a point about single engines driving twin props. I'd hate to have a good engine but experience one prop hub damage that results in a stuck left or right driveshaft over enemy territory. That would be the pits! ... going down in a single-engine plane with a good engine because one of two prop drive gears takes out the power train.

You could design around it with a shear pin, but again, I'd hate to go down because the shear pins sheared while I was flying through airborne debris after making a kill. Maybe it's a good thing they didn't build one ... maybe not.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 27, 2015)

My personal favourite as twin engined fighters are the Hornet and Tigercat both came too late for the war but that is significant, Jets had taken over the fighter role in most theatres so twin engined prop fighters filled the need for long range and carrier borne fighters for a while.

To make a twin engined fighter able to compete with a single engined plane you must have a single crew, minimal airframe and fuel, this means your twin fighter has all the drawbacks of a single engined fighter for other missions. I personally dont believe that a twin could be competitive in roll rate and probably dive performance, though maybe a little better in climb speed and range.

Fighters were part of a conflict, they were maybe at the top in aircraft performance, but that trends more towards a side show. There is no doubt that a Bf 109 was a better fighter than a Beaufighter but I doubt anyone in the RAF was concerned that Beaufighters were not downing 109s and equally the LW were very concerned as to what to do about the Beau and later the Mosquito. A twin allows a second crewman internal bomb load and greater range without compromising speed. In my opinion every mission where a Twin hit the target and got away counts as a victory of sorts. The extra cost of any twin must be justified it must carry a threat apart from to other fighters.
The Whirlwind and P38 were specifically designed as single seat fighters and were good but in the limit struggled against the best S/E fighters, being single seat restricted their utility in other roles

The Hornet was developed from the Mosquito, I personally dont believe that the RAF would have traded Mosquitos for Hornets during WW2 the Mosquito as a night fighter bomber fighter bomber photo recon plane had much more utility.


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

Not sure the P-38 struggled against single seaters. Early on it struggled against green pilots and a couple of mechanical issues. Once the intake manifolds and fuel issues were figured out, it had only the limit Mach issue to worry about, and more than held it's own against single-seat Japanese fighters.

Generally, though, you make pretty good points. I'll bet the guys flying twins who made it home on one engine would take some issue with the contention here. Roll rate is relative. You can make a twin roll adequately. The USA, for instance, had specifications on roll rate. We probably would not have acepted the Fw 190 until the roll rate was slowed down. While that may seem counter-intuitive, the US fighters in general did very well against any competition, despite many times rolling a bit slower ... the Hellcat in particular.

I like the Hornet a lot, but I think the primary fault was being made of wood instead of Aluminum. It was fast, climbed well, rolled well, certainly had adequate range to get to Berlin and back from London, and was well armed. I don't know whether the British would have traded Mosquitoes for Hornets had they the choice, but if they did, they wouldn't be losing anything on the fighter side ... that's for sure. I'd have to think that one over because the Mosquito was a solid performer in so many areas. That takes nothing away from the Hornet which, if anything, was a solid performer, too ... but not in all the same areas.

Food for thought at any rate.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 27, 2015)

Greg The P38 had some great qualities but when I say the best single engined planes I meant the LW as opponents or late Spitfire P51 P47 Tempest as best in class. Sure the Hornet could get to Berlin but what would it do there if no one wanted to fight strafing Berlin at roof top height makes you vulnerable to anyone with a machine gun or rifle. 

The performance of the Hornet and Tigercat seem great but being twins they had range and were ordered I dont really know if they would have been eaten by spiteful's fury's(or similar) that wernt ordered, this also ignores the jet age which had already dawned


----------



## GregP (Jul 27, 2015)

You make some good points there pbehn. After the P-38's faults were fixed I doubt it would have had too bad a time against the Luftwaffe except for top speed late in the war. So it's probably good it went to the MTO / PTO where this wasn't much of a drawback.

As for what would a Hornet or Tigercat do over Berlin when they got there, their duty would be to escort bombers, not attack Berlin. That's why we sent bombers. I think they would have broken off and stayed out of the flak, and rejoined as the bombers left the flak ... just as the actual escorts did. 

People also tend to forget how heavily armed the Tigercat was. It has four 20 mm cannons plus four 50-cal MG, none of which needed to be synchronized. They were all firing along the fuselage centerline plus or minus a few inches, except for one set of 20 mm cannons that were JUST inside of the prop arc, about 2.5 feet from centerline.

A very short burst would shred any aircraft in existence, even probably today ... if it somehow wound up in a Tigercat's sights. The Hornet was no slouch in armament, either. It lacked the four 50-cal MG but four 20 mm cannons alone firing close together is a pretty hard lick if it hits anything.

The Germans had some pretty hard-hitting planes, too, including some taht had two 20 mm plus two 30 mm ... but they really didn't face similar armament coming back at them very much. Might have been quite a surprise, had it happened earlier. Good armor against 50-cal usually isn't good armor against 20 - 30 mm cannons.

But you know all that and your points are well taken. I bet these very arguments were being discussed in 1941 - 1943.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 28, 2015)

Hornet, even with 60 or 70 series Merlins would've been an asset for late ww2. The Tigercat was a short range fighter, with less fuel per engine than even the early P-47; no Berlin for it until more internal fuel is crammed in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Actually not ejector exhausts.
> 
> The XP-67 was fitted with a turbo for each of its IV-1430s. They were mounted so that their axis was horizontal, or nearly so, and the exhaust pointed rearwards. In the rear view you can probably make out that the "ejector exhausts" actually comprise two pipes - the exhaust proper and the wastegate pipe.


Yes, wrong term. Turbo exhausts configured to provide at least some additional thrust (in theory).



> One of the design issues that the XP-67 ad was that there was no heat shield or firewall between the engine and the turbo.


Hmm, if the turbo was mounted back to back with the engine, I wonder how the exhaust was arranged for the turbine nozzle to be ducted rearward like that without running into the landing gear assembly or resorting to some fairly significant turns in the exhaust manifold. It looks like the wheels retract straight back and don't rotate to lay flat more like the P-40, F4U, or Ju 88.



> I believe there was a proposal to fit Packard Merlins to the XP-67.


That, turbocharged V-1710s or 2-stage V-1710s would all be compelling options. (at least once the latter got water injection) If V-1710 turbocharger installations were less compact than the XI-1430 ones, they could always have used single stage supercharged engines for interim testing purposes. (or 2-stage ones if available, though the single stage models might be easier to mount)

Using 2-stage supercharged engines might have made the mixed-power arrangement easier as well, freeing up the rear of the engine nacelles to house the turbojet engines exclusively without turbocharger ducting to consider.





GregP said:


> Wish they had sorted out the engines, but McDonnell went on to do great things anyway, didn't they?


Or if the engines failed in a less catastrophic manner and left the primary prototype airframe intact for further testing.





GregP said:


> It's sort of like when you go over the a automotive forums and the ban the word "Hemi" because it takes over the thread ... ha ha. The Hemi advocates think it is best-ever and the Hemi-haters point to engines that are better but not Hemis. The battle rages on ...


Or hemi vs 4vpc, or vs sleeve valve which is actually what happened to radial engine development during WWII or even a bit before. Those hemispherical combustion chambers allowing very large intake and exhaust valves of areas previously only possible using Bristol's dual intake and exhaust valve arrangement. (though also making intake and exhaust manifold routing simpler than the 4vpc arrangement) 



> The Whirlwind seems to have a similar effect that I don't mind because any civil talk about aircraft is OK with me, particularly if it is about WWII aircraft. It's one of my 2 - 3 favorite subjects. The battle about "best" WWII anything still rages on, too, even with tanks and handheld weapons. Maybe the Jeep wins it's category easily, but almost nothing else does. We'll probably have someone post about a "better Jeep," so that category might not be a shoo-in, either.


I actually like Gloster's twin more than the Whirlwind, everything but the cockpit/nose looks nice on the F.9/37 and the single and 2-seat merlin engined (paper) so-called 'Reaper' project following it seem to have solved that aesthetic problem nicely.


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2015)

I always liked those two planes, too. Wish they had proceeded.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2015)

GregP said:


> After the P-38's faults were fixed I doubt it would have had too bad a time against the Luftwaffe except for top speed late in the war. So it's probably good it went to the MTO / PTO where this wasn't much of a drawback.
> 
> As for what would a Hornet or Tigercat do over Berlin when they got there, their duty would be to escort bombers, not attack Berlin. That's why we sent bombers. I think they would have broken off and stayed out of the flak, and rejoined as the bombers left the flak ... just as the actual escorts did.



From what I have read the P38 in the hands of an experienced pilot could do quite well. I dont know how much training is required to transition to being a good pilot of a twin fighter compared to the transition from say a P 47 to P 51. Since my last post I have read here and there that the Tigercat had excellent dive and good roll performance so maybe if it had the range it could have done something BUT would it have been better than the P51 ..it would certainly have cost more. Both the Hornet and Tigercat were designed as single seat fighters and both later had a radar operator added.

I am surprised that people didnt see the writing on the wall and design then from the start as twin tandem seat. I could see some use for a plane with radar controlling groups of escort fighters spotting the LW by radar rather than eye sight, in the way a master bomber controlled RAF night raids. That role could have been performed by a mosquito, I presume by the fact it wasnt done there was no point to it. Its a shame that the tigercat and Hornet didnt serve in anything other than side shows and not really in their intended role but I dont see much pressure from the RAF anytime in the war for a faster lighter single seat mosquito. the Hornet was a private venture at wars end to meet a possible requirement in the far east.

I have read Winkle Browns glowing report on the Hornets general handling and performance, I presume he would have a different idea of the night fighter version which had a man and radar equipment shoehorned in the rear fuselage, that must be just about the worst "gig" in post war aviation.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2015)

The Tigercat actually has it's lineage linked to pre-war via the XF5F/XP-50

In the early stages of developing the F7F, the radar equipment available was bulky and was not an option. It wasn't until the APS-6 system, which became available in 1944, that smaller airframes could accept a radar system for night-fighting missions.

A good example of this, would be the P-38E "Swordfish" which was modified to have an early radar system, with nowhere near the capabilities of the SCR-720 system. With the modified two-seat fuselage and antenna array in the nose and receivers on each wing, there would certanly be a performance penalty. It would be several years before the P-38 once again carried a radar system, this time, the APS-6 aboard the P-38M.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> In the early stages of developing the F7F, the radar equipment available was bulky and was not an option. It wasn't until the APS-6 system, which became available in 1944, that smaller airframes could accept a radar system for night-fighting missions.



That is what I meant by seeing the writing on the wall, the RAF were using experimental RADAR set ups in aircraft from 1938/39 and operationally from 1940, surely someone could see the advantage eventually of a RADAR equipped fighter. If in dog fighting position and awareness is critical I would think it is a great way to gain position before your enemy could possibly see you.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2015)

pbehn said:


> That is what I meant by seeing the writing on the wall, the RAF were using experimental RADAR set ups in aircraft from 1938/39 and operationally from 1940, surely someone could see the advantage eventually of a RADAR equipped fighter. If in dog fighting position and awareness is critical I would think it is a great way to gain position before your enemy could possibly see you.


Even in day fighter operations? Would compact late-war radar have allowed high performance 2-seat twins to be effective in daylight operations? (seems more useful for interceptors than escorts -in escort situations, bombers would be better suited to handling early-warning duties once suitable radar arrived)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2015)

Well, the "powers that be" knew of the emerging technology, but it was still developing and would be hard to predict just where the technology would be several years down the road. However, the designers and engineers weren't fully aware of the technology unless they were directly involved in a project. In the case of the P-61, it wasn't even designed for a radar system originally, but Jack Northrup was able to change the design to accept it. 

Now, from the time the P-61 and the SCR-720 was designed, until the time it went into service, the airborn radar systems changed a great deal. So trying to actually design an airframe with a future system in mind would be a heck of a gamble.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Even in day fighter operations? Would compact late-war radar have allowed high performance 2-seat twins to be effective in daylight operations? (seems more useful for interceptors than escorts -in escort situations, bombers would be better suited to handling early-warning duties once suitable radar arrived)



Just an idea, as part of groups forward of the bomber stream looking for fighters taking off and forming up or to the sides of the stream. I think LW interceptors had enough problems without adding the weight of a radar set and operation.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 28, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Hmm, if the turbo was mounted back to back with the engine, I wonder how the exhaust was arranged for the turbine nozzle to be ducted rearward like that without running into the landing gear assembly or resorting to some fairly significant turns in the exhaust manifold. It looks like the wheels retract straight back and don't rotate to lay flat more like the P-40, F4U, or Ju 88.



I didn't mean to suggest that the turbo was right up against the engine. It was, most likely, towards the rear of the nacelle, behind teh wheel bay. I'd suggest that the vent at the top rear of the nacelle is about where the turbo was mounted.




kool kitty89 said:


> That, turbocharged V-1710s or 2-stage V-1710s would all be compelling options. (at least once the latter got water injection) If V-1710 turbocharger installations were less compact than the XI-1430 ones, they could always have used single stage supercharged engines for interim testing purposes. (or 2-stage ones if available, though the single stage models might be easier to mount)



The turbo used would be the same and the position would be the same, so the V-1710 turbo installation would be the same as the IV-1430's.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 28, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, the "powers that be" knew of the emerging technology, but it was still developing and would be hard to predict just where the technology would be several years down the road. However, the designers and engineers weren't fully aware of the technology unless they were directly involved in a project. In the case of the P-61, it wasn't even designed for a radar system originally, but Jack Northrup was able to change the design to accept it.
> 
> Now, from the time the P-61 and the SCR-720 was designed, until the time it went into service, the airborn radar systems changed a great deal. So trying to actually design an airframe with a future system in mind would be a heck of a gamble.



It may have resulted in some lumps and bumps on the airframe but if the second seat was already designed as an option it would be easier to sort. Maybe that was an oversight on all sides with the technical boffins not being able to communicate to A/C designers what may would be possible in 2 to 3 years time.


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2015)

How about a suggestion for a twin that was built but never flown?

The Bf 109Z looks pretty good to me. The fuselages were Bf 109F-4's and when it was finished it was damaged in a hangar by an Allied bombing raid before being flown. More were planned but the war situation declined and they were never built again. Still, it looks competitive with the twins.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 29, 2015)

GregP said:


> How about a suggestion for a twin that was built but never flown?
> 
> The Bf 109Z looks pretty good to me. The fuselages were Bf 109F-4's and when it was finished it was damaged in a hangar by an Allied bombing raid before being flown. More were planned but the war situation declined and they were never built again. Still, it looks competitive with the twins.
> 
> View attachment 297527



For the 109Z and the P(F) 82 I can sort of see some slight advantages but wouldnt the pilot(s) get thrown about a lot in a roll because they arnt on the turning axis. I believe the F82 was quite successful in what it did but how did it handle? Did both crew have controls?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2015)

Unlike the Bf109Z, the P-82 (later F-82) was built and technically available by war's end, but for lack of engines, the P-82B sat out the final months of the war.

As far as dual controls, some did (P-82B, F-82E, etc.), although the night-fighter version (P-82C/D, F-82F, etc.) had the left cockpit as the only control station and the right cockpit was for radar operator's position.

It turns out that the F-82 was very competetive in a dogfight against enemy aircraft, the first three U.S. aerial victories in the Korean war, were made by F-82Gs on 27 June 1950, over Kimpo as North Korean YaK-9s, YaK-11s and La-7s attempted an attack on departing transports. Two La-7s were downed and a phenominal dogfight ensued bewteen a YaK-11 and Lt. Hudson's F-82, resulting in the downing of the YaK for the first victory of the war.


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2015)

When I read a pilot report on the F-82, all participants noted an unusual characteristic that everyone liked. To the pilot, it seemed as if the aircraft were rotating around his cockpit when it rolled. To the non-pilot, it seemed opposite. That is, both crew felt as though the aircraft were rolling around their own cockpit. So the issue you perceptively rasied above didn't occur.

That is NOT to say the Bf 109Z or any other "Siamese Twin" would have the same results. Because one twin-fuselage-fighter didn't have the issue doesn't mean others wouldn't have it. It would probaly have to be investigated for all such twins before any blanket statement could be made and even then, you can't be sure the next one wouldn't exhibit the problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2015)

A problem with the 109Z is that was kind of either/or. Either it was a single seat seat twin engine fighter with somewhat adequate fuel (a tank went were the cockpit was in starboard fuselage) _or_ it was a two seat (night fighter?) twin engine plane with dismal fuel supply.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 29, 2015)

GregP said:


> When I read a pilot report on the F-82, all participants noted an unusual characteristic that everyone liked. To the pilot, it seemed as if the aircraft were rotating around his cockpit when it rolled. To the non-pilot, it seemed opposite. That is, both crew felt as though the aircraft were rolling around their own cockpit. So the issue you perceptively rasied above didn't occur.
> 
> That is NOT to say the Bf 109Z or any other "Siamese Twin" would have the same results. Because one twin-fuselage-fighter didn't have the issue doesn't mean others wouldn't have it. It would probaly have to be investigated for all such twins before any blanket statement could be made and even then, you can't be sure the next one wouldn't exhibit the problem.



Greg...I can imagine that as a sensation, like sitting on a train when the train next to you moves forwards you think you are moving backwards. I meant the distance from the seat to axis of turn, the bigger that is the larger the actual G force in a roll, I wouldnt know how to convert roll in degrees/second to "G".


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 29, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> A problem with the 109Z is that was kind of either/or. Either it was a single seat seat twin engine fighter with somewhat adequate fuel (a tank went were the cockpit was in starboard fuselage) _or_ it was a two seat (night fighter?) twin engine plane with dismal fuel supply.


The Bf109Z (based on the Bf109F) and the proposed Me609 (based on the Me309) both were always intended to be single-seat, the cockpit being on the port fuselage. Each type was to have been either a heavy fighter or a fighter/bomber.

The "Z" idea kept coming back to Messerschmitt, as there were proposals on paper to make a "Zwilling" from the Bf109G and the Bf109H. Like the Me609, those proposals never left the drawing board.

It would jave been interesting to see how the Bf109Z performed, but I suspect that it may have had some handling issues that were learned during the P-82 development. Once they installed counter-rotating engines, the P-82 was a winner. I have never read anything about Messerschmitt intending to install anything but a pair of standard DB601E engines.


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2015)

Converting roll into g is not difficult, but they didn't roll fast enough for that to be an issue.

In Physics, centripetal acceleration is given by: ac = v^2 / r, where ac = centripetal acceleration, v = tangential velocity, and r = radius, with consistent units.

But to get to some significant acceleration would require quite a roll rate, sustained over some revolutions. I susect they'd usually not roll more than once and, more ofdten, not more than maybe 120°, followed by a good pull to escape or attack. If they had to, they weren't flying right.


----------



## T Bolt (Jul 30, 2015)

The P-82 wasn't really a 'twin' Mustang. The fuselages were not at all like the P-51D which everyone knows, but more like the light weight P-51H, although they were not truly P-51H fuselages either but a compleatly new assembly, considerably longer than any other Mustang. I tend to think that this lengthening of the fuselage would be needed in any of these twin fuselage fighter types to compensate for the longer wingspan.


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2015)

For those of you who think a two-cerw version had dismal range, recall that on 27 Feb 1947, Col. Bob Thacker flew a P-82B nonstop from Hawaii to New York, a distance of 5,051 miles (8,129 km). The aircraft carried a full internal fuel tank of 576 US gallons (2,180 l; 480 imp gal), augmented by four 310 US gal (1,173 l; 258 imp gal) tanks for a total of 1,816 US gal (6,874 l; 1,512 imp gal). Also, Colonel Thacker forgot to drop three of his external tanks when their fuel was expended, landing with them in New York. It averaged 347.5 miles per hour (559.2 km/h).

The normal range with a crew of 2 was 2,350 miles or just short of London to Berlin and back twice.

I call it a "Twin Mustang" bacause that is the official name, not because of the parts it was made from.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2015)

P-82 was a bit of a special case as they found room for slightly more fuel than two separate Mustangs using rear tanks. 







In part because they didn't keep four landing gear legs and didn't try to carry twice the gun armament of a single Mustang.


----------



## T Bolt (Jul 30, 2015)

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that the P-82 wasn't just to mustangs bolted together like the 109Z, But an almost completely new aircraft


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2015)

I've never SEEN a thread on the Fw 187 in which many people didn't claim the engine intended all along was the DB 601. Of course, if you actually LOOK at the Fw 187's built, how many HAD the DB 601? They never seem to stop and think about that much.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2015)

I suspect Willy kept the original landing gear intact on the Bf109Z for two reasons:
First, the original landing gear wasn't robust enough to support the full weight of the dual fuselages, additional armament and full load-out if it were "halved"

Secondly, modifying the landing gear to have half of the main gear under each fuselage would require additional labor and Willy intended to keep as much equipment "off the shelf" as possible.

It seems that Messerschmitt never did design a main gear that was completely trouble-free...


----------



## redcoat (Jul 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think we covered that already, but if not, it didn't stay in service long and it's combat success seems quite hard to document. Lack of information about it makes me think it didn't do all that well. It is possible it did but, if so, why is it so hard to find out about? It wasn't used by many squadrons because there weren't all that many Whirlwinds built ... 114 or 116 total, including 2 prototypes. That won't go very far equipping an Air Force.


The Whirlwind was in front-line operational service from December 1940 until June 1943 (a remarkable length of time for a single mark of an aircraft in WW2), where it was usually used in a low level strike and escort role over Northern France.
It seems to have had a reasonably successful career, and remained popular with it's pilots until it's retirement.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> I've never SEEN a thread on the Fw 187 in which many people didn't claim the engine intended all along was the DB 601. Of course, if you actually LOOK at the Fw 187's built, how many HAD the DB 601? They never seem to stop and think about that much.



Greg, I am willing to concede to the FW 187 fans that it _was_ designed for some sort of DB 600 engine and the prototypes got Jumo 210s because DB couldn't supply ( or the German Air Ministry would not release/allocate) the DB 601s. Bf 110s couldn't get enough DB 601s in 1938 and early 1939. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the Bf 110s used against Poland used Jumo 210 engines. Every Fw 187 prototype with DB engines in 1939 is a Bf 110 with Jumo 210s 
However I have serious doubts about the performance of a _service_ FW 187 using _normal_ DB 601 engines compared to the hot rod specials using surface cooling as installed in the V6 prototype. It undoubtedly would be better than the the Jumo powered versions though. 

I have few questions about the armament in regards to timing.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 30, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Greg, I am willing to concede to the FW 187 fans that it _was_ designed for some sort of DB 600 engine and the prototypes got Jumo 210s because DB couldn't supply ( or the German Air Ministry would not release/allocate) the DB 601s. Bf 110s couldn't get enough DB 601s in 1938 and early 1939. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the Bf 110s used against Poland used Jumo 210 engines. Every Fw 187 prototype with DB engines in 1939 is a Bf 110 with Jumo 210s
> However I have serious doubts about the performance of a _service_ FW 187 using _normal_ DB 601 engines compared to the hot rod specials using surface cooling as installed in the V6 prototype. It undoubtedly would be better than the the Jumo powered versions though.
> 
> I have few questions about the armament in regards to timing.


I think the V5 was the only one tested with an actual DB 601, but may or may not have used surface cooling (did use some sort of experimental cooling system, pressurized/evaporative but may have used a conventional radiator like the later pressurized DB engines). Performance information is limited on that prototype, as is overall configuration, but from the bit I've seen it managed better than the earlier surface-cooled DB 600 powered prototype. (which itself seemed to have a very limited critical altitude and achieved that ~395 mph figure at low level)

I agree it's unlikely that DB 601A equipped, fully armed (single or two seat) production Fw 187s would have managed similar speeds in either case, but performance significantly beyond the Jumo 210G seems logical, especially above the 210's critical altitude. I could see a light, unarmored prototype version (even a two seater) with conventional radiators and DB 601s still exceeding 400 mph at altitude, but far less likely when weighed down with operational equipment. (DB 601Ns or Jumo 211Fs might have managed it)

But most of that's academic anyway, the bigger point probably would have been at least moderately faster than all 1940 opponents and likely much better climbing, though roll rate might suffer with the heavier engines. (even with Czech Hispano 12Ys it might have out-run 109s and spitfires at altitude and much more so in the 12Y's best atltitude range)

It would have been a poor replacement for the Bf 109E in most respects due to overall cost (and the 109's ground handling issues AND short range could/should have been addressed in more cost-effective ways than needing a total replacement), but compared to the Bf 110, the Fw 187 with either set of engines seems much more useful in every practical circumstance except for cannon drum reloading. (more MG-FFs seems the simplest solution there) The Fw 187 should NOT have been in direct competition with the Bf 109, though.


Having counter-rotating props would be nice (and possible with 12Ys) but DB and Jumo seemed to lag in that regard.


From the story as far as I know it, it seems like Udet could have been more of a driving force behind the 187, particularly for pushing it beyond the constraints of the Zerstorer requirements. He had misgivings over its potential maneuverability, but having him test fly it seems to be a potent solution there. That never seems to have been arranged, unlike Heinke's various occasions of having Udet test his aircraft, but perhaps Tank (or others at Focke Wulf) were concerned Udet might crash or otherwise damage the prototype given his track record.

Honestly, in this regard, using the Jumo 210 would have been an advantage. The smaller size and weight would have maximized the maneuverability of the aircraft and made it appear more favorable than if loaded with DB 601 or Jumo 211 engines.



As far as armament goes, as a heavy fighter/interceptor, 6 MG FF cannons would have been fairly close to the weight/bulk of the P-38E or Whirlwind's armaments and lighter than the P-38D's (and any others using the earlier 37 mm cannon + 4 .50 browning arrangement). Some bulges to fit all the drums might have been needed, but it hardly seems an unreasonable configuration. (adding 2 more MG FFs to the existing Fw 187A-0 armament might have been a quicker modification at that point though, 4 MG FFs and 4 MG 17s would have been plenty useful at the time and more than double the Bf 109E's firepower -lack of synchronization + concentration of fire)


----------



## pbehn (Jul 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> In Physics, centripetal acceleration is given by: ac = v^2 / r, where ac = centripetal acceleration, v = tangential velocity, and r = radius, with consistent units.
> 
> But to get to some significant acceleration would require quite a roll rate, sustained over some revolutions. I susect they'd usually not roll more than once and, more ofdten, not more than maybe 120°, followed by a good pull to escape or attack. If they had to, they weren't flying right.


I am not an expert but centripetal forces act from the inside of a circle outwards. The forces I am talking about are the difference between sitting at the centre of a rolling aircraft and those experienced a few metres away, like flying an AC while sat on the wing. That is kicking one pilot in the ass to turn and having the other hanging on his staps rather than trying to throw them out of the side of the aircraft. The equation therefore must be a function of radius and degrees/second but I have no idea whether an aeroplane rolls at a constant rate, gets progressively faster, to me there must be a transition between level flight and maximum roll. A plane with two obvious centres of mass connected so as to only one axis of rotation would behave very strangely, or I think it would any way.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 30, 2015)

Idea for a twin engined fighter:-

A twin engined fighter mosquito sized with a nose armament like the chin turret on a late B17 operated by the co pilot when in fee combat or locked straight ahead and operated by the pilot ....meaning even if up against a tighter turning AC it could get a shot on target.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Idea for a twin engined fighter:-
> 
> A twin engined fighter mosquito sized with a nose armament like the chin turret on a late B17 operated by the co pilot when in fee combat or locked straight ahead and operated by the pilot ....meaning even if up against a tighter turning AC it could get a shot on target.



The 2 gun Bendix chin turret weighed over 700 pounds with ammo. Thats a lot of weight for not much firepower.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Idea for a twin engined fighter:-
> 
> A twin engined fighter mosquito sized with a nose armament like the chin turret on a late B17 operated by the co pilot when in fee combat or locked straight ahead and operated by the pilot ....meaning even if up against a tighter turning AC it could get a shot on target.


It was proposed by Armstrong Whitworth in the form of the AW.34 in response to an Air Ministry request. After consideration of the submissions, the Air Ministry abandoned the idea, revised the requirements and ended up with the Boulton Paul Defiant. 

As history showed, turret aircraft didn't fare too well when put into combat.

Here's the AW.34 concept:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 30, 2015)

The AW.34 reminds me a bit of Bell's YFM-1 Airacuda ... 






Rather like the failed Kampfzerstorer concept, Bell would have been much better off going the route Messerschmitt did with the Bf 110, or even Bristol with the Beaufighter's reloadable cannons, less than half the crew and around 2/3 the size and a similar offensive armament. It's no P-38, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the YFM-1. 




pbehn said:


> Idea for a twin engined fighter:-
> 
> A twin engined fighter mosquito sized with a nose armament like the chin turret on a late B17 operated by the co pilot when in fee combat or locked straight ahead and operated by the pilot ....meaning even if up against a tighter turning AC it could get a shot on target.


Wasn't that part of the logic behind the 'no allowance' upward angled cannons in the F.9/37? (that and the ability to fire at aircraft from below while still at horizontal attitude, but not in the extreme upward angles German Nightfighters used)

It'd be interesting to see the gunsight arrangement for that.

Seems useful for boom and zoom tactics too, with the ability to actually follow on the OUTSIDE of a turn for a short period, still line up a good deflection angle, and then break off and zoom away. (with the Whirlwind's high wing loading and good roll rate, that sort of arrangement seems favorable there as well)


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2015)

C'mon, the YFM-1 was not a fighter ... it was an airborne fighter SQUAD of guys.

Great camaraderie in the roaring 30's ... if altogether useless. It DID help develop the Allison V-1710, but it was sort of like going hunting with an accordion as a weapon. You might bludgeon something to death with it (likely not) but, if you DID, it wasn't going to be pretty and NOBODY was going to be satisfied except Larry Bell.

Wonder if each one of those pods had a relief tube? Maybe they could jettison waste byproduct on the enemy and corrode their airframes before they got back home ... sure as HELL would hate to bail out of a pod with the trusty Allison going at 2,700 rpm or more. Heck, I'd pretty much hate if the engine was at idle or even stopped dead. A stopped prop would be about just as bad as turning prop.

That's when you KNOW you got it wrong.

It's sort like ... would you be more offended if someone said you had the morals of an alleycat or you DIDN'T have the morals of an alleycat?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 31, 2015)

Hey, the Fw 57 is categorized as a fighter ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_57








Those pusher engines with special extension shafts would have been more interesting to see used for actual attempts at drag reduction on a high speed design. 

Like if some of the P-39's design concepts were applied to a twin engine heavy fighter -much lower drag wing for one, even considering the size difference, sleek fuselage, tricycle gear (easier and more practical on a twin anyway, especially a pusher -the YFM-1 being a taildragger was just one more out of place oddball design trait), concentrated centerline armament (again, easier on a twin), canopy with good all around field of view (XP-39 was better than the P-39 there), and that unusual engine arrangement to improve streamlining and facilitate specialized armament (true for the pusher arrangement too, except keeping the cannons on the centerline would make more sense). And of course, the twin engine arrangement makes turbochargers and intercoolers far easier to implement. (pusher prop nacelles might have actually allowed a lower drag arrangement there than Lockheed managed on the P-38 ) Counter rotating props also tend to make spins nearly impossible or close to it so long as both engines are working properly and at the same throttle and RPM settings (no asymmetric torque or thrust).


The YFM-1 though ... really a bizarre aircraft to see get that far into development.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 31, 2015)

I think four 20 mm MG 151/20 should be possible for the Fw 187.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 31, 2015)

spicmart said:


> I think four 20 mm MG 151/20 should be possible for the Fw 187.


Sure, with the potential modifications to the airframe of continued development for another 3-4 years, lots of things could be possible. (6 MG 151/20s or 4 MK 108s doesn't seem unreasonable either: by no means a drop-in mounting in the existing 1939 airframe, but it seems plausible -I'd think bulk in horizontal dimensions for the guns+ammo would be more the factor for MK 108s than weight or recoil, but two in the cheeks/sides and two in the lower nose/belly seems realistic, perhaps with some bulges)

The 'more MG FFs' suggestion was more for the 1939-1941 context, including something that might make pique RLM interest in the bomber-destroyer role. (4 or 6 MG FFs without in-flight re-loading would offer some serious considerations compared to the Bf 110 -as it was, the Fw 187A-0 DID have a weaker offensive armament than the Bf 110C)

Bear in mind that MG FFs are considerably lighter (slightly lighter than .50 M2s) and had significantly lighter and smoother recoil than MG 151/20s, so not just a matter of being available sooner, but also putting less stress on the airframe. (there's a reason MG 151/20s couldn't just be dropped inside Bf 109 wings or Fw 190 outer wings, at least not without some modification)


----------



## Just Schmidt (Aug 1, 2015)

Any other twins you like out there?[/QUOTE]

Disclaimer: the reasons I like a particular design isn't always connevted to the fact that it did/could influence the war in a decisive way.

I like a lot of twins, and those you mentioned, but also a few other japanese in particular the Ki 45.







Not a bad design, it was effective in many roles but the escort fighter it was actually designed for. And asking how many mustangs it shot down is kind of like asking a pretty lightly dressed young woman if she can actually sing...

I like the whole family springing from it. Not exactly the Fw 187 of japan, I still think not producing the one seat Ki 96 a mistake.






The Ki 102 was at least partly consieved as a fighter, and like the final member of the family, Ki 108 also pleases the eye. Though the 102 did enter production, most Ki 102 (if not all, and primarily ground attack version) was held in reserve for the anticipated invasion.






Good, but freakish looking was also the fighter version of the Ki 46 III. It looks like the 37 mm cannon was to big for that kind of installation in an airframe that was designed as a high speed reconnaisance aircreft. And it was.






Only operational as a fighter in few examples, at least the Pe 2 was originally designed as a fighter, So I get an excuse for at least mentioning one of my favorite twins of the whole conflict.

Finally I wish to note that the Fw 187 certainly was a fine aircraft and in all probability an opportunity missed. I do however question how much further potential it had. Much of its startling performance stemmed from its very slim fuselage, neccessitating that some of the instruments be placed on the engine nacelles. Already it had guns mounted in bulges in the fuselage. At least it dosn't seem unproblematic adding more avionics and armament without hurting performance (and not only from added weight). I really doubt it could have worked well as a night fighter without a new and bigger fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2015)

I can say this about the Fw 187. Germany was in need of its own "Mosquito," and the people in power actually making the decisions didn't see that in the Fw 187 ... and those were the very guys who needed it. So, a bit later when the need became great, none of them thought the Fw 187 was worth even resurrecting.

So I have a hard time understanding why all this after-the-fact-praise is heaped upon it when the very armed forces who created it out of a rtequirment decided it wasn't worth production.

I'd say they were a LOT closer to the real facts of the aircraft than we are.

It doesn't stop me from liking the Fw 187, but liking it and saying it was a large missed opportunity are two different things. The RLM had a solid-performing airframe and they decided the Fw 187 had no function they needed. That could have been political, and it wouldn't be alone there, it could have been personal animosity, it could have been many things, but the RLM elected not to procure it.

I can say the same for a number of otherwise-apparently-first-class aircraft in the USA and other countries that also were not procured. Curtiss-Wright got out of the airplane business when the XF-87 Blackhawk was not accepted ... and it met the spec it was designed for. Northrop never sold an F-20 Tigershark and it more than met it's design goals. The F-23 was not selected for production and it was the only one of the two submitted types that met the stealth spec. The F-22 didn't and doesn't. When the F-22 didn't meet the stealth spec, the government's answer was to lower the stealth spec. The XP-40Q was a solid airplane. The XP-72 looked like one, too. The list is long and distinguished.

Nice selection of twins, Just Schmidt. I like 'em too.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 2, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> The 2 gun Bendix chin turret weighed over 700 pounds with ammo. Thats a lot of weight for not much firepower.



The mosquito fighter bomber was already fitted with 4 x .303 in the nose. I wasnt thinking about a turret with 180 degree coverage but a smaller arrangement of about +/- 30 degrees.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The mosquito fighter bomber was already fitted with 4 x .303 in the nose. I wasnt thinking about a turret with 180 degree coverage but a smaller arrangement of about +/- 30 degrees.


But with the additional weight and drag, there will be a performance penalty and for what offensive gain?

Also, if you look at the effectiveness of the bomber's turrets against enemy aircraft in combat, you'll see they required a great deal of rounds expended in order to score hits. This was on much slower, steady flying bombers. Now put a turret on a much smaller aircraft, placed in a fluid combat situation and I imagine it would be virtually impossible to train the weapons on an enemy and register effective hits.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> I can say this about the Fw 187. Germany was in need of its own "Mosquito," and the people in power actually making the decisions didn't see that in the Fw 187 ... and those were the very guys who needed it. So, a bit later when the need became great, none of them thought the Fw 187 was worth even resurrecting.
> 
> So I have a hard time understanding why all this after-the-fact-praise is heaped upon it when the very armed forces who created it out of a rtequirment decided it wasn't worth production.
> 
> ...



GregP, just because the RLM didn't opt for it, doesn't mean that it was the right decision. The Techniches Amt under Udet wasn't the most competent.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2015)

The FW 187 is viewed by it's adherents much the same (only more so) as the Whirlwind and it's supporters. Trouble is the FW 187 has about zero combat experience to look at, and no real world numbers with the engines it's fans propose to use. 

They also want to split it into 2 or 3 different lines of development. 

Some want to call it the German Mosquito. In actual fact the Mosquito was bigger than the Bf 110 even if only slightly (it was certainly heavier most of the time) but this allowed for the _internal/low drag_ carriage of bombs *and* a large quantity of internal fuel. A Fw 187 "bomber" would be slower and shorter ranged. Some say it would have been a good night fighter, but that would have required a modified nose/cockpit. Germans thought the He 219 had too small a cockpit. The Bf 11 had been _designed_ to hold 3 men, not carried in some roles but the capability (cockpit size) was there for extra equipment/crew. It wasn't there on the FW 187s that were built. 

Some say it could have been the German P-38. Much closer in size and a possibility. But a bit more limited for multi-roles. 

Some say it should have stayed a single seater and been the German P-51 (long range escort fighter). These two need an alteration in timing. The FW 187 was being built in 1938/39. In those years the German radios for single seat fighters were rather limited. Even during th eBoB the 109s could seldom (if ever) talk (communicate) with the bombers and at certain distances could no longer talk to the ground stations. Not a good recipe for an escort fighter. The Drum fed 20mm MG/ff cannon present a problem in combat duration in 1939/40 and early 1941 too, You may have the fuel for deep escort but if the cannon are out of ammo after the first encounter you have a rather limited escort fighter. By 1941 when the belt fed German cannon come into service (and 15mm to start with) the FW 187 is about 1 1/2 to 2 years old. It was no longer competing with the Bf 110 but the Me 210 (or what they _thought_ the ME 210 could do) and the 109 had under gone an aerodynamic clean up that pretty much closed the gap between the 109 performance and what a DB 601 powered FW 187 could do except for range. The Addition of the drop tank and the better aerodynamics extended the range of the 109 quite a bit and aside from the He 111 the Germans didn't have that many long range bombers that needed escorting at longer distances. 

Now I will admit that the Germans were working on the Belt fed cannon for quite some time and proposed aircraft in 1939 show them in drawings. However they were late showing up and any plane that _depended_ on the new guns would have been in trouble in service. 

A lot of times a planes success (or failure) is linked to _behind the scenes_ stuff like radios/communications and combat duration ( Fulmars had lousy performance but had enough fuel and ammo to make multiple interceptions in one flight. A higher performing plane that needed to land twice as often to refuel and re-arm might not have done so well in the circumstances the Fulmar faced).


----------



## cherry blossom (Aug 3, 2015)

I am a DB 601 Fw 187 fanboy for the specific circumstances of the Battle of Britain. Clearly the issues of radio and combat persistence are important and it was the issue of the radio that caused the rejection of the single seat Fw 187. However, a He 111 could have easily carried a fighter type radio in addition to its longer ranged radio and could thus have communicated with single seat escorts. 

The issue of combat persistence would have prevented a 1940 Fw 187 armed with the MG FF from escorting American bombers from Britain to Berlin. However, there were many targets for the Luftwaffe on the east coast of the British Isles from Scarpa Flow in the North down to the Humber and including shipyards at Newcastle. The Royal Navy could not remove its ships from the east coast as long as there was an invasion threat. The port and ship building at Glasgow does involve a deeper penetration but not much more than to London in the South.

I agree that the Fw 187 would have been a worse nightfighter than the Bf 110 or the Ju 88. It would also have been unable to replace the Mosquito as a bomb truck (the Ju 288A might have been a good night bomber before it was redesigned). However, the Fw 187 could have carried bombs at least as far as the Fw 190, which saw extensive service dropping bombs by day and even by night.


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2015)

I maintain the people who cointinue to tout the Fw 187 can't come to the realization that the people making the decisions didn't opt for it. There is no circumstance or likely circumstance which can change that short of a different set of desision makers. If you DID have a different set of decision makers, there might not have been a BOB or a war at that time, so there's no way to predict what they might have done about the Fw 187. It's all fantasy.

Nothing wrong with a good fantasy novel about alternate history, but it has no meaning in the real world of what actually happened. Had they selected the Fw 187 for a role, then something else would not have been built that actually filled the role. To make even a good fantasy, you need to fill in the events and then come up with a proposal of how that might have affected things.

So, if we had different people in power, and if they had selected the Fw 187, when might the war have happened? And what developments might have taken place in the Allied world given the delay?

If the British had a full compliment of Spitfires when the war came, would the Fw 187 have made any difference at all? I have a very hard time thinking it would have changed anything unless the DB 601-powered variant were in service because then it could outrun the early Spitfires. But, again neing realistic, the British have a very distinguished record of coming up with solutions to close the performance gap when the Spitfire was, for a short while, outperformed. When the Fw 190 came out, it didn't take thenm long to catch up.

The British also would have had more and better radar, so the new Fw 187's would not have been able to sneak up un the UK any better than the real Luftwaffe did in the real event.

The only "what if" I can see that would realistically change the outcome is if Japan had somehow NOT attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they not done so, the USA might have stayed isolationist and might not have come into the war. In that event, with or without the Fw 187, the UK might have had a hard time getting food and war material into the country by sea. Surrender might have been a real possibility, not due to any failure of the RAF or the British people, but due to food or material shortages that would threaten national survival on a large scale.

The Fw 187 would have little effect on that area, and it is also entirely possible that the British might find a way around the shipping issue, even though delaying the war would have alloowed Doenitz to have a larger U-boat armada. It is also entirely possible the USA would have come into the war just to prevent the UK from going under had they not been somehow able to skirt the U-boat blocakade. I'd bet on the British here to find a way to stay in the fight; it's in their nature to put off addressing a political problem but also to lick it when it looms immediately at the door.

So I can't see the Fw 187 making any difference no matter what happened. But hey, I could be wrong and have been before.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2015)

I suppose the Fw187 may have made a difference in the BoB *IF* they had followed a more productive system and planning.

Otherwise, if you pluck one fighter type out of the historical timeline and replaced it with another (say, remove the Fw190 and replace it with the Fw187), they would have still ended up failing to reach their goals as actually happened.

So sure, the Fw187 may have gone on to kick ass on the RAF, but to what end? The Luftwaffe still dropped the ball on the bombing strategy, they still dropped the ball on following an effective escort/interceptor strategy and all this adds up to the Fw187 not making any difference in the final outcome of that fight.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> GregP, just because the RLM didn't opt for it, doesn't mean that it was the right decision. The Techniches Amt under Udet wasn't the most competent.


I haven't seen any reasonable claims that the RLM avoided the Fw 187 for legitimate technical reasons. It didn't fit their standard doctrine as the Bf 110 did, so on that technicality (and inflexibility/shortsightedness) it was held back. But beyond that, the prevailing argument seems to be sheer bias towards everything Messerschmitt. This seems to apply to the Me 210 and 410 as well, while the Ar 240 was given less attention, and when the RLM did finally request a fast twin-engine heavy fighter from Focke Wulf, they insisted it be made of wood. (rather ironic given Heinkel would have been the better firm to pursue there as far as experience in wooden construction AND fighter aircraft design -Gotha had more extensive use in service, but not so much in the fighter or high speed types; even then, wood was a poor option late-war due to restricted resources -the Mosquito likewise would have been impossible to build in the UK with similar resource shortages, or even lesser shortages given how specialized De Havilland construction was)

A direct derivative of the Fw 187 would undoubtedly have been more practical in the Ta 154's role and much faster to develop. (adopting Jumo 211F or J engines probably would have been a safer bet too given the 211N's initial reliability problems)




Shortround6 said:


> The FW 187 is viewed by it's adherents much the same (only more so) as the Whirlwind and it's supporters. Trouble is the FW 187 has about zero combat experience to look at, and no real world numbers with the engines it's fans propose to use.
> 
> They also want to split it into 2 or 3 different lines of development.
> 
> ...


I say it would be a bit different than all of those, lighter than the P-38, likely able to reach service early, useful in 2-seat configuration from the start (with potential for further development in 2 or 1 seat configurations). The limited reports seem to at least imply it had good overall control and roll rate (in common with the Whirlwind though with much lower wing loading). 

It wasn't tested heavily enough to be proven, but compared to the XP-38 and YP 38 as well as Whirlwind prorotypes, the Fw 187 seemed to be much more trouble free and more readily adaptable to combat. (Gloster's Twin possibly had similar qualities, but it had even less testing and fewer prototypes and modifications made along with significantly more limited internal fuel capacity -it SEEMS like it had more potential for modification in line with the Fw 187 compared to the rather tightly designed Whirlwind, but the lack of real world testing leaves much more up to speculation than even the Fw 187)


It by no means would have been a good mosquito. The Ar 240 would be the closest counterpart there, but the Fw 187 might have made a good daylight Mosquito killer and significantly faster than the Bf 109 or Fw 190 at least during the early war period. (it should have continued to scale up in speed, but it might have hit some unusual high speed/transonic problems that didn't show up in the early testing) It wouldn't have been a useful nightfighter until the compact late-war models became available. (the Ar 240 should have been better there)

The Ta 154 was by no means a direct competitor to the Mosquito either, though it was intended as a Mosquito killer.



Unless true critical (insurmountable) flaws were present in the Fw 187 and Ar 240 beyond historical development beyond the likes already present on the Me 110 and 210 (and even the 410's limitations). I don't see a good reason why Messerschmitt shouldn't have cut back on their heavy fighter development in favor of modifying the Bf 109 to correct its deficiencies (something the RLM also compromised by being unwilling to delay production at all, even if it meant retaining features that substantially increased attrition and decreased servicability -lack of drop tanks or increased internal fuel capacity cost a lot of aircraft in ditching and forced landings and lack of correcting landing gear issues cost a lot of aircraft due to ground handling mishaps, then there's cockpit visibility issues that took far too long to be addressed and even then weren't as improved as they could have been)

Lots of potential 109 modifications that should have made it more competitive with the Fw 190 or potentially better all around as far as being easier to fly and significantly cheaper and faster to manufacture.





cherry blossom said:


> I am a DB 601 Fw 187 fanboy for the specific circumstances of the Battle of Britain. Clearly the issues of radio and combat persistence are important and it was the issue of the radio that caused the rejection of the single seat Fw 187. However, a He 111 could have easily carried a fighter type radio in addition to its longer ranged radio and could thus have communicated with single seat escorts.


It wouldn't have been a good replacement for the 109 due to cost (even the 190 had disadvantages there that makes more heavily modified Bf 109s seem more attractive -in sheer cost and serviceability, but not necessarily raw performance).

Radio wise, I don't think communication with the bombers was the biggest concern, but rather sheer reliability problems with fighter type radios in the 1939/1940 period. I believe this situation improved during 1941, but up to that point, a dedicated radio operator with a multi-channel tunable radio in the first couple years of the war would have been significant especially on long range aircraft.

Again, the Fw 187 would have been a better replacement for the Bf 110 than the Bf 109, the Bf 110 may have been better suited to some specialized roles, but between the Ju 88 and Fw 187 (and later possibly Ar 240) I'm not sure it had any consistent advantage over possibly alternatives. Dropping the defensive armament requirement and Messerschmitt bias were the biggest hurdles Focke-Wulf needed to overcome pre-war to actually have preference for mass production. (this would include priority over Jumo powered Bf 110Bs as well) Criticism over offensive armament would have been more legitimate but also should have been practical to expand upon. (addition bomb racks and heavier gun armaments both)

Investing in 'long range' Bf 109 derivatives with expanded fuel capacity (internal or drop tanks) would have been more worthwhile than investing in Fw 187s for that express purpose. A redesigned wing with expanded fuel capacity probably would have been more useful than drop tank plumbing (better for drag and better for fighter-bombers) a small rear tank used mostly for warm-up and take off (to avoid CoG issues) would have been useful too and probably simpler to add than wing tanks. (delaying wing redesign until the 109F might be more practical, but rather than the existing 109F wing, a heavier redesign with wide track, inward retracting gear and added fuel capacity would have been better)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2015)

I already said the decision might be political or otherwise. What are you trying to tell me? The fact remains the people in power at the time in the Third Reich rejected the Fw 187. 

It was a great loser, to be sure and had potential I admit, and the decision can be questioned, but there was no way it was going to be otherwise unless the people in power at the time changed ... and they didn't. They were who they were absent assination and replacement.

The planes they flew are the planes they flew ... nothing else is real ... it's smoke and mirrors nd misdirection like a Las Vegas magic act.

I absolutely fully accept it might have been a good service aircraft buy they never made one that fought anything.

The existing planes did what they did. Hang your hat on that and only that. They never got developed beyond what happened. Alternative events are fun, but fantasy. Maybe we will find one in some German's garage or barn and restore it. That would be fun at least.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> But with the additional weight and drag, there will be a performance penalty and for what offensive gain?
> 
> Also, if you look at the effectiveness of the bomber's turrets against enemy aircraft in combat, you'll see they required a great deal of rounds expended in order to score hits. This was on much slower, steady flying bombers. Now put a turret on a much smaller aircraft, placed in a fluid combat situation and I imagine it would be virtually impossible to train the weapons on an enemy and register effective hits.


I wasnt thinking about a turret more like the arrangement for the B 17 rear gunner but controlled by the co pilot. This may allow a shot on an AC without having to turn inside to get a lead or "follow" a rolling/diving aircraft, the pilot of a mosquito already has a lot of front firing firepower with the 4 cannon. It was just an idea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2015)

You are back to the major stumbling block of the 'turret" fighter. Trying to co-ordinate the thoughts/movements of two men. In your turn scenario _any_ misjudgment of the turn ( or shakiness on the stick) while throw the "gunner" off. And at 250-300mph in the turn comments/instructions on course correction (and the turn is not likely to be flat but either climbing or diving to some extent) from the "gunner" is likely to get results too late to be much good. 

it may enable shots to made on occasion but are the occasions often enough or successful enough to warrant the increase in weight and/or drag and the resulting loss of performance?


----------



## Kryten (Aug 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> You are back to the major stumbling block of the 'turret" fighter. Trying to co-ordinate the thoughts/movements of two men. In your turn scenario _any_ misjudgment of the turn ( or shakiness on the stick) while throw the "gunner" off. And at 250-300mph in the turn comments/instructions on course correction (and the turn is not likely to be flat but either climbing or diving to some extent) from the "gunner" is likely to get results too late to be much good.
> 
> it may enable shots to made on occasion but are the occasions often enough or successful enough to warrant the increase in weight and/or drag and the resulting loss of performance?



Drift compatibility is the answer!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2015)

When comparing these twins it is good to remember that they went from just over 10,000lbs for a Whirlwind to around 30,000lbs for a clean P-61, He 219, Ju-88 so obviously there are some differences in capability. Some Prototype twins went even more. 

The early twins often failed or weren't quite up to the role/s originally intended for them but such was the progress of warfare in WW II that new roles came up that weren't thought of or seriously considered only a few years earlier. Many aircraft succeeded in roles they never originally designed for. The Bigger planes traded performance for flexibility or adaptability. Power also more than doubled from the early twins to the late twins.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> You are back to the major stumbling block of the 'turret" fighter. Trying to co-ordinate the thoughts/movements of two men. In your turn scenario _any_ misjudgment of the turn ( or shakiness on the stick) while throw the "gunner" off. And at 250-300mph in the turn comments/instructions on course correction (and the turn is not likely to be flat but either climbing or diving to some extent) from the "gunner" is likely to get results too late to be much good.
> 
> it may enable shots to made on occasion but are the occasions often enough or successful enough to warrant the increase in weight and/or drag and the resulting loss of performance?



As I said it was just an idea, I dont know if there would be a substantial increase in weight replacing 4 .303 MGs with 2 x 0.5 mounted on an arrangement like the B17 and it doesnt seem more bulky. I was viewing it from this point of view. 4 cannon was the only armament on the Typhoon Tempest and Sea Fury and considered to be enough. Any advantage gained is a plus considering you have a two man crew it depends how much the set up of the guns weighs compared to the standard 4 mgs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2015)

Roughly a US .50 cal Browning gun weighs about 3 times what a .30 cal or .303 Browning does. Ammo weighs about 4-5 times as much. 2000 rounds of .303 (500rpg) weighs as much as 400 rounds of .50 cal (200rpg). Then whatever the power mounting weighs. Restricting traverse and elevation will help restrict bulk but may not do much for weight. You still need pretty much the same motors or hydraulic system if you are traversing 45 degrees or 180 degrees. You need rate of traverse and acceleration to stay on target.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Roughly a US .50 cal Browning gun weighs about 3 times what a .30 cal or .303 Browning does. Ammo weighs about 4-5 times as much. 2000 rounds of .303 (500rpg) weighs as much as 400 rounds of .50 cal (200rpg). Then whatever the power mounting weighs. Restricting traverse and elevation will help restrict bulk but may not do much for weight. You still need pretty much the same motors or hydraulic system if you are traversing 45 degrees or 180 degrees. You need rate of traverse and acceleration to stay on target.



Thanks for the info SR........I will perfect my design and move on to world domination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2015)

Ah, the old world domination trick ... he whispers under the cone of silence ...


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> Ah, the old world domination trick ... he whispers under the cone of silence ...



I already have a white cat, a mock eastern accent and stupid belly laugh I am working on the Caribbean island and death ray.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2015)

You really need the stuff that makes women want you.

I think it's called money.

What's six inches long and drives women crazy?

$100 bills ...


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 4, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I already have a white cat, a mock eastern accent and stupid belly laugh I am working on the Caribbean island and death ray.



Which one are you? Pinky or The Brain?


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

Underdog ...






or

Powdered Toast Man ...






or the Rulers of the world ... a loco Chihuahua and a submental dog ...






Think they're smarter than Obama? Nothin' up my sleeve ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Aug 5, 2015)

What about the Ki-45 Toryu?


----------



## Just Schmidt (Aug 5, 2015)

spicmart said:


> What about the Ki-45 Toryu?



I should come to the rescue as it is one of my favorites.

To answear your question from the Ki 83 thread, one big differense is that the Ki 83 had nearly twice the engine power. Also it's development started (in the guise of the Ki 38 ) some 5 years earlier, it was a long time in the gestation. It can safely be said to belong to the first generation of modern twin engined fighters, and like most of them found much employment in other roles than the long range escort that usually figured largely in the ideas behind them.

It is said to have had exceptional manouverability for a twin, though inferior to single engined fighters it was able to out-manouver the P 38. Upon entering servise in late 42 it was one of few japanese planes with some armour and protected fuel tanks. Some consideration had been given to ease of production and maintenance. It had good armament for a japanese fighter, the first versions sporting 1xHo 3 20 mm and 2x12.7 mm, while it had 1x7.92 for rear defence. The armament was progressively modified, one late model had 1 37mm Ho 203 cannon firing forward and 2xHo 5 20 mm cannon in an arrangement similar to German night fighters. Late models dispensed with the rearward firing gun, as it was considered ineffective at high speed.

The early 20 mm cannon was ineffective in air to air combat, at least against fighters. The top speed (547 km/h) of the early models was good for a 42 japanese fighter, but modest by world standards. It saw no success in the long range escort role, but was an effective bomber interceptor. It was never to be considered an easy kill, I'd like to know if anybody have information that corrobates the edge in 'dogfighting' capabilities over the lightning? In any case the later could (and probably did) adopt zoom and boom tactics. Like most of the twins it eventually found employment in the ground attack role, and its success against smaller allied vessels lead to a specialized model with 1 37 and 2 20 mm forward firing cannon.

It stayed in production untill july 45, when it was replaced by the Ki 102. Too slow to catch up with a B-29, I still have (in a book somewhere else) a picture of one making an interception. Though not fitted with radar, it enjoyed some success as a night fighter. 1691 was built.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 5, 2015)

Thank You for the detailed response. I wonder how it would have performed if
given the same engine power as the Ki-83.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Aug 5, 2015)

Now this is somewhat pertaining to the Fw 187 discussion so forgive me, I heard that technically the Me 110 was fine for the BoB, but due to the tactics that the LW leadership made it use, it couldn't use any of its advantages and thus was torn up. Does this have any grain of truth, or is this pure fiction?


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

One of the reasons for the relative lateness of the Ki-83 was engine problems. The engines required development, and thus would not have been good candidates for installation on earlier aircraft.

Hi Juan,

Tactics had little to do with the Bf 110's problems. During the Battle of Britain tha Gernams came in at the altitude they wanted to and the British had to find and meet them, which usually meant climbing to meet them. The main problem with the Bf 110 was that it was supposed to be a Heavy Fighter but, in fact, needed an escort of its own as it could not maneuver with teh Spitfires and Hurricanes. To be fair, nothing else in the ETO at the time could generally maneuver with the Spitfire either, but at least the Bf 109 could hang tight for some part of a turn and give a good account of itself, climbed better and at a very steep angle, could dive away in a negative pushover, and the top speeds were very close. The Bf 110 could not pitch, roll, or yaw with a Spitfire, wasn't as fast and didn't accelerate as well either.

The one aspect where the Bf 110 was as good or better than the Spirfire was armamaent. But you have to be able to bring that armament to bear in order for it to do any good. The Bf 110 proved adaptable and gave good service in a lot of other roles that were never originally considered when it was designed.

All in all, it was a pretty good airplane that handled and flew well, was decently rugged, and was adaptable enough to be useful elsewhere. It became the best night fighter of the war, if you look at results.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Aug 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Juan,
> 
> Tactics had little to do with the Bf 110's problems. During the Battle of Britain tha Gernams came in at the altitude they wanted to and the British had to find and meet them, which usually meant climbing to meet them. The main problem with the Bf 110 was that it was supposed to be a Heavy Fighter but, in fact, needed an escort of its own as it could not maneuver with teh Spitfires and Hurricanes. To be fair, nothing else in the ETO at the time could generally maneuver with the Spitfire either, but at least the Bf 109 could hang tight for some part of a turn and give a good account of itself, climbed better and ata verys teep angle, could dive away in a negative pushover, and the top speeds were very close. The Bf 110 could not pitch, roll, or yaw with a Spitfire, wasn't as fast and didn't accelerate as well either.
> 
> ...



Got to disagree here. The Bf110 had serious maneuverability issues and needed to be within 20-30mph of the BoB era top speed to less than a dog. However it achieved a highly favorable kill ratio once its initial disastrous introduction demonstrated that its tactics were not working against S/E fighters with radar warning in the close escort role (and the defensive circle didn't work). If it could fly top cover and accelerate to attack, which it did after August it was just fine and did great as a fighter-bomber. It was not a dogfighter, but as a diving energy fighter it was just fine. The problem is experience was needed to figure out what worked; still it was topped out in term of performance by 1942 even with the DB605 engine and needed to be retired. For the BoB it certainly was inferior to the potential of the Fw187, we know that in term of maneuverability the Fw187 was better according to pilots that flew it, but it wasn't useless and outmatched if used properly. 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/battle-britain-bf110-losses-victories-21704.html

The vast majority of Bf110 losses were in July-August.


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

We're probably talking semantics here. Until the Bf 110s and the British opposition met each other and went at it, there were no tactics that could be realistically assigned, at least by the RAF. They had some "feeling out" encounters and the Bf 110 crowd found out they were overmatched against Spitfires and Hurricanes. At least the Bf 110 could outrun the Hurricanes. Once their shortcomigns were revealed, THEN they could work out some tactics.

During the BOB, I think Fighter Command was still flying in vics of 3 and the only air force wtih any tactics from the Spanish Civil War that might work was the Luftwaffe. They were largely confined to the Bf 109 guys.

Yes, they DID have to have some sort of a plan once joined, and that could be called tactics, but the Bf 110 crowd hadn't had the experience of the Spanish Civil War to fall back on and were more or less learning what worked and what didn't. So they were "experimenting." In 1939, the Bf 110s were just getting the DB 601s I think ... or they had just gotten them. The early 110s were using the DB 600. So it was a learning curve for the big twin, and they leanrned not to mix it up with the Spitfires and Hurricanes unless they were well and truly caught. If you're going to get shot anyway, you might was well turn and fight.

I think the pitch capability of the Bf 110 was not really an issue from what I've read ... it was roll. They couldn't roll fast enough to acheive separation from pursuit and, while the pitch was OK, it wasn't better than the Spitfire or Hurricane. So the Bf 110 had little chance with a Spitfire in the 6 o'clock position. That doesn't mean they couldn't get the odd kill here and there over a Spitfire, it means if both pilots knew what was going on, the Spitfire had a decided advantage over a Bf 110. Being faster and more maneuverable gave the Spit driver the ability to engage or disengage at will. Not many Spit pilots were stupid enough to try to creep up on a Bf 110 from 6 o'clock and slightly high, so the rear gunner probably had only a fleeting chance of making a big difference.

I don't believe the Bf 110 was seriously less maneuverable than most other twins, but it fell short of any decent single-seat, single-engine fighter. It probably was less maneuverable than something like a P-38 or a Whirlwind. How much less is a good subject for debate. All it has to be is less maneuverable enough to take a few hits in order to be in trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Aug 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> We're probably talking semantics here. Until the Bf 110s and the British opposition met each other and went at it, there were no tactics that could be realistically assigned, at least by the RAF. They had some "feeling out" encounters and the Bf 110 crowd found out they were overmatched against Spitfires and Hurricanes. At least the Bf 110 could outrun the Hurricanes. Once their shortcomigns were revealed, THEN they could work out some tactics.
> 
> During the BOB, I think Fighter Command was still flying in vics of 3 and the only air force wtih any tactics from the Spanish Civil War that might work was the Luftwaffe. They were largely confined to the Bf 109 guys.
> 
> ...



Spitfires were left to deal with Me109s and if the Bf110 was used right, i.e. as a top cover diver against Hurricanes or Spits as they mixed it up with Me109s or went after bombers, they could achieve kills in that context. The issue was that they still needed to have Me109s operating along side.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2015)

Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the Bf 110 were the BoB proved it was not a close escort fighter. During the course of the BoB in numbers all its front line strength had been lost Bungays " The most dangerous enemy" has many statistics which show the main strength of the Bf 110 in the BoB was being an easier plane to shoot down than the bombers.

I dont dispute the statistics that say the Bf110 was on a kills basis the best performing night fighter but it didnt stop night bombing. The Mosquito had fewer targets but decimated the LW on operation steinbock Wiki states 329 bombers lost against 1 night fighter lost and 5 damaged,not all losses of course due to night fighters. 

I think in terms of night fighter on fighter the mosquito had the edge over the Bf110 not because of performance but more due to radar tech.

The performance of EPG 210 showed that the Bf110 was a good fighter bomber achieving some success against airfields, in that the LW missed a trick.

In my opinion a twin fighter absolutely MUST be faster than its opposition in speed and climb because it has no chance in roll and turn.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> Spitfires were left to deal with Me109s and if the Bf110 was used right, i.e. as a top cover diver against Hurricanes or Spits as they mixed it up with Me109s or went after bombers, they could achieve kills in that context. The issue was that they still needed to have Me109s operating along side.


Where did that occur? The RAF were guided by Radar which just identified approximate numbers. The idea that spitfires took on fighters and hurricanes took on bombers is one of the hardest myyhs to break. Park did not have the luxury of sending specific squadrons against specific escorts. In the last days of the massed assaults by the LW against London, squadrons were paired with the rough intention of Spitfires covering Hurricanes in squadrons at the rear but the results are clouded by Leigh Mallory's big wing stamping all over the battlefield.


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

I pretty much agree, pbehn, but a twin with close-inboard engines might be fine. Once the P-38J came online with hydraulic assists for the ailerons, it could roll with alacrity. The Do 335 Pfeil probably had no rolling deficicncies other than sheer mass.

But in general, I must agree that mass out on the wings slows the roll, at least initially.

I know from personal experience that the tip tanks on a Cessna 310 make the roll a bit ponderous when they have fuel in them. I have no doubt that two 1,500-pound engines coupled with radiators and props would make at LEAST the initial roll breakout slow down considerably unless some specialy design features could be found to make the roll response faster.

Perhaps if they did something like eliminate the ailerons entirely and have the entire wing pivot like an aileron ... it might eliminate the issue. But it would surely bring issues of its own and, if it DID work, the singles would follow suit in a very short time and probably resestablish their roll superiority.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> Perhaps if they did something like eliminate the ailerons entirely and have the entire wing pivot like an aileron ... it might eliminate the issue. But it would surely bring issues of its own and, if it DID work, the singles would follow suit in a very short time and probably resestablish their roll superiority.



I agree, I have not worked on aircraft but have worked with machines. I can easily roll a 5 ton pipe along a flat bench using only a short metal bar, myself and all my colleagues couldnt raise it by an inch without a crane. Spitfires had wings clipped to improve roll rate but the tip was not a control surface and (I presume) would act against the manoeuvre. As you say anything introduced on a twin could be done on a single, the limit I think would be snapping the wings trying to get the engines to turn around the fuselage.


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

Yea, it's hard to overcome basic Physics. Inertia and momentum will be there no matter what you do.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> One of the reasons for the relative lateness of the Ki-83 was engine problems. The engines required development, and thus would not have been good candidates for installation on earlier aircraft.


Between the Kasai and Homare, it seems like there were decent alternatives with only modestly less power that could have been applied. That or the Ki 83's engines were more powerful than the figures I've seen listed.




wiking85 said:


> For the BoB it certainly was inferior to the potential of the Fw187, we know that in term of maneuverability the Fw187 was better according to pilots that flew it, but it wasn't useless and outmatched if used properly.


In that regard, I'd be more curious to know if the Fw 187 would have had any greater limitations as a figher-bomber (with similar engine power) or cost more or less to build than the Bf 110. (lower weight and less materials, sure, but man-hours in manufacturing and maintenance are both major concerns)




GregP said:


> We're probably talking semantics here. Until the Bf 110s and the British opposition met each other and went at it, there were no tactics that could be realistically assigned, at least by the RAF. They had some "feeling out" encounters and the Bf 110 crowd found out they were overmatched against Spitfires and Hurricanes. At least the Bf 110 could outrun the Hurricanes. Once their shortcomigns were revealed, THEN they could work out some tactics.
> 
> During the BOB, I think Fighter Command was still flying in vics of 3 and the only air force wtih any tactics from the Spanish Civil War that might work was the Luftwaffe. They were largely confined to the Bf 109 guys.


Closest comparison would be in mock dogfights and similar tactical test maneuvers. (but then only useful in as far as tactics in use by their own forces and assumed/known tactics in use by the enemy)




> The early 110s were using the DB 600. So it was a learning curve for the big twin, and they leanrned not to mix it up with the Spitfires and Hurricanes unless they were well and truly caught. If you're going to get shot anyway, you might was well turn and fight.


Jumo 210s, not DB 600s. I think only bombers ever used DB 600s operationally.



> I don't believe the Bf 110 was seriously less maneuverable than most other twins, but it fell short of any decent single-seat, single-engine fighter. It probably was less maneuverable than something like a P-38 or a Whirlwind. How much less is a good subject for debate. All it has to be is less maneuverable enough to take a few hits in order to be in trouble.


Early P-38s had heavy ailerons and slow roll response (though good turn and stall behavior -partially due to wing design and partially to the lack of torque). The Whirlwind apparently had very good roll response and better aileron response than the contemporary Spitfire. 





pbehn said:


> In my opinion a twin fighter absolutely MUST be faster than its opposition in speed and climb because it has no chance in roll and turn.





GregP said:


> I pretty much agree, pbehn, but a twin with close-inboard engines might be fine. Once the P-38J came online with hydraulic assists for the ailerons, it could roll with alacrity. The Do 335 Pfeil probably had no rolling deficicncies other than sheer mass.



It also comes down to wing and aileron design. The P-38 had the right aerodynamics but simply high stick forces at all speeds to roll well initially (F4U style boost tabs on the ailerons should have addressed that much earlier than the Hydraulic boosting on the P-38J). As mentioned above, the Whirlwind had better aileron control and roll response than the Spitfire too. (especially at high speed -as with most American fighters)

The P-47, while single engined was still large and heavy, with relatively large, heavy, strong wings but its aerodynamic design lent itself to one of the highest roll rates of fighters in the ETO. (supposedly the best rolling fighter in service there in early 1943)


There's some indication that the Fw 187 had more responsive controls than the Bf 109, but the information I've seen on this is limited. (given the common problems with high speed control forces on the 109, Hurricane, and Sptifire -especially prior to adopting metal ailerons- it wouldn't be hard toimagine the Fw 187 fared better in that respect, especially with the lighter Jumo 210 engines)


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2015)

Funny you should mention the F4U. Last weekend we flew our F4U-1d and someone in the crowd asked me about the twin tabs on the elevators. I told him one was a trimn tab and the other was a servo or boost tab, and then had to explain what servo and anti-servo tabs meant. The untimate example I gave was the Hughes H-4 Hercules that didn't have any direct connect to the rudder at all ... it was all moved by a servo tab.

I have wondered for years why they didn't put servo tabs on the P-38 and F6F ailerons immediately after they flew them for the for time. Steve Hinton does a lively break for landing on our early P-38J ... before the hydraulic boost ... but, to do so, he has to really yank on the wheel. 

We volunteers are looking for a P-38 hydraulic boost system to steal other than the obvious one right on the same field at Chino in Jack Crowell's P-38 that used to be called "Honey Bunny." If theirs went missing and we suddenly got boost, it would be a dead giveaway ...


----------



## spicmart (Aug 6, 2015)

Even though japanese war efforts were in a desperate state the fact that
the Ki-45 was produced until July 1945 might be seen as a testimony to the
soundness of the design. So the question is why would the Japanese give the powerful
engines to the Ki-83 when a proven design has been available? The Ki-83 is better
aerodynamically but is that enough to justify complicating things by introducing a
new aircraft?


----------



## GregP (Aug 6, 2015)

At the state of the war they were in, only a quantum leap in SOMETHING would really do any good. So I'd say new fighters would get priority.

Same with the Germans. Once 1,000 bombers escorted by 700 fighters showed up overhead, only a Ta 152 or Me 262 / other jet / rocket would offer much of a chance to stem the tide at all. Building more of the same of what didn't get the job done would just be prolonging the inevitable.

Only a new plane with a quantum leap in SOMETHING would make a difference.

With what the Germans did to captured peoples, I'm sure Hitler KNEW he'd be hung or executed by firing squad. His suicide was an aviodance measure, and was undoubtedly just. Not sure taking everyone with him was justified, but I doubt Eva Braun would have been exempted from some type of justice, had she lived. The wife of a deposed and villified Emperor is not usually spared.

Same with the Japanese but, for some reason, we didn't elect to pursue that option. I have NO IDEA why Japanese war crimes were glossed over while some high-ranking Germans were executed. Fortunately, all these people are pretty much gone today except for a few rather senior individuals. Executing them now would be a bit like closing the door after the horses have left the barn. But ... and here's the rub ... there is no statute of limitations on murder in war or otherwise, as far as I know.

I don't think a Ki-45 with 2,200 HP would have done the trick. It could MAYBE be accomplished by 2,000 good pilots and a flock of F-86's, a whole LOT of jet fuel, and coupled with a new fleet ... and maybe not. By the end of the war we were prepared for most anything we encountered. The Allies could field a substantial force of Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, etc. even if Japan HAD a new fleet, and a few ultra-modern planes would have a hard time against tens of thousands of piston warplanes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2015)

Sticking 2000hp engines in a KI 45 is going to be a bit difficult. 

The KI-96 may have been a more practical option. 







Twin 1500hp engines and a speed of 600kph at 6000 meters. 

Possibility of production in early 1944?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...Same with the Japanese but, for some reason, we didn't elect to pursue that option. I have NO IDEA why Japanese war crimes were glossed over while some high-ranking Germans were executed. Fortunately, all these people are pretty much gone today except for a few rather senior individuals. Executing them now would be a bit like closing the door after the horses have left the barn. But ... and here's the rub ... there is no statute of limitations on murder in war or otherwise, as far as I know...


Of the over 5,000 Japanese military personnel tried and convicted, 900 were executed, including Hideki Tojo, Iwane Matsui (Nanking), Heitaro Kimura (Allied POW torture/mistreatment) and so on...with the Cold War escelating, the trials became pushed to the back shelf as world events were developing.


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 6, 2015)

Post war analysis of the Bf 110's performance during the BoB using actually loss data (not claims by pilots) show that it had an exchange ratio with the British fighter (Hurricane and Spitfire) of greater than 1:1 in its favour. Of course given the expense of the Bf 110 and its 2 crew this is not enough. In general the Bf 110 suffered from the same problems as the Bf 109, there were too few of them with too few pilots. Drop tanks would have improved the Bf 110 almost as much as the Bf 109 at the time.

The Bf 110 acceleration may have been limited but it handled well, its fire power was immense and accurate, few aircraft could survive getting in the sighs of this aircraft. Furthermore the rear gunner, radio operator, observer navigator must have immensely relieved the pilot. All of the pilots attention would be in the forward hemisphere, his view over the nose excellent and the rear gunner would have noticed most attempts to 'jump' the aircraft. They would have been seldom surprised. 

The aircrafts power to weight ratio was simply insufficient, but had a suitable engine of appropriate power been available a single seat version should have been quite effective.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 6, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Post war analysis of the Bf 110's performance during the BoB using actually loss data (not claims by pilots) show that it had an exchange ratio with the British fighter (Hurricane and Spitfire) of greater than 1:1 in its favour. Of course given the expense of the Bf 110 and its 2 crew this is not enough. In general the Bf 110 suffered from the same problems as the Bf 109, there were too few of them with too few pilots. Drop tanks would have improved the Bf 110 almost as much as the Bf 109 at the time.
> 
> The Bf 110 acceleration may have been limited but it handled well, its fire power was immense and accurate, few aircraft could survive getting in the sighs of this aircraft. Furthermore the rear gunner, radio operator, observer navigator must have immensely relieved the pilot. All of the pilots attention would be in the forward hemisphere, his view over the nose excellent and the rear gunner would have noticed most attempts to 'jump' the aircraft. They would have been seldom surprised.
> 
> The aircrafts power to weight ratio was simply insufficient, but had a suitable engine of appropriate power been available a single seat version should have been quite effective.



Thats strange and the opposite of what I have read...I will read again and reply.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> I pretty much agree, pbehn, but a twin with close-inboard engines might be fine. Once the P-38J came online with hydraulic assists for the ailerons, it could roll with alacrity. The Do 335 Pfeil probably had no rolling deficicncies other than sheer mass.
> 
> But in general, I must agree that mass out on the wings slows the roll, at least initially.
> 
> ...



Another point is that although the torque of late WW2 single engined fighters was a problem in many situations take off and landing in terms of roll I believe it gave an advantage. Rolling with the engine torque is something a twin cannot do.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2015)

what about those JAAF bomber conversions built specifically to go after high altitude B-29s. Japanese were never able to get them to work properly because they had problems with their engines and pressurization issues.....I was thinking specifically the bomber destroyer version of the Ki-67....there were some others, including one some year earlier of the betty bomber destroyer .....


----------



## GregP (Aug 6, 2015)

Never really considered rolling with the torque as an advantage, but it certainly could be. I consider the better option is to cancel the torque, say with a contra-prop for a "single." But you are right, in the correct circumstances it could be an advnatage ... so a twin, if attacked, should probably always break so the single has to roll against the torque.

Hhhmmmm ... not a bad thing to consider.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2015)

What happens if the twin has both engines/props turning in the same direction?


----------



## GregP (Aug 6, 2015)

I think it falls apart ...

Couldn't resist Shortround ... not aimed at you.

I think it would manifest itself ina slow yaw in one direction, but I'm not too sure if both are turning whether or not the rolls gets slower. I know one engine is critical and the other is not, but we all know that as wella s which one. But when both are turning, I'd think roll would be closer to right and left than a single, but maybe slightly slower one way than the other?

Every time I've done engine-out in a twin ... I've been concerned with keeping it straight and NOT rolling into the dead engine unless I throttle the good one back a bit.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Aug 7, 2015)

Some months ago I made a post about partial rehabilitation of the Bf 110 in the bob, and got away With it. It was sparked by an article, and it seem appropriate to elaborate a little in this thread. It is written by Christer Bergström in swedish, though he has several works in English published. With Luck the translation into Norwegian hasn't crippled it too much.

It quotes both claims and confirmed losses. One problem in comparing kills between 109's and 110's is that it's not that easy to determine which of the types shot Down how many of the actual losses. It is to be expected that a gunner in a bomber on occasion also got in a Lucky shot.

He's principally following II/ZG 76 during some of the bob. As such, this is not an overview over all Bf 110 Activity in this, and that should be kept in mind. Never the less it's intersting enough, I'll pass on some of his findings in English. Whenever I use the term 'confirmed', it will refer to losses as repoerted by the enemy, not other Bf pilots.

Firstly, during the Battle of France II/ZG 76 claimed 85 victitories against 7 losses. 50 to 60 of those claims are confirmed. For comparison the average for bf 109 equipped units was 1:4.

According to Christer Göring advised fri jakt (a term I know in it's german form from later night fighters as freier jagd), whereas the Commanders Down the chain tied the fighters to Close escort. Probably both strategies was to some extent emplyed troughout. be that as it may, on 12th of august no Aircraft of II/ZG 76 was lost, they claimed 4 bristish Aircraft of the 27 reported of the day. 11 was confirmed as destroyed, 6 as damaged.

On the 13th II/ZG 76 claimed 4 hurricanes without loss. (The text is unclear on the status of these claims).

On 15th of august II/ZG 76 (With a strength of 16) on Close escort was engaged by several squdrons. 6 were shot down and 2 crashed on landing. They claimed 19 of the 39 victories of the day, actual British losses of the day were 17. V.(Z)/LG 1 had flown fri jakt, and claimed 11 against a loss of 1. Reportedly Gôring was furious and on the 19th of august issued the order: "Only a part of the fighters are to be used as Close escort. The main part must be used in fri jakt on >extended escort< (sorry' it's the best exprssion i can come up With. This is a translation from german to Swedish to Norwegian to English. I hope somebody can check on the german Sources that must be extant).

On 25th of august II/ZG 76 without losses shot Down 4 (status unclear).

On 30th of august II/ZG 76 reported 18 victories out of the days total of 29 claims, against 3 losses plus 1 crash landing. Actual British losses were 13. 

On 31th of august a British report to 11th Group reads: "Our fighters tried to attack the bombers, but ivariably Me 110's showed up behind Our fighters, while the Me 109's stayed high without interfering". 4 victories (unclear status) against a loss of 1.

1st of september saw II/ZG 76 shooting Down 4 hurricanes (out of 8 claimed) of 85th squadron without losses. Sqadron leader Peter Townsend was among the downed pilots. The day after ZG 76 officially became the first squadron With 500 claimed victories.

During bob II/ZG 76 lost 18 against a claim of 102. That can be compared III/JG 26 which in august-sept claimed 93 against 23 losses.

Other episodes reoorded is on 29th of august 41 over The Netherlands 4 of II/ZG 76 fought 11 spitfires 19th squadron, who lost 4 without scoring.

On 29th of april 1944 a 110 G-4 piloted by major Jabs (a veteran of II/ZG 76) was attacked by 4 spitfires while going in to land at Arnhem. A sudden swing made the spitfires overpass, and 2 were shot Down before Jabs landed 110 was shot up upon him escaping.

I'm not sure if it was in a post abowe it was obseved that the 2d crew member of the 110 relieved the pilot in many ways, and crucially could scan the sky behind and abowe the Aircraft. If so, it bears reiterating that the 110 had the best rear view of any fighter in bob, conferring one tactical advantage.

I'm not suggesting that the abowe in any way proves the 110 as superior to the spitfire. Other units undoubtedly fared worse, but the comparison in claims With 109's is noteworthy. An experienced pilot who knew his aircraft seem to be able to achieve a lot. At least the 110 didn't fall out of the sky everytime a spitfire pilot spotted it. While the abowe is not the whole story, it supplies some numbers and dates to be checked for those interested in empirics, or the approximation to empirics that history should at least aspire to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Aug 7, 2015)

The 110 was considered an easy target by the RAF, you have to put context to that however, if your attacking bombers and a 110 gets behind you your in as much trouble as if it was a 109, it however seems that it was when used as a fighter sweep the 110 became a liability, once bounced they had little recourse but to form a wheel and hope to defend themselves!

there are two very big disadvantages to a twin fighter, one is size, your nearly always going to be seen first, the second is weight, mass always handicaps any form of manoeuvre, it's insurmountable,at what point does the advantages, two engines for reliability, range, payload etc outweigh the disadvantages? that is surely down to mission?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 7, 2015)

GregP said:


> Never really considered rolling with the torque as an advantage, but it certainly could be. I consider the better option is to cancel the torque, say with a contra-prop for a "single." But you are right, in the correct circumstances it could be an advnatage ... so a twin, if attacked, should probably always break so the single has to roll against the torque.
> 
> Hhhmmmm ... not a bad thing to consider.



It has just occurred to me that in the many debates about the spitfire and mustang that a mustang combat with a griffon spitfire may see them both being able to out roll the other depending on the direction. I am not an avid reader of flight tests but some do quote substantial differences in roll rate depending on direction.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 7, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> What happens if the twin has both engines/props turning in the same direction?



I think most twin AC do have the props turning in the same direction it has a slight effect but easy to trim. The higher the performance the more the effect obviously.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2015)

Most did during WW II, and it did make a difference in handling when one engine went out, I was wondering if there was difference in roll (or a marked one) left or right when both engines were operating.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2015)

The P/F-82 had counter-rotating engines to solve several performance issues. They also had to trade the engines to either side because the first trial installation robbed lift and made it nearly impossible to take off.

The P-38 also had "handed" engines.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 7, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The P/F-82 had counter-rotating engines to solve several performance issues. They also had to trade the engines to either side because the first trial installation robbed lift and made it nearly impossible to take off.
> 
> The P-38 also had "handed" engines.



The Hornet had similar problems 

De Havilland tried props that rotated outward at the tops of their arcs (as in the P-38 Lightning),[6] but this configuration blanketed the fin and reduced rudder effectiveness at low speeds, compromising ground handling; on production Hornets the conventionally rotating Merlin 130 was on the port wing with the Merlin 131 on the starboard.[7]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2015)

Interestingly enough, the otiginal engine in the original XP-38 turned with the top of the props turning inward. The XP-38 suffered from a slight but noticable vibration and they switched engines. It eliminated the vibration and all subsequent P-38's with handed engines had the top of the prop tips turning outward ... which is a bit backwards from conventional thinking perhaps, but works.

There is no "cricital engine" because BOTH engines turn away from the center fuselage ... so engine-out situations handle the same way but in opposite directions.

It's possible they might have found out the same thing on the XP-82, but it never got airborne with normal, inward turning prop tips, so they had nothing to compare it with when it flew.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 8, 2015)

Just the opposite for XP-82.

The XP-82 original layout had the props rotating from top tip Outboard, then inboard and upwards toward center wing section. The upwash into the center wing section, combined with the normal upwash as the AoA was increased (attempted take off) created a local inboard wing stall. 

Changing the rotation to have tip at top rotate downward over the wing section cancelled the problem out.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> There is no "cricital engine"


I thought the critical engine was the one which could run alone on AC that had a set up with only one generator hydraulic pump etc?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I thought the critical engine was the one which could run alone on AC that had a set up with only one generator hydraulic pump etc?



That's more of a maintenance definition when you have one engine loaded up with certain accessories. 

From wiki, they could say it better than I

_"The critical engine of a multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft is the one whose failure would result in the most adverse effects on the aircraft's handling and performance. On propeller aircraft, there is a difference in the remaining yawing moments after failure of the left or the right (outboard) engine when all propellers rotate in the same direction due to the P-factor. On turbojet/ turbofan aircraft, there usually is no difference between the yawing moments after failure of a left or right (outboard) engine. An engine can also be called critical when it is the only engine that drives a hydraulic pump for augmenting/ boosting flight controls."_

Excluding some of the single engine driven accessories in the P-38, the P-38 had no critical engine, OR you could consider *BOTH *engines critical if you're a pessimist!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> I have wondered for years why they didn't put servo tabs on the P-38 and F6F ailerons immediately after they flew them for the for time. Steve Hinton does a lively break for landing on our early P-38J ... before the hydraulic boost ... but, to do so, he has to really yank on the wheel.


Lockheed tested servo tabs on the elevator in attempt to provide enough control to pull out of pitch-down high mach number dives, but it led to overstressing the booms and ripping off the tail (using trim tabs for recovery could have similar results with a fine line between recovery and shedding the tail). But I don't see that as any reason not to perform similar tests on the ailerons. Granted, Johnson also wanted the P-38 to use a stick rather than a yolk, but that didn't happen either.

Servo tabs and automatic slats (or fixed slots for that matter) are two things that really seem like they could at least have been tested experimentally more often. (slats or slots especially on aircraft with dangerous stall or spin characteristics -the F4U and P-39 both come to mind)




Shortround6 said:


> Sticking 2000hp engines in a KI 45 is going to be a bit difficult.
> 
> The KI-96 may have been a more practical option.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't converting the Ki 45 to use 1200-1300 hp Kinsei engines earlier on be a possibility too?

Some sort of high performance heavy fighter using Kasei or Homare engines should have been on the table sooner as well. (I said as much on the Ki 83 above, but orienting the Ki 96 for larger, 1800-2000 hp class engines from the start seems like it would be more effective in creating a competitive late-war heavy fighter too)


----------



## thedab (Aug 14, 2015)

ok it not a fighter or a plane from the war come to that,but is a plane that point the way of things to come,and it has twin-engines


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn_yt1mkVc0_

and don't she look good

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 14, 2015)

One of my favorites. We have the good luck to have one flying locally. There is a replica based at Flabob (short distance from Chino) and there is also a replica Caudron racer flying out of there, too ... but with a Czech LOM engine in place of the Renault. So we get to see these fly occasionally. I have sat in the Caudron and it is no place for anyone who is claustrophobic! There is barrely room for the head and I am only 5' 9" tall.

The Comet really is a beautiful aircraft.

Here is a pic of the local replica as it was being readied for first flight:







And here it is in flight:






Altogether a beautiful machine. They usually use the tailwheel, but fit the skid when they are operating from grass ... or DID. Today it's mostly the skid.

Here is the Caudron 460 replica in flight:






Maybe you can tell the canopy is JUST big enough for your head ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2015)

Greg, is that the same Comet replica that was housed at the San Martin Air Museum until a few years back? (or ... maybe a decade at this point) That beauty was one of my favorite exhibits there as a kid.


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

It was made locally at Flabob and is flown occasionally by the owner. I believe Mark Lightsey ahd a hand in it, but I might be wrong there. He definitely built the Caudron and they attend airshows together a lot of the time.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 17, 2015)

I wonder why the mosquito turned out so damn ugly


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

That might get you banned 

I LOVE the Hornet, but the Mossie will always be a fire I can't put out. It's lovely (except for the windshield), even if it's rotting away in the rain. Glad we have a few new ones to see flying about.

I suppose beauty is in the eyes of the alien Mosquito hater ...


----------



## pbehn (Aug 17, 2015)

GregP said:


> That might get you banned
> 
> I LOVE the Hornet, but the Mossie will always be a fire I can't put out. It's lovely (except for the windshield), even if it's rotting away in the rain. Glad we have a few new ones to see flying about.
> 
> I suppose beauty is in the eyes of the alien Mosquito hater ...


I love the mosquito too but I must say compared to DH88 it is a plane jane. I wonder if the 88 was styled to be beautiful like a high end sports car or just turned out that way?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 17, 2015)

It wouldn't have been so beautiful if it had been built to carry guns, bombs and cameras.


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

Good point, Edgar.

I like 'em both, but weapons DO have to go somewhere if they're carried. The strangest placement I can recall are the over-wing fuel tank on the EE Lightning. That didn't exactly help the looks, did it?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 17, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It wouldn't have been so beautiful if it had been built to carry guns, bombs and cameras.


Naaaah yer using your brains now. not fair.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 17, 2015)

GregP said:


> The strangest placement I can recall are the over-wing fuel tank on the EE Lightning. That didn't exactly help the looks, did it?


According to some pilots, it didn't do a lot for the performance, either; they said the extra drag virtually cancelled out the extra range.


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2015)

Sure was a sprightly performer until the fuel went away, though ... 

I have spoken with a former Lightning pilot who allowed it's legs were so short it made a Dachshund look like a Greyhound. He said it was great fun for a very short time, among other things. Most of the crew chiefs hated it ... but is WAS a real performer when everything was operating correctly.

Perhaps it would still be accelerating when it ran out of fuel.

It probably wasn't the first aircraft to be designed without any thought being given to maintaining it in operation. Well, SOME thought was given because the critical fasteners were removable ... but access was always an issue. Again, not the first or last to have that issue. There are places on a Piper Cherokee that are almost impossible to reach. I wonder why they PUT things there?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2015)

The EE Lightning wasnt designed to have long range it was part of a 3 layer defence against Soviet bombers. The Gloster Javelin was the long range bomber killer that had the loiter time to hunt for the bombers over the Norwegian and North Seas. Then there was the Lightning designed to get off the ground and be at 50,000ft 2 mins later shoot a bomber down and then get back back to a runway. Basically it was a manned reusable (sometimes) missile If it ran out of fuel and the pilot had to pull the handle then that was fine stopping a Soviet bomber carrying a bucketfull of sunshine to drop on Britain was the main job. 3rd layer of defense were the Bloodhound and Thunderbird SAMs which defended high value targets.

Carrying enough fuel for 3 hours loiter over the sea is all very well but with 50s technology you arent going to get that fuel up to 50,000ft quickly and missing a Tu95 because you are 30,000ft below it and 30 miles away means a big chunk of Britain is now a pile of rubble.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Sure was a sprightly performer until the fuel went away, though ...?


It was certainly that; for a time I worked with a man who'd been on the first Squadron to get them, and they were puzzled to see three aircraft set up for QRA, but only two actually going, until, one day all three went. In the evening the CO came in, with a large photo, and said, "Here you are, lads, this is what you've been waiting for."
Winding the clock back a few weeks, the then Javelin-equipped Squadron would take off, to intercept incoming U-2 aircraft, but fell away well short.
The photo was of a U-2, with a Lightning at each wingtip, photographed, from above, by the third Lightning; he always wanted a copy of the photo, but it disappeared, never to be seen again.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It was certainly that; for a time I worked with a man who'd been on the first Squadron to get them, and they were puzzled to see three aircraft set up for QRA, but only two actually going, until, one day all three went. In the evening the CO came in, with a large photo, and said, "Here you are, lads, this is what you've been waiting for."
> Winding the clock back a few weeks, the then Javelin-equipped Squadron would take off, to intercept incoming U-2 aircraft, but fell away well short.
> The photo was of a U-2, with a Lightning at each wingtip, photographed, from above, by the third Lightning; he always wanted a copy of the photo, but it disappeared, never to be seen again.



I used to work with a Swedish engineer who was an ex Swedish Air Force pilot. He told me the SAAB 35 Draken could intercept a U2 and the squadron he was on did it quite regulary until a very stern group of men came to the base and told the pilots the intercepts had to stop, they never happened anyway and if it happened again (even though it had never happened of course) the Americans would get very angry.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 18, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> According to some pilots, it didn't do a lot for the performance, either; they said the extra drag virtually cancelled out the extra range.



were those tanks jettisoned ?


----------



## GregP (Aug 18, 2015)

I was aware that EE Lightning and the Saab Draken could get to U-2 altitudes. DOn't think the Viggen could, though. Not at all sure it matters if your allies can intercept one, but the existence of one or two planes that CAN get up there brings to mind the question of when the enemy will field the same capability.

It probably helped fuel the development of the SR-71 / A-12/YF-12A, and neither of the two planes in question could intercept an SR-71 if it didn't want to be intercepted. I'd hazard an estimnate that the SR-71 could STILL show a clean pair of heels to any existing fighter aircraft, though I believe missiles are around that could probably get it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2015)

SAAB Viggen pilots claimed to have got a missile lock onto Blackbirds plenty of times. The Blackbirds were tracked by ground radar then using a datalink between the ground and up to 4 aircraft. 1 as a master control/spotter, 2 on the beam of the spotter painting the target and 1 missile carrier positioned ahead of the target receiving target data automatically sent to its SkyFlash missiles. The Swedes admitted the only reason they got lock was because the Blackbirds were following a regular track back from a mission. The Viggens would be aloft waiting for the Bird not something that could be done if you didnt know the rough course of a target. At least not unless you had several thousand fighters and Radars available.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> I was aware that EE Lightning and the Saab Draken could get to U-2 altitudes. DOn't think the Viggen could, though. Not at all sure it matters if your allies can intercept one, but the existence of one or two planes that CAN get up there brings to mind the question of when the enemy will field the same capability.
> 
> It probably helped fuel the development of the SR-71 / A-12/YF-12A, and neither of the two planes in question could intercept an SR-71 if it didn't want to be intercepted. I'd hazard an estimnate that the SR-71 could STILL show a clean pair of heels to any existing fighter aircraft, though I believe missiles are around that could probably get it.



What's performing the SR-71 role these days?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> What's performing the SR-71 role these days?


Satellites...

However, google SR-72


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 18, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It was certainly that; for a time I worked with a man who'd been on the first Squadron to get them, and they were puzzled to see three aircraft set up for QRA, but only two actually going, until, one day all three went. In the evening the CO came in, with a large photo, and said, "Here you are, lads, this is what you've been waiting for."
> Winding the clock back a few weeks, the then Javelin-equipped Squadron would take off, to intercept incoming U-2 aircraft, but fell away well short.
> The photo was of a U-2, with a Lightning at each wingtip, photographed, from above, by the third Lightning; he always wanted a copy of the photo, but it disappeared, never to be seen again.



Edgar,

I would think the U-2 was not at its normal cruise altitude and speed if they got that type of shot. It goes WAY slow WAY high, something fighters still don't do today. Just my opine, but I am familiar with the speed altitude the U-2 operates at.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Milosh (Aug 18, 2015)

The Lightning is said to be able to zoom climb to 70kft plus.


----------



## GregP (Aug 18, 2015)

It sure can, but not at 99 KIAS!


----------



## pbehn (Aug 18, 2015)

Did the lightning have a maximum altitude or just a range in the vertical?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 18, 2015)

Milosh said:


> The Lightning is said to be able to zoom climb to 70kft plus.



Milosh,

There is a large difference between one Lightning on each wing photographed from above by a third and a zoom climb into the seventies. If the photo was presented as having occurred at the U-2s operational altitude I would be a little skeptical, in my opinion.

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Satellites...
> 
> However, google SR-72



Or maybe this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2015)

The Lockheed-Martin SR-72 is a follow-on to the SR-71, except that it will be unmanned.

It is a hyper-sonic aircraft that will continue the mission of high-speed recon with the proposal of being satellite killing capable at a later point. The target speed range for this aircraft is Mach 6. 

As usual, there is bickering back and forth for funding which comes as no surprise. History has shown that politicians are usually the most generous with funding AFTER they've started a war...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2015)

Meet the SR-72 Â· Lockheed Martin

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 11, 2015)

GregP said:


> One of my favorites. We have the good luck to have one flying locally. There is a replica based at Flabob (short distance from Chino) and there is also a replica Caudron racer flying out of there, too ... but with a Czech LOM engine in place of the Renault. So we get to see these fly occasionally. I have sat in the Caudron and it is no place for anyone who is claustrophobic! There is barrely room for the head and I am only 5' 9" tall.
> 
> The Comet really is a beautiful aircraft.
> 
> ...



Hey Greg, what about taking that red airplane and hanging a pair of Pratt and Whitney's on it? Specifically, and of P&W PT6 turboprops at 1200 or 1800 hp. Wonder how it would perform then???


----------



## GregP (Oct 11, 2015)

The Comet is so classic I'd hate to mess with it. As for performance, I'm sure they produce enough HP to get the Comet well past the flutter speed and destroy it. Not sure what speed that is, and would noy want to find out personally. 

It's similar to the Harmon Rocket and F1 Rocket Evo. They are both basically an RV-4 which normally had a 4-cylinder 150 - 160 HP Lycomming in it, and are strectched and have 6-cylinder 250+ HP Lycomings in them. Along the way they lose one rib bay in the wing to cut down on spar loading, but have a lower flutter margin than the stock RV-4, that's for sure. I wouldn't want to go lowering the nose at cruise power to find out where that is exactly, either.

Stock RV-4:






F1 Rocket Evo:





The RV-4, with 160 HP, goes 205 mph max and climbs 2,050 feet per minute with a fixed-pitch prop and one occupant. The F1 Rocket Evo with 250 HP goes 265 mph and climbs 3,500 feet per minute with a single occupant and a constant-speed prop. I have seen examples with 285 HP that climb over 4,000 feet per minute and can cruise at 260 mph while sipping gas compared with a warbird.

I bet the Comet with two 1,500 HP turboprops would have a wider margin than that ... if the airframe survived.

A fresh new design with alternate powerplants is another story. Go for it.

I don't quite have the money for it at this time, or I would build a Rocket. I SAY that but would probably build a Van's RV-7 with side-by-side seating instead both to save a bit and to still have fun. I would opt for the constant-speed prop if able.

For a Comet hot-rod, the first item on the agenda would be the strength and airframe limitations. Not sure I want a 3,000+ HP turbine wood aircraft that was designed for two 230 HP de Havilland Gypsie sixes. I'm pretty sure the designer never intended for quite that much power increase ... since it didn't exist at the time except in the Rolls-Royce "R" engine that was not really available quite yet to the public.

I think a fresh-sheet aircraft design would have more potential than the hot-rodded Comet. One particular item of note on the Coment is fairly bad visibility on the ground and not nuch to the side in-flight unless you roll it well into a bank. That's from a guy who flies one regularly. See my post above.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 21, 2015)

Greg, I thought the Comet was basically a homebuilt Whirlwind. I didn't realize how much less power it had than a Whirlwind. Like you, I don't think a Comet would handle a pair of 1,500 hp turboprops very well!!!! Be like putting one in a Cessna 182!!


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2015)

If it's a C-182, SOMEONE would try it!


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2015)

Earlier in the thread, we discussed "twins" like the F-82, Bf109Z and Me609 and I had intended to mention a Soviet concept, the Belyayev OI-2.

This was based on the Russian P-39 clone, Gudkov's Gu-1 and the "Twin Airacobra" was never built, but it would have been very interesting if it had.

The cockpit was situated on the right, the left fuselage was faired over. It had a "car door" access (unlike the Gu-1) and it was to be armed with two Taubin 23mm cannon firing through each prop, four UBS 12.7mm MGs firing through the prop arc in the left fuselage, four ShKAS 7.62mm MGs in the wing center section and proposed hardpoints for external stores (1,100lbs/500kg max. load).

It was designed to have two V-18 Klimov M-120UV 1,800 HP (1,340kW) engines.


----------



## GregP (Oct 21, 2015)

Thanks, Graugeist. It's another obscure plane I haven't hear of. In my defense as a lover of obscure planes, it would appear this was never actually built and flown, but is a very interesting find nonetheless.

Now I have to find some data on it ... of the proposed design.

Wonder if it went out of CG aft when they shot all the ammunition like the P-39 did?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...it would appear this was never actually built and flown, but is a very interesting find nonetheless.
> 
> Now I have to find some data on it ... of the proposed design.


It was based on the Gu-1, which was a copy of the P-39, so I imagine the Gu-1 would have had similar traits as the P-39...sadly, the Gu-1 didn't make it to production because all the prototypes crashed, each incident claiming a test pilot.

The OI-2 "Twin Airacobra" never made it past the paper stage, so we'll never know what it was capable of.

Here is an artist's rendering based on the original 3-view and design details:





On the otherhand, the "Twin Warhawk" actually made it to a mockup stage...

This P-40C concept is certainly another "twin" that would have been interesting to see what it was capable of. By the way, barely visible in this photo, is the fact that the starboard engine cowling has a shark mouth.


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2015)

I have looked at that with some interst before. Imagine trying to see another aircraft from the cockpit!

It would be like trying to remove a bra without fingers ... frustrating and never gonna' work.

You could only look UP ... unless you rolled over. Worse than the visbility from a B-17 cockpit, and that wasn't all that great ... I sat in one and looked out. Not much there unless you look forward and up. Just acres of wing and engine.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...It would be like trying to remove a bra without fingers ... frustrating and never gonna' work...


It appears you've never tried using your teeth...

You have no idea how easy it is and it leaves your hands free for other things! 

While we're on the subject of paper projects, there was also the Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro, which interestingly enough, had two versions. One was a twin fuselage plan, much like the P-38, the other proposal was an asymmetric layout sort of like the Bv141. It is an obscure plan and I don't have any further information as to the planned armament or engines. I would take a wild guess and say they "may" have been considering a DB601 by the looks of the cowling, since the M.C202 and 205 used the DB engines - this is just a guess, however.

Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro #1





Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro #2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2015)

That last one looks like the designer was a bit drunk at the time, or maybe just got a divorce ... or something.

I can't really see having an asymmetric horizontal tail when you don't have an asymmetric rudder, but then agian, I never liked ugly airplanes so I never tried messing with them as RC models.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2015)

The 1st proposal seem to have too smal props - 2m/6.5ft diameter? As for the second - agree with Greg, asymetric aircraft have 'ugly' written all around them.


----------



## EKB (Oct 24, 2015)

The following book might be of interest to anyone reading this thread. Some of you might be surprised at what the author wrote after he evaluated and compared the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt 110 vs. the Messerschmitt 109.


Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited: Christer BergstrÃ¶m: 9781612003474: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## awack (Oct 24, 2015)

Just checked it out, some one posted some numbers that I believe are from the book, British fighters shot down 1275 German aircraft and the German fighters shot down 1050 British aircraft, it seems due to attrition and production the British had a lot more aircraft in December than the Germans.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 24, 2015)

awack said:


> Just checked it out, some one posted some numbers that I believe are from the book, British fighters shot down 1275 German aircraft and the German fighters shot down 1050 British aircraft, it seems due to attrition and production the British had a lot more aircraft in December than the Germans.



The numbers are always open to debate, the critical numbers were of experienced pilots and aircrew. I believe in total the LW shot down more British aircraft, frquently bomber command and coastal command A/C are omitted as they were not critical to the BoB result.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> That last one looks like the designer was a bit drunk at the time, or maybe just got a divorce ... or something.
> 
> I can't really see having an asymmetric horizontal tail when you don't have an asymmetric rudder, but then agian, I never liked ugly airplanes so I never tried messing with them as RC models.



the last one looks like B&V designed it or the idea was ripped off from them. I have a hard time thinking that horizontal stabilizer wouldn't suffer damage in hard maneuvers. that would have had to have been a recon ac.

I love the rocket, evo, etc..... there is an RV4 in the hangar next to me that took some minor land damage. its still too much money for my pocket book right now....maybe someday. till then I will stick to my max.


----------



## GregP (Oct 26, 2015)

Hi bobbysocks,

I liked the F1 Rocket Evo until I got a chance to ride in one and fly it awhile.

Now I love it unashamedly.

It was exhilarating to pull up from liftoff and see a 3,800 fet per minute climb rate. The roll rate means you can basically complete a roll in about 2.5 - 3.0 seconds. Pull up the nose a few degrrees, remove the back pressure, full aileron and you're around before you can do anything stupid. Of course, if you DON'T release the back pressure, you can be over redline in a heartbeat. You can also throttle back to 45% and cruise with your RV friends and get into and EASILY out of almost anyplace they can. The F1 Evo does need a bit more landing roll than a stock RV. It barely needs a takeoff roll.

You can even cruise with P-51s since they mostly stay beloew 10,000 feet where the speed limit is 250 knots. So they mostly cruise at 235 knots, too. When they want to leave you behind, though, they disappear in a heartbeat. They can't really out-turn you since the F1 Evo is a 6-g airplane, but they can extend rapidly and dwindle into the distance.

Is that Max you're talking about an airplane (as in MiniMax), a motorcycle (maybe a V-Max), or your favorite horse?


----------



## Juha (Oct 27, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The numbers are always open to debate, the critical numbers were of experienced pilots and aircrew. I believe in total the LW shot down more British aircraft, frquently bomber command and coastal command A/C are omitted as they were not critical to the BoB result.



Not necessarily, I haven't count the losses from Chorley's and Ross' books, but the old figures for RAF were 367 bombers, 1140 fighters and 96 other operational types = 1603 altogether and 1733 for LW.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 27, 2015)

Juha said:


> Not necessarily, I haven't count the losses from Chorley's and Ross' books, but the old figures for RAF were 367 bombers, 1140 fighters and 96 other operational types = 1603 altogether and 1733 for LW.



Juha, apologies if you felt I was dismissive of your post I didnt mean to be. I didnt re check your figures I was making a general point. The successes or not of Bomber command would only be significant if fighter command was beaten so many historians accounts discount them. It is common to count machines and fighter strength, during the BoB fighter command were rarely short of machines, with Beaverbrooks improvements in production as the fight went on the situation as far as new RAF fighters got better not worse. For the RAF the problem was always experienced pilots and squadrons who were not exhausted. For the LW the problem was both loss of pilots/crews and machines.


----------



## Juha (Oct 27, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Juha, apologies if you felt I was dismissive of your post I didnt mean to be.



No need at all.



pbehn said:


> I didnt re check your figures I was making a general point. The successes or not of Bomber command would only be significant if fighter command was beaten so many historians accounts discount them.



IMHO it is entirely ok to incl. at least the losses of those bombers which operated against a/fs and harbours/invasion fleet plus the losses of those CC strike a/c which operated against the same targets. 



pbehn said:


> It is common to count machines and fighter strength, during the BoB fighter command were rarely short of machines, with Beaverbrooks improvements in production as the fight went on the situation as far as new RAF fighters got better not worse. For the RAF the problem was always experienced pilots and squadrons who were not exhausted. For the LW the problem was both loss of pilots/crews and machines.



I agree, at the end of the BoB the LW had more operational 109s than combat ready pilots to fly them.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 27, 2015)

Juha said:


> I agree, at the end of the BoB the LW had more operational 109s than combat ready pilots to fly them.



Purely from memory I think the situation with bombers was much worse. They take more resources to build and are a bigger target to hit. Rifle calibre guns were not the best at taking down a L/W bomber but were quite effective at making them unserviceable and killing or injuring the crew. The massed raids on London had a big fighter to bomber ratio. While the glamour is always in the fighters, as I recall the LW had lots of fighters fewer pilots for them even fewer bombers and yet fewer crews for them. That is from memory I would have to read some books again grrrrrrrrr.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 2, 2015)

minimax......with a 1835cc great plains type 1 vw engine so the model is called a Vmax. I got it a while back and am restoring it...but had to deal with other project first. HOPEFULLY I can start wrenching on it again this spring...and in the air this summer.


----------



## GregP (Nov 3, 2015)

Good luck! Gonna' fly it in something? Or just rebuild it and maybe make a motorcycle?

Good luck with whatever you are goiing to use it for.


----------

