# Best Twin-engined fighter



## Njaco (May 15, 2007)

This might be a redundant thread (couldn't find one in Archives) but what is your favorite or best twin-engined fighter? I choose the Westland Whirlwind, which if it had better engines might have been a decent aircraft. I also like the beauty of it and the clear view for the pilot. Technically probably not superior to the Mossie but nice on the eyes.


----------



## Cyrano (May 15, 2007)




----------



## Thorlifter (May 15, 2007)

The best.........I may change my mind but right now I'll go with the P-38, but my favorite is the P-61 Black Widow.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2007)

I added a poll..

IMHO the best was the P-38 Lightning but my favorite is the Ju 88 followed by the Mossie.


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2007)

Thanks Adler. I kinda thought this subject was covered and it may have been, but what the h*ll we'll take it for a spin again!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2007)

It was covered before, but what the hell, let it come back to life.


----------



## Grampa (May 15, 2007)

If i wote the best twin-engine fighter in the beginning of the war i go for the Focke Wulf 187 "Falke" see link http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw187.html


----------



## Parmigiano (May 15, 2007)

The Do335 was probably the top performer but can't be evaluated because of too little service (like others in the list); Mossie, Ju88 and P61 could survive to single engine fighters only at night so the best twin fighter for me is the P38 (.. unless we will include the twin-jets in the pool  )


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2007)

The P38 by a large margin.

It was a twin engine single crewman design, which gave it far better performance than the others on the list.

I would say though, several of the others on the list were nightfighters (by design or modification), of which a whole different design was needed.


----------



## davparlr (May 15, 2007)

The P-38 by far was the most successful, and therefore best, twin engine fighter aircraft of WWII.


----------



## Gnomey (May 15, 2007)

P-38 for me too, followed by the Mossie...


----------



## Negative Creep (May 15, 2007)

Well my favourite is undoubtedly the Beaufighter. As for the best, I'm torn between that or the Mosquito. Both were brilliant in a wide variety of roles, the Beaufighter had the advantage of devastating firepower, the Mossie the edge in maneuverability and speed


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2007)

Mossie and Beaufighter............neither were daylight fighters. 

Put it into perspective, if going one on one (during the daytime), what would you rather be in?


----------



## Negative Creep (May 15, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Mossie and Beaufighter............neither were daylight fighters.
> 
> Put it into perspective, if going one on one (during the daytime), what would you rather be in?




Tough call, the Beau was the harder hitting (and often had a rear gunner) but the Mossie could outmaneuver it. So I'd probably go for the latter, at least if it came to it you could have outrun your opponent.


----------



## Boa (May 15, 2007)

P-38...

But I would like too see a Whirlwind whith a pair of Merlins...


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2007)

Whew, glad someone enjoyed the Whirlwind! Agree, a change of engines definately would have put it in class with the Lightning and Mossie.


----------



## comiso90 (May 15, 2007)

The poll wasn't 'Best Twin Piston Engined Fighter"..

where is the 262?????


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2007)

P-38 for me as well...


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 16, 2007)

P-38's record makes it unquestionably the best wartime twin. Clearly the most effective, all around twin engine fighter.

Second comes Mosquito. Used in plethora of figher roles: day and night fighter, long range escort and intrude.

Sentimental favourite is the Whirlwind. A nasty combination of too many foward looking ideas and a bad engine choice and poor fuel plumbing, barring it from long range missions, doomed it. 

If they'd built the proposed Whirlwind Mk II, with the uprated Peregrines running on 100 octane, 40% more fuel, cross feed fuel system and larger Hamilton high activity props, it could of been escorting RAF bombers to Lower Saxony, the Rhine and other important production areas in Germany by the end of 1942.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Mossie and Beaufighter............neither were daylight fighters.
> 
> Put it into perspective, if going one on one (during the daytime), what would you rather be in?



Is this thread titled the best Day fighter?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The poll wasn't 'Best Twin Piston Engined Fighter"..
> 
> where is the 262?????



Save that for a best jet thread. There is allready one but I think it might be dead.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

yeah I think so Adler. I was looking for favorite but oh well. Maybe which model of the P-38 was best ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> P-38's record makes it unquestionably the best wartime twin. Clearly the most effective, all around twin engine fighter.
> 
> Second comes Mosquito. Used in plethora of figher roles: day and night fighter, long range escort and intrude.
> 
> ...


That sums it up right there....


----------



## Lucky13 (May 16, 2007)

1. P-38 Lightning
2. de Havilland Mosquito
3. Junkers Ju 88
4. Heinkel He 219 Uhu
5. Bristol Beaufighter
6. P-61 Blackwidow
7. Westland Whirlwind
8. Messerschmitt Bf 110 
9. Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse
10. Nakajima J1N "Irving"
11. Kawasaki Ki 45 Toryu "Nick"
12. Focke Wulf Ta 154 Moskito
13. Dornier Do 335
14. Arado Ar 240
15. Focke Wulf Fw 187 Falke


----------



## Erich (May 16, 2007)

the Do 335 never flew ops neither did the Ta 154 has been.......


----------



## Marcel (May 16, 2007)

as a dutchman, I'd vote the Fokker G.I of course, but hey, it's not here


----------



## comiso90 (May 16, 2007)

Marcel said:


> as a dutchman, I'd vote the Fokker G.I of course, but hey, it's not here



I didn't vote for the P-38 cause it's American.... It's simply the best daylight, twin engined fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> 1. P-38 Lightning
> 2. de Havilland Mosquito
> 3. Junkers Ju 88
> 4. Heinkel He 219 Uhu
> ...



How do you rank the 110 above the 410, 335, and 187. Granted the 335 and 187 never flew any combat ops but still.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

Marcel said:


> as a dutchman, I'd vote the Fokker G.I of course, but hey, it's not here




Seriously compared to the best up there the G.I was not the best and I think voting for something only because of nationality is pretty lame, but I added it for you.


----------



## Marcel (May 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I didn't vote for the P-38 cause it's American.... It's simply the best daylight, twin engined fighter.



Of course, it was a joke 
But while we're talking about it, as some people ranked the BF110. At 1940, the G.I performed better than the BF110 (c) variant at the time.


----------



## Marcel (May 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Seriously compared to the best up there the G.I was not the best and I think voting for something only because of nationality is pretty lame, but I added it for you.



Thanks, Adler, but I tried to be funny, not a good attempt, probably.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you rank the 110 above the 410, 335, and 187. Granted the 335 and 187 never flew any combat ops but still.


Just because of the 110's work as a nightfighter. I think that it was more successful at that than the 410 was as a dayfighter. And as you said O' Enlighted One, 335 etc... never flew any combat missions....
But hey, I can be less right. Because I'm never wrong.....


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (May 17, 2007)

i vote for the do-335 because is looks great and if it been operationel it beat all of the lists twin engined fighters


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2007)

Oh God, not another one...


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2007)




----------



## Heinz (May 17, 2007)

Mossie for me purely for its variants. P-38 is closely followed.

AS for the Whirlwind i;ve always marvelled at its beauty all apart from the elevator/rudder area.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Just because of the 110's work as a nightfighter. I think that it was more successful at that than the 410 was as a dayfighter. And as you said O' Enlighted One, 335 etc... never flew any combat missions....
> But hey, I can be less right. Because I'm never wrong.....



Please knock it off with with the O' Enlightened One. To me that is mocking and I dont appreciate it...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Please knock it off with with the O' Enlightened One. To me that is mocking and I dont appreciate it...


I'm really sorry if you take it that way Adler. It is NOT meant to be as mock or anything else in that way, not at all. I'm "saying" that with the outmost felt respect etc, since you know a lot more about aviation etc than I do. Like old days pupils called their teachers Master you know. Sorry Adler.


----------



## comiso90 (May 17, 2007)

luftwaffemesserschmitt said:


> i vote for the do-335 because is looks great and if it been operationel it beat all of the lists twin engined fighters



If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 17, 2007)

The Italians had the Breda Ba.88 twin engine fighter/bomber. It performed pretty poorly, so nobody would vote for it.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2007)

Lightning hands down for me


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2007)

I chose the lightning. But, personally I think the FW-187 would have been about as good if it had used the originally planned engines and single-seater configuration (the same as the 110's and 109's engines, and the cockpit was cramped enough without 2 people and there was no room for rear guns.) It would have been a nasty addition at the Battle of britain. In the original configuration its climb and dive rates were at least as good as the 109's and it had twice the range and good maneuverabillity (especially compared to the 110)

The Mossy was great, especially with its versitillity. As fighter-bombers the Mossy and Lightning were only surpassed by their single-engined counterparts the P-47 and Tempest. Though the Mossquito had the advantage of using fewer limited materials due to its wooden construction.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 26, 2007)

Kool surely you meant the Typhoon.


----------



## Instal (Oct 27, 2007)

This was tough for me but I had to vote Lightning. The Mossy is my 2nd favorite WW2 aircraft but facts are facts and head to head the lightning is the superior twin engine fighter. Add any other role and we have a new ballgame.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Well, though the Tempest saw little service in the war II and had teething problems thought it more comparable to the P-47 as the Typhoon was slower (slower than the Mossie too) and had a much shorter range. While the 2 I chose had comperable range to their country's "counterparts". The Tempest certainly prooved useful in interceping the V-1s (as the Mossie did to a lesser extent), though the P-51B and C also did well at this. (the P-47M has even higher speed performance at 470 mph, not surprising considdering it was designed to intercept V-1s, though it appeared too late for this job) 
Besides the P-47 also looked verry similar to the tempest, particularly in the wings, but if you compare the radial engined Tempest II to a bubble-top (actually the Tempest's canopy) P-47 they are VERY similar, with the P-47N's clipped wimgtips, ecen closer! compare: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/p47n_3v.jpg with http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/tempest2_1_3v.jpg

The Do-335 was also exelent (though outperformed by the XP-47J and XP-72 and almost by the P-47M in speed)

Also there was a fighter varient as the Mosquito F Mk II, this later became the nightfighter version.
quote: "Developed during 1940, the Mosquito F Mk II was developed and the first prototype was completed on 15 May 1941. These aircraft were fitted with four 20 mm Hispano cannon in the fuselage belly and four 0.303 in. Browning machine guns mounted in the nose. This fit required the movement of the crew ingress/egress door from the bottom to the right side of the nose. The aircraft also featured a revised windscreen, with flat bullet proof panels in front, as opposed to the original design."

A 3 or 4 FW-187s were service tested unofficially, but were removed from service when the pilos like it so much they suggested immedate production, possibly since it prooved to make the Bf-110 look bad.
The Meschersmitt "monopoly" on Luftwaffe fighters would not be broken untill the advent of the FW-190. Also, from the front it looks a bit like the Me-262 in shark-like appearance. Alas the bias tward Meschersmitt, the restriction on engine use (not placed on the 110 design) and, less importantly a requirement for a second seat in all models doomed the FW-190. (the He-100 was doomed for similar reasons, ie: engines diverted to Bf-109 and bias tward Meschersmitt products, as well as a veiw that the 109 was "good enough" and it was better to focus on a single fighter design than multiple ones.
see: Focke-Wulf 187 archive file

And I totaly agree that the Me 262 shouldn't be listed here (twin engined jets aren't really comparable to conventional twin engined fighters), plus if you did that you'd have to inglude the He-280, the Ho-229, and the Gloster Meteor. (I'd also say the P-59 Airacomet, but its performance probably wouldn't get ant votes, though its basic design configuration had more potential than was demonstrated)


----------



## delcyros (Oct 27, 2007)

P-38 Lighting for my vote, seriously.

Altough my favourite would have been the Ki-46-III Kai (Dinah), the P-38 bested all around.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

But the P-38 did have those problems with high-speed buffetting and compressibillity, but these were enentually solved, and with boosted controlls it was quite maneuverable. Though it was one of the first planes to have such speed problems due to it's high-speed capabillities, the design did have more inherant disadvantages than the P-47 of the same time-frame, but this too eventually requred the use of dive-flaps, albeit at a higher speed.

It was one of the top US fighters and one of the best escort fighters of the war. Too bad many were diverted to the pacific theater early on, since by the time the time they began escort duties in Europe, the P-47 with extended range (external tanks) was nearly entering escort duty as well. It would have saved many unescorted B-17s in the early months of the war. Even after this the P-38 required less fuel to obtain the same range as the P-47 even though the Lightning was heavier. The lightning also had advantages over the P-51.

Too bad the high performance aspects of the P-38K weren't combined with the advances in the P-38L for production. The L varient already had uprated engines but needed the larger propellers to take full advantage of this added power. This would have doubtlessly extended its service life, possibly even for use in Korea. (The P-51 was great, but it lacked the toughness and durrabillity of the P-38 and P-47, and though it had good altitude performance, its supercharger was still not as efficeint as the turbos of the other two.)

The Germans could really have used the FW-187, it had awesome performance, and excellent range, but as I mentioned previously, politics killed it.


----------



## Glider (Oct 27, 2007)

I notice the 262 isn't on the list and I am afraid that would get my vote.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2007)

We've already established that jets can't be included in this selection, as there not really comparable to prop fighters. As I alo mentioned before, there's a host of WWII twin engine jets that would have to be added if jets were included.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

While I would not include the 262 I find that post of yours a bit funny.

The Me 262, P-80 and Meteor are all twin engined aircraft. Can they be compared? Not really because they were better.

So does that not make them in contention for the best twin engined fighter?


----------



## renrich (Oct 28, 2007)

If this poll is about the best twin engined fighter in ww2 then the ME 262 is a prime contender. If it about best twin engined recip fighter P38 wins hands down. The P38 was used as an escort fighter early in the war in North Africa and Europe but had many reliablitity problems as well as compressibility problems as well as cockpit heating problems. Later on those problems were largely solved and it was a pretty good escort fighter but still was a big target, easy to identify and it's initial rate of roll was poor. Also with two engines it was twice as likely to have engine problems as single engine fighters and being that the engines were liquid cooled the P38 had a lot of nice targets to shoot at on it's air frame.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

I agree Ren and as for this poll I voted for the P-38 as well.

Just think its funny how someone can dismiss the jet fighters so easily.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 28, 2007)

I voted for the P-38 also. The German fighter pilots had good reason to call it "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel".

TO


----------



## Erich (Oct 28, 2007)

that is a post war myth, they called it "Lightning" as said to me more that a dozen plus times by LW veteran pilots. I'll go with the Mossie without question if it is a prop job


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 28, 2007)

You may be right Erich, but there's lots of documentation that supports the nickname. But I must admit, I have never questioned or talked to a veteran LW pilot.

TO


----------



## Erich (Oct 28, 2007)

it goes back to the early 1960's when it seemed or was deemed correct to give the P-38 more of a killer sound by calling it the fork tailed thing a ma bob name. really silly though. but it stuck like glue for the US reader. the first guy who I interviewed who shot down 1-2 Lightnings said what ? when I said it in the German. "who told you that" he replied. i said I read it and he told me flat out I was wrong or that that the author - J. Ethell was quite incorrect......... If I remember right this was actually coming from the P-38 factory mechs in the original form


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

The P-80 was single engined...
I didn't really mean dismiss jets for the comparison, I just meant they were in a whole different league, and had completly different advantages and tradeoffs. DerAdlerIstGelandet, you said yourself: "Save that for a best jet thread. There is allready one but I think it might be dead."

Though if it was truely intended for piston engine fighters only, which the list implies, it should have said that up front.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

The Ar 240 was a good a/c once the bugs had been wouked out and a limited number served well in recon, too bad it never entered production. It certainly had a unique design.

Why isn't the Ju 388 on the list? 

Or the Me 210? Though the 210's performance wouldn't merit any votes, so maby I've answered my own question.


----------



## DBII (Oct 29, 2007)

It looks like the P38 is the clear winner here without including Me 262. My question would be B-25 or Mosquito? 

DBII


----------



## renrich (Oct 29, 2007)

I thought the poll said twin engined fighter. The Mosquito was not really a fighter, was it? I don't think the P38 was highly regarded by by the LW. It's loss rate was pretty high in Europe. 129, 849 sorties versus 1758 losses. somewhat higher than either P47 or P51. Probably in part because of engine problems. In a dogfight with a Mossie I would think a P38 would prevail.


----------



## DBII (Oct 29, 2007)

The poll is for fighters but the Mosquito keeps poping up. Since the Mosquito and B-25 are both twin engine medium bombers, I was wondering everone thoughts. May be a poll for a later time.

DBII


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The P-80 was single engined...



 

I got on a role there naming off jets, didn't I?




koll kitty89 said:


> I didn't really mean dismiss jets for the comparison, I just meant they were in a whole different league, and had completly different advantages and tradeoffs. DerAdlerIstGelandet, you said yourself: "Save that for a best jet thread. There is allready one but I think it might be dead."
> 
> Though if it was truely intended for piston engine fighters only, which the list implies, it should have said that up front.



Yeah I must have forgotten that...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

The Mosquito had many roles, including night-fighter and fighter-bomber. Both would fit the "fighter" catigory. Anyway, in the bomber role the Mossie was more of a fast-bomber or light bomber than a medium bomber.

I agree though, the P-38 would ceartainly win in a dogfight.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 29, 2007)

I think it's funy some people voted the Whirlwind as in the best of my knowledge, it never performed well because of the underpowered engines. A claim that it would have been brilliant if it was equiped with Merlins isn't valid according to the question. If the question is about how good it would have been if, then I vote for the G.I as Fokker wanted to equip it with Merlins, too and it would have been a plane as versatile and fast as the Mossie, long before the latter would have entered service.
But I think the P-38 was the best plane in actual used configuration.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 29, 2007)

Marcel, Westland Whirlwind Fighter


----------



## R Leonard (Oct 29, 2007)

None the less, 



> P-38. Destroyed more Japanese planes in the pacific theater than any other us. fighter and performed well in ground attack duties in Europe.



The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese planes in the Pacific Theater than any other *USAAF* fighter. Came in third behind the F6F and the F4U.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Oct 29, 2007)

I always liked the looks of the Westland Whirlwind also. Really pugnacious looking with those engines jutting out there. I doubt though the Merlin would have worked in the Whirlwind without extensive redesign. The merlin was a heavy and large engine. If I recall correctly it weighed 450 lbs more than the V1710 Allison.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 29, 2007)

Allison V-1710 - Weight 1,595 lbs
Griffon - Weight 2,000 lbs
Merlin - Weight 1,690 lbs

Unlimited Excitement Home Page


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2007)

I didn't dive into this one early because I wasn't sure what the 'best' definition encompassed... and Chris purposely left off Me 262.

Of all the ones listed the P-38 has to be in top 2, the Do 335 would have been interesting to see in an exhaustive evaluation as 'next gen' and I would have to nominate F7F based on the raves I heard from the pilots that flew it in contrast to F6F and F8F.

But for pure demonstrated 'fighter', with track record, on the list, the 38 seems a clear choice. Would have been interesting the see a complete flight profile test comparison between Mossie, P-38L/M, Do 335 and F7F.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

How much did the Peregrine I weigh though? 

I also agree that the Merlin probably wouldn't work, I think it's too large for the fit, as well as too heavy (the 1710 might have worked size wise, but it was still heavy compared to the peregrine and was not domestically produced). Remember, the Whirlwind was light for a heavy fighter, lighter than the Meteor actually (about 10,400 lbs loaded, 11,400 lbs max) and was only slightly larger than the Hurricane and actually had a lower frontal area. If work on the Peregrine had continued it could have been made more reliable and powerful (maby more than 1000 hp) and maby a second supercharger could be added for altitude performance (like in later merlins), but the Merlin was of higher priority. Pluss the Whirlwind still had altitude problems (due to the Perigrine's low critical altitude) and short range for a heavy fighter. Though in the early stages of the war it was faster than the Spit, and the firepowere, was virtually unmatched, but lack of reliable or even available engines doomed it. 

quote: "the Merlin had become much more important to the war effort and the Peregrine was relegated to a secondary status. Soon the engine was cancelled outright and since much of the performance of the Whirlwind depended on the careful streamlining around that specific engine, there was little choice but to cancel the aircraft as well."

Though with that high tail and the engine placement, it might have been possible to fit some Welland turbojets on it, they were small and light enough. (though the landing gear would still need to be redesigned, and the range would be even shorter, though still reasonable for an interceptor, and external tanks could help) Though jets would certainly solve the altitude problem.  

The bubble canopy was also a nice feature which was ahead of its time, the lightning was the only other production craft at the time with one (the Gloster F.5/34 also had one but was cancelled).

It also had a veryy clean airframe and good aerodynamics. It could go 360 mph, and had good low-altitude performance. The range was somewhat inadequate for escort at ~800 miles and a combat radius of under 300 mi.

quote: "The resulting design was quite small, only slightly larger than the Hurricane in overall size, but smaller in terms of frontal area. All of the wheels fully retracted and the entire aircraft was very "clean" with few openings or protuberances. Careful attention to streamlining and two 885 hp Peregrine engines powered it to over 360 mph (580 km/h), the same speed as the latest single-engine fighters, using much higher-powered engines. The speed quickly garnered it the nick-name Crikey.

The first prototype (L6844) flew on 11 October 1938 with production starting early the next year. It exhibited excellent handling and was very easy to fly at all speeds. The only exception was landing, which was all too fast. Fowler flaps were added to correct for this problem, which also required the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) to be moved up, out of the way of the disturbed air flow when the flaps were down. Hopes were so high for the design that it remained "top secret" for much of its development, although it had already been mentioned in the French press."


Though there was a proposal for a redesign with Merlin engines:
"Westland argued for the creation of the Mk II model using two Merlin engines, but by this time the role was becoming less important. As Bomber Command turned to night bomber missions the need for an escort fighter became less important. By 1940, the Supermarine Spitfire was mounting 20 mm cannons, so the "cannon-armed" specification was also being met. The main qualities the RAF were looking for in a twin was range and ordnance load (to allow for the carriage of radar), which the Bristol Beaufighter could do just as well as the Whirlwind."

Another comment: "No better proof of the Whirlwind’s quality can be given than the fact that in the intense combat conditions of Northern Europe, a squadron flew the same fighter mark (not just the same fighter type but the same airframes) for three years. When No. 263 Squadron received its first Whirlwind, the newest Spitfire in service was the Mk IA; by the time it gave them up, the Mk XIV was a month away from entering service. If the Whirlwind had been a "bad" aircraft, it never would have served with Fighter Command for that length of time. A second Whirlwind squadron, No. 137, flew the type from September 1941 until June 1943."



From: Westland Whirlwind (fighter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"(An appraisal
Philip J.R. Moyes notes in Aircraft in Profile 94: The Westland Whirlwind, “The basic feature of the Whirlwind was its concentration of firepower: its four closely-grouped heavy cannon in the nose had a rate of fire of 600 lb./minute – which, until the introduction of the Beaufighter, placed it ahead of any fighter in the world. Hand in hand with this dense firepower went a first-rate speed and climb performance, excellent manoeuvrablity and a fighting view hitherto unsurpassed. The Whirlwind was, in its day, faster than the Spitfire down low and, with lighter lateral control, was considered to be one of the nicest ‘twins’ ever built… From the flying viewpoint, the Whirlwind was considered magnificent.”

Bruce Robertson, in The Westland Whirlwind Described[3] quotes a 263 Squadron pilot as saying, "It was regarded with absolute confidence and affection.”

At low level, the aircraft was a devastating fighter-bomber, armed with both cannons and bombs, and it could hold its own with the Bf 109 at low-level. The performance of the Peregrine fell off at altitude, so the Whirlwind was used almost exclusively at low level.

The aircraft is well summed up by Francis K. Mason’s comments in Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Vol. One:

“Bearing in mind the relatively small number of Whirlwinds that reached the RAF, the type remained in combat service, virtually unmodified, for a remarkably long time…The Whirlwind, once mastered, certainly shouldered extensive responsibilities and the two squadrons were called upon to attack enemy targets from one end of the Channel to the other, by day and night, moving from airfield to airfield within Southern England.

“In retrospect the lesson of the Whirlwind is clear… A radical aircraft requires either prolonged development or widespread service to exploit its concept and eliminate its weaknesses, Too often in World War II such aircraft suffered accelerated development or limited service, with the result that teething difficulties came to be regarded as permanent limitations.”

In 1941, the Luftwaffe started a number of extremely high-altitude bombing missions using specially modified Junkers Ju 86 bombers and Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters carrying bombs. These were met by modified Spitfires, but the pilots were extremely exhausted as a result of the forced-air breathing system. The Air Ministry then ordered a new purpose-built high-altitude fighter with a pressurized cockpit, and Westland responded with a new twin-engined design known as the Welkin. However, the Germans called off the attacks, unaware of the British problems and the Welkin was produced in an even more limited number, only 77.)"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

Too bad they couldn't modify the Westland Welkin's wings so it could act in a normal fighter role, ie clipping the wings. Get 'em down to 50-55ft (ceiling down to ~35,000ft from 44,000) and it would be a decent a/c with many of the characteristics of the Whirlwind but with longer range and more-powerful engines. It would put good use to unused airframes (75 complete planes +26 engineless), and if the redesign showed the merit, production of the alterd version might have followed.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 30, 2007)

> How much did the Peregrine I weigh though?


1,140 lb 



> The only exception was landing, which was all too fast.



A myth debunked by this author/book. Highly recommend it.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 30, 2007)

4 me its the P38 for sure, pure fighter, but i absolutly love the mossie, my favourite a/c ever!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

Graeme said:


> 1,140 lb
> 
> 
> 
> A myth debunked by this author/book. Highly recommend it.



Actually, my sourse said the landing speed problem was rectified: 
"The only exception was landing, which was all too fast. Fowler flaps were added to correct for this problem, which also required the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) to be moved up, out of the way of the disturbed air flow when the flaps were down."

So that would never have been a problem with the production version. 

Nice book, I hope to eventually read it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

> The only exception was landing, which was all too fast



What was considered "too fast?"


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What was considered "too fast?"


What was the landing speed of single engines fighters at the time?
Would say 'too fast' is relative to the other fighters of the time.

The 190 is said to be a _fast_ lander compared to the 109, for example.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What was considered "too fast?"



This, according to 'officialdom'..












kool kitty89 said:


> So that would never have been a problem with the production version.



It wasn't, but the myth that it's landing speed restricted it to certain airfields (runway length) has persisted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

That is a bit fast but not unreasonable - the P-38 in it's heaviest configuration landed at 102 mph - the Whirwind was a taildragger so that could present problems for a "green" pilot, especially a low time multi-engine guy. (Joe's soap box again  )


BTW depending on the weight, I show the Bf 109 with a gear down, flaps down stall speed of 85 - multiply that by 1.3 and you should be carrying 110 mph over the numbers. I also think you'll find the P-51 close to the same speeds as well. Bill has flown in P-51s he might know the exact numbers.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> It was one of the top US fighters and one of the best escort fighters of the war. Too bad many were diverted to the pacific theater early on, since by the time the time they began escort duties in Europe, the P-47 with extended range (external tanks) was nearly entering escort duty as well. It would have saved many unescorted B-17s in the early months of the war. Even after this the P-38 required less fuel to obtain the same range as the P-47 even though the Lightning was heavier. The lightning also had advantages over the P-51.
> 
> *The 1st and 14th FG were in 8th AF late summer 1942 and diverted to Africa in Dec 1942 - could have made a difference in early 1943 and certainly in the early Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids in Aug 43... but the 51 took over the bulk of deep excort beginning in Dec 1943 until the last of the P-38 groups converted in July 1944. The P-47 didn't have the legs to go beyond western Germany until after D-Day.
> 
> ...



The P-38 was one helluva a fighter 

Joe - the book said 105mph over the threshold but I was brutally beaten into 110-115 under the theory that you can't 'buy' airspeed there w/o throttle and that was dangerous with flaps at that speed.

The 51 was also a little coltish on a three point - particularly in a cross wind. I kept the butt up for awhile befor dropping tail.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The P-38 was one helluva a fighter
> 
> Joe - the book said 105mph over the threshold but I was brutally beaten into 110-115 under the theory that you can't 'buy' airspeed there w/o throttle and that was dangerous with flaps at that speed.
> 
> The 51 was also a little coltish on a three point - particularly in a cross wind. I kept the butt up for awhile befor dropping tail.


Thanks for the info Bill - I bet the scars are still there from those beatings! 

For more info I show the Fw 190D with a gear down full flap stall speed of 100 mph which equates to 130 mph over the numbers, the 190A I show a 95 mph full flaps gear down for a 123 mph over the numbers....

With all that said I don't think the Whirwind's landing speed was that unreasonable. I could see engine out landings in a crosswind as a problem however...


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 30, 2007)

Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast. 

95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph

That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast.
> 
> 95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph
> 
> That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.




Agree - especially if the aircraft of the day were slower on landing but compared to the P-51, Fw 190 or Bf 109? And then to add once again, it was a twin....


----------



## DBII (Oct 30, 2007)

Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war. 

There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno. 

DBII


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2007)

The empty weight originally of the P51B was 550 lbs above the P51A most of which was caused by the engine and prop change. The fuselage fuel tank added another 150 lbs to it's empty weight.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome." 

But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?

Other than the lack of engines, the Whirlwind had too short of a range to be a good escort (though better than the Spitfire or Hurricane), and though it had a good climb rate and strong armament, its role as an interceptor would be hampered by its altitude performance. (if bombers were attacking above 20,000 ft it was in trouble, a similar problem in planes like the P-39 and P-40) Though the altidude issue would likely have been solved if development of the Peregrine had continued, as it would have likely seen similar modifications and upratings as the Merlin did) 

Perhaps the Rolls-Royce Kestrel could have been used in place of the Peregrine (designed as a "rationalized" Kestrel) as it had been developed extensively and would have been more readily available, and by the time the Peregrine was cancelled the Kestrel eventually topped out at 1,050 hp (780 kW) in the XXX model. And it was dementionally nearly identical to the Peregrine. Or maby switch to a small radial engine like the Bristol Mercury (like the Miles Master did) or Taurus, if it was close-coweled and fan cooled it wouldn't alter the nacelles, weight, or drag much and would add the toughness of an air-cooled engine.

As things were, the Whirlwind performed exceptionally in the fighter-bomber role (Whirlybomber) and could outfight intercepting fighters (mainly Bf 109s) at low level (around 15,000 ft)


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2007)

heres a quote out from pilot flying the Whirlwind for the first time I'll take this guys word as gospel when he arrived at 263 Sqn there were 93 Whirlwinds left in service his logbook said he flew 33 of them 
" okay now its . time to land Join the circuit downwind throttle back to 150mph , prime the exactors , lower the undercarriage ,set the cooling flaps , turn in, props fully fine , slow down a little , flaps down a little more , set at 125mph, come in over the fence at no more then 110mph and drop onto the rwy. Whoops i didn't get the final speed down enough, So i float for a bit ,geez those big fowler flaps really slow you down" 
his biggest complaint was that you could not feather the props nor could you cross feed the wing tanks. He prefered it to the Mossie in which he flew his last 2 tours. Said it would outclimb anything under 20000


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome."


 I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!


kool kitty89 said:


> But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?


Depends on the aircraft - Take the stall speed and multiply it by 1.3 - that should be the speed at final approach over the numbers just before the flare.

The Mossie stalled at 110 flaps and gear down - that meant her approach speed should of been 143 mph!!!!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2007)

DBII said:


> Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war.
> 
> There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno.
> 
> DBII



The first flight was Nov 1943, first delivery to USMC April 1944, first deployment was as night fighter to Okinawa before end of war in June/July timeframe.

Every USMC and USN pilot I have talked to about this airplane preferred it to F6F and F4U


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!


 

I didn't think that was right. That site also got some other things wrong, like saying the Whirlwind had poor maneuverabillity comparable to the Bf 110! 
from Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It showed some promise in combat, however, like its German counterpart it was not agile enough to successfully combat enemy fighters."

The Whirlwind could have made a good escort if its bomb racks were fitted ta accept drop tanks. Even if it could only carry 2x 50 gal. tanks they would still nearly double the fuel capacity. (75% increase) So range would be well over 1000 miles. If 100 gal. tanks could be carried it could reach about 2000 miles.

The F7F was a great fighter, but did it really see service in WWII, or maby it just didn't see any combat? (ie. never met any enemy fighters on missions)

Here's another apraisal of it: 
Performance met expectations too; the F7F Tigercat was one of the highest-performance piston-engined fighters, with a top speed well in excess of the US Navy's single-engined aircraft—71 mph faster than a F6F Hellcat at sea level.[2] The opinion of Capt. Fred M. Trapnell, one of the Navy's premier test pilots, was that "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 31, 2007)

From the manual for the Mossie FBVI, the final approach speed, flaps down, is 100-105kts (115-120mph) at 17-18000lb.

At max landing weight, flaps up, the final approach should be made at 115kts (132mph). At lighter weights this speed could be reduced by 5kts.

Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
u/c and flaps up: 105kts
u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
> u/c and flaps up: 105kts
> u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
> power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts



Do the math 95 knots times 1.3 = 123 knots


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 31, 2007)

Just posting what the manual says.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2007)

Understand - someone might of determined that the aircraft was stable enough on final to beyond the 1.3Vso rule.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2007)

Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus? (though I think the taurus wasn't supercharged and was heavier, it was more compact though.)
Does anyone know the diameter of the taurus?

The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37 was also designed around the Peregrine, but its prototype used Taurus engines, so maby it would have worked.

As said previously, what the Whirlwind really needed for escort was the ability to cary drop-tanks on the wing racks. I dont think it would have been that difficult to modify the wings with the necessary plumbing, so I wonder why they didn't...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

I still think it would have been cool to see a Whirlwind powered by a couple Welland or Derwent I engines. It was a pretty clean a/c even by 1944 standards, and with the narrower/higher aspect ratio wings and the nacelle placement, I donn't think it would have had the compressibillity problems of the Meteor. (Nacelles about the same as the meteor's but with the different wing junction and more extended infront of the wing would have made the airflow transition smoother) Though it would have lacked the fuel space and development potential of the Meteor, ther were a decent quantity of retired Whirlwinds in decent condition by the advent of the Welland and since the engine was of similar size and weight as the Peregrine the airframe would just need a necelle redesign and refitting. Would have certainly been a good intrim measure for the meteor, instead of the Mk I or early F. III. (say it would be used for about 1-2 years untill the bugs in the Meteor had been worked out and Derwent II's or IV's could be fitted in the longer nacelles of the late model F. III in early 1945)

Though maby this is a better topic for the "what plane (any side) would you develop further" thread...


----------



## Graeme (Nov 2, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37..



Neither competed, for the same specification. Both were designed to different specifications. The Whirlwind won the tender for specification F.37/35, for "a single-seat, day-and-night fighter equiped with 4 20mm cannon." The competition consisted of the Supermarine 313, Bristol 153 and a Hawker project.

As it's name states, the Gloster design, after a convoluted history, competed for specification F.9/37 requesting a tender for an interceptor with "very heavy fixed armament". But by mid 1940 the Bristol Beaufighter had been selected for production. Gloster also failed once again, using the F.9/37 with Merlins, for specification F.18/40 requesting a "Merlin-engined day-and-night interceptor with fixed guns".


----------



## Theo (Nov 2, 2007)

> P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.


Adolf Galland


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?


Lightweight radial? That's almost an oxymoron...


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 3, 2007)

Not that much, radials and inline do not weight that much differently. The bare engines yes, but considering the numerous cooling stuff the inlines require as extra... they are almost the same weight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Not that much, radials and inline do not weight that much differently. The bare engines yes, but considering the numerous cooling stuff the inlines require as extra... they are almost the same weight.



Look at the weights of radials that put out above 1200 hp. There's a curve and it goes up drastically with horsepower. Low HP radials are the ones for good weight to power ratios....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

I'll say it again: Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus?

Though the kestrels would have underpowered her a bit at 745 hp compared to the 885 hp Peregrine, at least it was available in numbers though, unlike the Peregrine. (yes, I know the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel)

The Mercury and Pegasus were no heavier than the Peregrine (okay the Pegasus was 40 lbs heavier, but the Merc was lighter though), and power output, was similar, in the Pegasus, higher. 

The Miles Master originally used a kestrel but was redesigned to use a Mercury later. The Gloster F.9/37 was designed for Peregrines, but the Taurus worked for it in testing.

The taurus was a bit heavier than the Peregrine (about 160 lbs I think), but the power almost made up for it and it was still close enough in weight to not need structureal reenforsement. I think it was more compact than the Pegasus or Mercury, though. 

Here's the weights I've got: Kestrel: 955 lb Peregrine: 1,140 lb Mercury: 1,065 lb Pegasus: 1180 lb Taurus: 1300 lb.

Power ratings (max): Kestrel: 745 hp (Kestrel XVI)(though one sourse said the XXX could make 1050 hp, another lower than the XVI at 715 hp) 
Peregrine: 885 hp Mercury: 995 hp (100 octane), 840 (87 octane) Pegasus: 1065 hp (100 octane), 1000 hp (87 octane) Taurus: 1065 hp (87 octane)

The Pegasus is 55.3" in diameter, the Mercury is 51.5", and the Taurus: 50.5"
The Kestrel was 24.4" wide by 35" tall and 72.35" long. 

Anyone know the the demensions for the Peregrine?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I'll say it again: Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus?
> 
> Though the kestrels would have underpowered her a bit, at least it was available in numbers, unlike the Peregrine. (yes, I know the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel)
> 
> ...



Kitty, understand this...

Although we saw a lot of engine swapping and different engine configurations on many WW2 aircraft, engine swap outs for the sake of better performance don't always work, especially on multi engine aircraft. Accountability has to be made for airframe construction, stress loading, fuel consumption and maintainability. I've seen engine mods that added 50 hp to an aircraft and in time started to destroy the airframe. Unless the engine is designed for a specific engine in mind, engine retrofits as an afterthought don't always work.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 3, 2007)

Thanks all for propping up my contention that the Whirlwind coulda been a contender. From what I read (and you've all added much more) I still think its a sharp aircraft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

Then use the Mercury or the Kestrel, they had less hp (only slightly for the Merc) and the kestrel was verry similar to the Peregrine, though a bit smaller and lighter. You could use the Pegasus and have it limited at low altitude to not overstress the airframe, and it would still improve altitude performance since it could be run higher at altitude to produce the same hp as the Peregrine's max. To be clearer, likit the engine so it doesn't exceed 850 hp in normal flight but allow higher power ratings for altitude (which deminishes power anyway) and WEP/boost.

But that said, if jets were put on it (in the pipedream I mentioned earlier), theres a good chance of overstressing it. Does anyone know how strong the Whirlwind's airframe was?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But that said, if jets were put on it (in the pipedream I mentioned earlier), theres a good chance of overstressing it. Does anyone know how strong the Whirlwind's airframe was?


Like most fighters of the day probably close to +9 -3 Gs.


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

well p 38 or mosquito.. i prefer mosquito he haves better armament that p 38.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

But were the Whirlwind's wings strong enough to mount 1600 lbf jets on (Wellands). I just think it would have been interesting, sort of like a mini meteor, but with the pointier nose, half underslung engines, and mid-mounted bubble canopy mabe more like a mini Meteor/Me-262 hybrid. If the such a design was tested (by converting an one of the test planes or prototypes) and was found to be workable it would have made a good intrim measure untill the Meteor had the bugs worked out and more powerful engines available (the small plane would have a much higher thrust/weight). Such a redesign isn't inconceivible as was done to a Yak-3 to make the Yak-15, which was even able to retain its taildragger landing gear. (though the Yak was far from stellar in speed and range, it was easy to produce and convert to)

On a more practical note I still think the aformentioned radials (especially the Pegasus) would have been decent replacement engines and Kestrels might have worked too. The Kestrels would obviously be fittable to the airframe with virtually no modification, but I just dont know if the performance drop (885 hp to 745 hp per engine) would provide decent performance. The main reason for the enine swap is as a replacement for the discontinued Peregrine, not to improve performance necessarily. Though if you can you might as well, though the added drag from the radials would hurt, the added hp at altitude would help alot. (I think the Pegasus had a higher critical altitude as well...)


----------



## Graeme (Nov 4, 2007)

Little room for development, and no one wanted it developed.


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 4, 2007)

Boa said:


> ..
> 
> But I would like too see a Whirlwind with a pair of Merlins...



It was called the Westland Welkin I-An improved Whirlwind with Merlin Engines. Seventy five were built from 1941 plus an additional 26 airframes without engines.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 4, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> It was called the Westland Welkin I-An improved Whirlwind with Merlin Engines.



I believe in general layout only Holibar, otherwise a completely new Petter design for a new specification, F.4/40, with emphasis on "high altitude capabilities". Tenders prepared were the General Aircraft G.A.L.46, the Hawker P.1004, and the Westland Welkin. But the requirement was revised later as F.7/41, calling for a;

"single-seat fighter able to operate at great heights and in all parts of the world. Armament was to consist of 6 20mm. Hispano cannon with normal ammunition 120rpg and 150rpg per gun. A pressure cabin was mandatory, the machine was to provide a steady gun platform, the view all round for the pilot was to be good-particularly to the rear, and, although designed as a single seater, provision was to be made for an observer or for A.I. radar for the pilot's use only. Minimum top speed required was 415mph at 33,000ft and service ceiling demanded was to be over 42,000ft with a pair of Merlin 61s for power".

Two prototypes eventually emerged to conform to F.7/41. The Vickers Type 432 and the Westland P.14 Welkin Mk.1.

This was the G.A.L.46 design for the original specification.


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

allison sucks..


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2007)

Thats what I like, a nice reasoned view with reasons for the preference, open for a debate on the pros and cons of each option.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> allison sucks..


More of the uninformed... 

The Allison was actually a very good engine and were some ways better than the Merlin and DB 601. The problem with the Allison was the right coupling of the engine with a good turbocharging system that would give it a good high altitude performance and reliability (single engine aircraft). Now with that said I suggest a good dose of aviation history 101 because it seems by some of your posts you're still in aviation puberty.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2007)

Or aviation diapers. Take a look at the aircraft that were powered by Allison engines; The P-38, P-39, P-40 to name a few. Allison built more than 70,000 engines during the war. That's quite a few engines built for one that you claim "sucks".


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> More of the uninformed...
> 
> The Allison was actually a very good engine and were some ways better than the Merlin and DB 601. The problem with the Allison was the right coupling of the engine with a good turbocharging system that would give it a good high altitude performance and reliability (single engine aircraft). Now with that said I suggest a good dose of aviation history 101 because it seems by some of your posts you're still in aviation puberty.



lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.

by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.
> 
> by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well .



Maybe if you wrote educated posts and explained why you think something sucks rather just stating "allison sucks..." people might take your more seriously.


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

evangilder said:


> ...engines built for one that you claim "sucks".



ok forgive me with the "sucks" i only wanted said that i don't like the alison engine. Sorry for all alison fans.


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Maybe if you wrote educated posts and explained why you think something sucks rather just stating "allison sucks..." people might take your more seriously.



yes you are right sorry the "sucks".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> ok forgive me with the "sucks" i only wanted said that i don't like the alison engine. Sorry for all alison fans.



Thats fine. Explain why then.

Ofcourse "Allison Sucks..." is going to get people wound up because in all actuallity it does not suck.

No one here said that it was the best engine of the war. Anyone that would say that does not know anything about them. However just saying they suck is rather stupid, you should explain why and then people might understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats fine. Explain why then.
> 
> Ofcourse "Allison Sucks..." is going to get people wound up because in all actuallity it does not suck.
> 
> No one here said that it was the best engine of the war. Anyone that would say that does not know anything about them. However just saying they suck is rather stupid, you should explain why and then people might understand where you are coming from.



Really the allison don't sucks, it is a very good "ground attack engine" but his performance to hight altitude leaves very much to be desired, and i think that he was quickly outdated because this reason.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.
> 
> by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well .


How about this @sshole - you don't like it here LEAVE or better yet I could expedite your departure...

Read some of my post and you'll find I'm far from being American biased with regards to aircraft (if that's what you're implying) - can I help it if you're a freaking nitwit and 80 percent of your recent posts don't make any f#*king sense!?!?

My only warning - stop being an idiot or you're out of here - compreenda o @sshole!!!!!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

Yeah, look up some history on the V-1710, even with just the standard supercharger configuration it could be configured for up to 23,000 ft crit. altitude. The main problem was the design lacked the capibillity for a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so it was a problem for aircraft that could not use turbochargers. This was due to the USAAC deciding that the engine should be used for low altitude, and if additional high-alt performance was needed a turbocharger would be added.

And we might have seen some turbocharged single-engine V-1710 fighters (like the original P-39 design) if it wasn't another USAAC decision that the US was involnerable to high altitude attack due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and so fighters were to focus primarily on low altitude strike capibillities. They were prooven wrong at Pearl...

The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a auxiliary supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage, though it lacked the 2-speed gearbox and coolers of the Merlins) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was the Allison V-1710-117 rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection)

Even earlier versions had power uprated so even with the inadequate supercharger smaller fighters (like the P-39) would have enough power at altitude even with the drop-off past the critical zone. ( 1325 hp Allison V-1710-47 uprated from the original 1150 hp) Such was seen in the XP-76 (a redesign of the P-39 originaly the P-39E using the Contenetal V-1430 "Hyper" engine). Though Bell added a 2-stage supercharger. It seemed to work and performance was almost up to the turbocharged version of the XP-39, a series was ordered in 1942 but later canceled so Bell could manufacture B-29s. So we'll never know how the P-76 would have done...
see: Bell XP-76 and Bell XP-39E Airacobra

Even though Wikipedia isn't the best resourse, its still more accurate than you've been. There's a good overview on the history of the V-1710 here: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yeah, look up some history on the V-1017, even with just the standard supercharger configuration it could be configured for up to 23,000 ft crit. altitude. The main problem was the design lacked the capibillity for a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so it was a problem for aircraft that could not use turbochargers. This was due to the USAAC deciding that the engine should be used for low altitude, and if additional high-alt performance was needed a turbocharger would be added.
> 
> The Merlins had the same poor altitude performance (or almost so) untill the Merlin-61 with 2-stage supercharger. When some P-40s had their allisons replaced with merlins (standard single supercharger) performance did not improve much. Eventually Allison saw the need to incorporate a 2-stage supercharger in their design and added a suplemental supercharger (as a rudementary 2-stage) to the engine. Water injection was also later added. This was used in the P-63 which had markedly improved altitude performance and ceiling over the P-39. (that model was rated at 1600 hp and 1800 hp with water injection)


OUTSTANDING!


----------



## Neto (Nov 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> How about this @sshole - you don't like it here LEAVE or better yet I could expedite your departure...
> 
> Read some of my post and you'll find I'm far from being American biased with regards to aircraft (if that's what you're implying) - can I help it if you're a freaking nitwit and 80 percent of your recent posts don't make any f#*king sense!?!?
> 
> My only warning - stop being an idiot or you're out of here - compreenda o @sshole!!!!!


I AM GAY!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> I AM GAY!



Goodbye d!ckhead - it's obvious you're in the lower part of the European gene pool!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

I saw that coming!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

Graeme said:


> I believe in general layout only Holibar, otherwise a completely new Petter design for a new specification, F.4/40, with emphasis on "high altitude capabilities". Tenders prepared were the General Aircraft G.A.L.46, the Hawker P.1004, and the Westland Welkin. But the requirement was revised later as F.7/41, calling for a;
> 
> "single-seat fighter able to operate at great heights and in all parts of the world. Armament was to consist of 6 20mm. Hispano cannon with normal ammunition 120rpg and 150rpg per gun. A pressure cabin was mandatory, the machine was to provide a steady gun platform, the view all round for the pilot was to be good-particularly to the rear, and, although designed as a single seater, provision was to be made for an observer or for A.I. radar for the pilot's use only. Minimum top speed required was 415mph at 33,000ft and service ceiling demanded was to be over 42,000ft with a pair of Merlin 61s for power".
> 
> ...



The original design looks nice though, maby of the callibur of the Hornet, only available before the war's end... Looks cool too! Would have been more use than the final version of the Welkin.

Looks more like the Gloster F.9/37 than the Whirlwind though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

Wow, first "the su-47 is gangsta" now this guy (Neto), you guys are cleaning up today...

Thanks for the complement FBJ. 8) Of and nice edit. LOL


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Goodbye d!ckhead - it's obvious you're in the lower part of the European gene pool!



"I'm gay" means he's happy, isn't it ?  
So then I'm glad that he's happy to be banned, suits him.  
 on you moderators


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

You do know FBJ edited it to say that right?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

Thanks guys - we don't mind novices but its hard to allow stupidity here...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

Especially arrogant stupidity!


----------



## Njaco (Nov 4, 2007)

Its amazing how you can tell when someone is headed to "Banned Heaven"!

That looks amazing, Kool, any idea what the armament would've been ?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

The Gloster F.9/37 was mentioned earlier (FBJ had it on the comparisons chart on pg 5) It was to be armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. Performance was similar to the Whirlwind.

The one below is the initial version of what became the Welkin, before it was redesigned for the altered specifications for high-altitude use. I think it had 6x 20mm cannons. I think it looks verru cool Had it been persued in the original form, it might have been like the Hornet... Graeme should know more about this.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 5, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> You do know FBJ edited it to say that right?


Of course, I didn't suppose that he was banned, just because he confessed he's gay. But the moderators way of modifying stupid posts is usually quite amusing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

Marcel said:


> But the moderators way of modifying stupid posts is usually quite amusing


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 5, 2007)

Yes it certainly can. 
And Gramme, is there any more you know about the Westland F.4/40 design, proposed dementions maby? It looks like it would have been much better than the F.7/41 version turned out (Welkin).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 5, 2007)

Negative Creep said:


> Tough call, the Beau was the harder hitting (and often had a rear gunner) but the Mossie could outmaneuver it. So I'd probably go for the latter, at least if it came to it you could have outrun your opponent.



I just reread the begining of the thread and noticed that it was claimed that the Beaufighter had a heavier armament than the Mossie. Not true, both had 4x 20mm cannons and the Mossie had 4x .30 cals while the Beau 4x plus 2x, so only a slight increase in firepower and these were in the wings so not as effective as the mossie's nose guns. I also think the Mossie could carry more ammo, so the mossie would be a better all-around fighter.


----------



## renrich (Nov 5, 2007)

A good example of what Flyboy(I think) was talking about when he said that putting a bigger engine in an AC not resulting in more performance was the F2G-1D. It had a R 4360-4 engine rated at 3000 hp for takeoff but had very little better performance than the F4U4 with the R 2800 and inferior performance compared to the F4U5 with the R 2800.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 5, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The original design looks nice though, maby of the callibur of the Hornet, only available before the war's end... Looks cool too! Would have been more use than the final version of the Welkin.
> 
> Looks more like the Gloster F.9/37 than the Whirlwind though.



The F-9/37 looks a lot like a Beaufighter, only with twin tails, complete with the Bristol Hercules sleeve-valve engines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 5, 2007)

renrich said:


> A good example of what Flyboy(I think) was talking about when he said that putting a bigger engine in an AC not resulting in more performance was the F2G-1D. It had a R 4360-4 engine rated at 3000 hp for takeoff but had very little better performance than the F4U4 with the R 2800 and inferior performance compared to the F4U5 with the R 2800.



The F2G-1D had incredible climb though, and it also had more fundemental aerodynamic and control performance problems.

Look what the Wasp Major did for the XP-72 though. Also, the engine realy needed contra-rotating props for best performance on a single engined plane as the torque was a bit of a problem and a single prop would need to be verry large to take full advantage, but this created even more torque and required moe ground clearance. Such problems were much less on large multi-engined craft such as the Constitution, B-36 or other large craft, and the H-4 . Well, the H-4 had other problems...

If you notice though, the XP-72 didn't do too much better than the XP-47J which was powered with an uprated Double wasp, but that had a lightened airframe (compard to the P-47D) and a much lower climb rate than the P-72. Also this is without the P-72's contrarotating props...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2007)

renrich said:


> A good example of what Flyboy(I think) was talking about when he said that putting a bigger engine in an AC not resulting in more performance was the F2G-1D. It had a R 4360-4 engine rated at 3000 hp for takeoff but had very little better performance than the F4U4 with the R 2800 and inferior performance compared to the F4U5 with the R 2800.


BINGO!!!


----------



## Graeme (Nov 6, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> "Looks more like the Gloster F.9/37 than the Whirlwind though."
> 
> "The one below is the initial version of what became the Welkin, before it was redesigned for the altered specifications for high-altitude use".
> 
> "And Gramme, is there any more you know about the Westland F.4/40 design, proposed dementions maby? It looks like it would have been much better than the F.7/41 version turned out (Welkin)."




Kitty, some confusion has crept into the history of General Aircraft Ltd’s GAL 46 project of 1938. It’s not related in any way to Westland or Gloster products.

On 18 October 1939, they submitted the design to the Air Ministry “out of the blue” hoping to gain a contract or at least stimulate an interest in a Stratospheric fighter and General Purpose Aircraft. General Purpose because it was also designed to carry four 500 lb bombs in three bomb bays…





A pressure cabin, “Reversible cannons” and a tricycle undercarriage were all very novel for the time. They had experimented with a pressure cabin and tricycle undercarriage on one of their Monospar aircraft.





The Air Ministry were impressed. They had up to that time given little or no consideration to pressure cabins, let alone an interceptor with one. So they issued a specification, F.4/40, and invited firms to submit designs. Included were GAL, Fairey, Hawker, Vickers and Westland. 
However, there was considerable disquiet about the abilities of GAL to produce such an advanced aircraft. Their pressurised Monospar, although the first pressurised British aircraft to fly, was described as “commendable but rather amateurish”. RAE Farnborough was quoted as saying that they were “not very happy” with GAL’s work so far. 
GAL did submit an altered (deleted the bomb bay and increased the dimensions) GAL 46 design, but as you have probably guessed, failed to win the contract to build a prototype.

And then Westland and Vickers take over the story. 

(As a postscript, GAL submitted an airliner with their pressure cabin design-but that’s another story)


----------



## renrich (Nov 6, 2007)

The F2G reportedly had a rate of climb of 4400 fpm versus the F4U5's 4230 fpm. The F4U5 was equal as far as sea level vmax but much superior at higher levels.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 6, 2007)

Sorry I was thinking of the P-72's 5280ft/min (and projected 7000 ft/min and 550 mph top speed with contrarotating props)...

Gramme, sorry I misread your first post. Still that G.A.L.46 lok great, and sound like a Mossie by its "general purpose", but it predated the Mossie right? Even the revised version souns good, I wonder if GAL could have pulled it off if given the contract...


----------



## Graeme (Nov 7, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The F-9/37 looks a lot like a Beaufighter, only with twin tails, complete with the Bristol Hercules sleeve-valve engines.



This is a Bristol Beaufighter Mk IF serial No. R2268, trialling a wide span tailplane with end plate fins in an attempt to cure some stability problems. At a later stage, a fuselage strake was added. In the end, a 12 degree dihedral tailplane was the answer to the problem.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The F-9/37 looks a lot like a Beaufighter, only with twin tails, complete with the Bristol Hercules sleeve-valve engines.



Actualy the Gloster F.9/37 used 1060 hp (and later the performance degrading 900 hp) Taurus not Hercules engines. They tried Perigrines too, but with no performance increase. Gloster F.9/37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Freebird (Nov 17, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> P-38's record makes it unquestionably the best wartime twin. Clearly the most effective, all around twin engine fighter.
> 
> Second comes Mosquito. Used in plethora of figher roles: day and night fighter, long range escort and intrude.
> 
> ...



Interesting idea about the Whirlwind, too bad there is not even one left today. Can I vote for the De Havilland Hornet?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 18, 2007)

But the Hornet didn't enter service until well after the war ended.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 18, 2007)

Boa said:


> P-38...
> 
> But I would like too see a Whirlwind whith a pair of Merlins...



That would definitely be an interesting aircraft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 13, 2007)

It's the proposed Whirlwind Mk II...


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But the Hornet didn't enter service until well after the war ended.



True, but at least it was in production during the war years. Quite a number of the aircraft on the pick list didn't make production, so there is no reason why it shouldn't qualify


----------



## Pflueger (Dec 14, 2007)

Jumping on the P-38 bandwagon: going with P-38 since thread concerns best twin-engined "fighter." The Lightning was a major player in all theaters, may not have been quite as versatile an AC as Mossie/Ju-88, but in pure fighter role I don't see how anyone can seriously argue against the P-38.

That said, Whirlwind is also my sentimental favorite: its a crying shame that the Whirlwind MK II was not developed, think it would have been a beast.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 14, 2007)

But the thing about the Hornet compared to the planes that didn't see full production (ie Fw 187) is that many of them COULD have seen production before even the Mossie was in production! 

Case in point, the Fw 187, the only twin the LW in the same time-frame of development that could have rivaled the P-38 for sheer fighting ability and long-range capability and overall performance. (as it exceeded the original projections by far, ~400 mph with 1000 hp DB 600 engines!) And with these engines it had climb and dive rates superior to the Bf-109 too, and maneuverability only slightly less.

The Whirlwind Mk II would have been a similar case, available possibly before the BOB and much more quickly than the Mk I since there would be far less problems with engine availability. Plus it was to have significantly increased fuel capacity and plumbing for drop-tanks making it useful as an escort.(maybe the RAF daylight bombing would have been more successful) Plus it would have been much faster and with a higher climb rate (of which was already the best in the RAF in 1940) with 2x 1000+ hp Merlins than with the 885 hp Peregrines and with much better altitude performance. It would have been the best interceptor in thr RAF, and possibly the world, at the time with such performance and 4x 20mm nose mounted Hispano cannons!

Just imagine what a dogfight at the BOB would have been like between a Whirlwind Mk II and a Fw 187 with DB 600's! Which would have been a likely occurrence had they both been ordered for production, as the Whirlwind would be intercepting Bombers escorted by Fw 187s!


----------



## Triple Ace (Dec 14, 2007)

People, I think I am familiar with the fact that the De Havilland Mosquito served as one of the Royal Air Force's greatest ground attack twin-engined fighter-bombers in the history of British aviation. Mind you, I am a Triple Ace.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2007)

Triple Ace said:


> I am a Triple Ace.



Triple ace of what?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Triple ace of what?


IQ


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 14, 2007)

IQ?

And I think he means "self proclaimed" tripple ace...

The Mossie was a good fighter-bomber (as was the P-47, though not a twin) and nightfighter. But not too good as a pure fighter, escort-fighter, or interceptor, though certainly better than the Bf 110. (though it was good for night interceptions and it shot down the second most V-1s)

As a pure fighter/ interceptor/escort-fighter, it would have to go to the P-38, though the Fw 187 and Whirlwinf Mk II would have been up there too, and should have if not for stupid political decisions IMHO. (and earlier than the P-38 too, especialy the 187) At least the 187 flew, and some (slower but still great) 2-seater Jumo 210 powered ones did see unofficial servive.

From: Focke-Wulf 187 archive file


> Next, three Fw 187A-0 (based upon the third prototype) pre-serial planes were built and used since summer 1940 as a defense for the Focke-Wulf facilities at Bremen, later in the Winter inofficially at the 13. destroyer squadron in Norway. The pilots in Norway were enthusiastic about its potential and demanded quantity production, but instead they were ordered to give the planes back to Focke-Wulf because they were only in inofficial use. Some Fw187 were also used in the aerial shooting school in Vaerlose, Denmark.
> In the facility defense role, they shot down several aircraft. One Fw187 ace was killed in his aircraft.
> (Sorry, I´ve lost the details, at least six kills, I believe.)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 15, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> The best.........I may change my mind but right now I'll go with the P-38, but my favorite is the P-61 Black Widow.


You know, they used to call the P-61, "The Flying Coffin" for a reason.

I went with the P-38.
It had one thing over just about any other aircraft during the war, counter-rotating propellers.
What that does is enable the plane to turn just as quickly in either direction.
With most planes, you'll turn one way a lot easier than the other, due to the effect of the spinning prop.

...that and 4-50's + 1-20 makes for a pretty good argument, _for_.







(yep, Lego's!  )




Elvis


----------



## RamRod (Dec 17, 2007)

BINGO! Knowing little but the history of the air war in WWII, I knew there was one distinctive spec in the P-38, because I like symmetry; counter props! I'm told the more negative feature of the "forked tail devil" was it's propensity for control loss in a dive. Fixed by the addition of dive brakes? 
Still, just being a buff of WWII aircraft and pilots, the P-38 (right next to the F4U Corsair and Spitfire) always struck me as the stuff of romantic legend.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2007)

RamRod said:


> "forked tail devil"



It was never actually called that by the Luftwaffe. It is just a myth...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 17, 2007)

And they weren't dive-breaks or air-breaks that were fitted. They were dive recovery flaps (also used on late model P-47s) which (despite oviously adding drag) by changing the wing's center of lift, which corrected the pitch-down and allowed the elevator to function at higher mach numbers too due to reduction of the shock.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> And they weren't dive-breaks or air-breaks that were fitted. They were dive recovery flaps (also used on late model P-47s) which (despite oviously adding drag) by changing the wing's center of lift, which corrected the pitch-down and allowed the elevator to function at higher mach numbers too due to reduction of the shock.



I suspect that the sole purpose was to slow the beast down in dive and prevent the boundary layer separation which tended to blank out the horizontal stabilizer - which was primary reason for 'pitch down' characteristics of all high speed dives in those days - including me 262.

Center of lift movement aft will occur in transonic conditions but boundary layer separation and disruption of flow aft was the more serious issue for the P-38


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2007)

Actually the P38 had counter rotating engines which setup canceled out the torque factor of the two engines. However the P38 did not turn very quickly in any direction since it's initial roll rate was poor. It was still probably the finest twin engined fighter in the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 17, 2007)

But the slowing effect was secondary, the main purpose was to redirect the center of lift and reduce shock. The center of lift moved rearward (due to center of pressure issues) when nearing the mach-imit/compressibility zone (~.75 mach for the P-38 ), this caused the pitch-down behaviour.



> After months of pushing NACA to provide Mach 0.75 wind tunnel speeds (and finally succeeding), the compressibility problem was revealed to be the center of lift moving back toward the tail when in high-speed airflow. The compressibility problem was solved by changing the geometry of the wing's underside when diving so as to keep lift within bounds of the top of the wing. In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake, they affected the center of pressure distribution so that the wing would not lose its lift.



It sure would have been horrifying to over-dive in a P-38 w/out dive-flaps though. And I didn't know that the P-38 was the only a/c to ever shoot down another a/c in a glide! 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY_


----------



## Elvis (Dec 18, 2007)

renrich said:


> Actually the P38 had counter rotating engines which setup canceled out the torque factor of the two engines. However the P38 did not turn very quickly in any direction since it's initial roll rate was poor. It was still probably the finest twin engined fighter in the war.


Quite correct and my apologies for calling them "props".
I remember the story of us giving P-38's to the Brits during the Lend Lease days. 
One problem was the left side engine was the same as the right side engine, so the counter rotating effect was lost.
I guess the planes were shipped w/o superchargers, too. This (supposedly) lead to the Brits calling them "Castrated Lightning"'s.


...we were _allies_ during the war, right? (  ).





Elvis


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 18, 2007)

Elvis said:


> Quite correct and my apologies for calling them "props".
> I remember the story of us giving P-38's to the Brits during the Lend Lease days.
> One problem was the left side engine was the same as the right side engine, so the counter rotating effect was lost.
> I guess the planes were shipped w/o superchargers, too. This (supposedly) lead to the Brits calling them "Castrated Lightning"'s.
> ...



Believe it or not, the Brits actually _requested_ they be shipped like that, so the blame pretty much falls in their lap. I think they were worried about reliability issues, hence no turbosuperchargers and no counter-rotating engines. Most of the "castrated Lightnings" ended up getting shipped back to the US and used in training squadrons. One has to wonder what a difference it would've made for the RAF if they had gotten "real" Lightnings instead of plain old Lockheed Model 322's.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 18, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Believe it or not, the Brits actually _requested_ they be shipped like that, so the blame pretty much falls in their lap. I think they were worried about reliability issues, hence no turbosuperchargers and no counter-rotating engines. Most of the "castrated Lightnings" ended up getting shipped back to the US and used in training squadrons. One has to wonder what a difference it would've made for the RAF if they had gotten "real" Lightnings instead of plain old Lockheed Model 322's.



I think it had something to do with maintenance. It's easier to be able to put any engine you have in any narcelle of the plane. Obviously it was a mistake as the performance degraded significantly.


----------



## renrich (Dec 18, 2007)

I can see why they wanted all the engines to turn the same way. One would need twice as many spare engines(?) with the standard P38.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 18, 2007)

And the main reason for the non-counter-rotating props on the Brits' Lightnings was mainly to make the props and engines interchangeable with those of the P-40s the Brits were also ordering, not for ease of maintanence iirc.

And it was the Lockheed factory that called the P-38 "castrated," note: this was even before the Brits had named it Lightning I, so it wouldn't have been called the "castrated Lightning."

"Because of its unturbosupercharged right-handed Allison engines, the Lightning I for the RAF was christened the "castrated P-38" by the factory. It turned out that this nickname was apt." see: Lightning I for RAF


----------



## RamRod (Dec 19, 2007)

WOW! I'm impressed and have a headache at the same time.

OK, next. Why would you mess with something symmetrical and do a delete on the C.R. engines and further, the turbosuperchargers? Wouldn't that negate any reason to "import" a particular aircraft?

Go ahead. I took two extra strength Excedrines!


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 19, 2007)

THE "P-38 LIGHTNING" was the best twin engined fighter of WW2!!!!!! no questions asked it had more kills then any other allied fighter in the pacific theater!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)


----------



## Elvis (Dec 20, 2007)

Marcel said:


> ...It's easier to be able to put any engine you have in any narcelle of the plane.



Maybe there was an idea to eventually put _Merlin's_ in the nacelle's of the P's 38 and 40?

I never thought about that one before. 

...good call!





Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

The Brits quickly realized their mistake and, after only receiving a handful of Lightning I's, canceled the order in favour of Lightning Mk II's with turbos (and counter-props too iirc) but only one was built and none sent for some reason. Perhaps by then there realy was a prohibition on turbocharger exports, if so it only lasted until just after Pearl harbour. 

Anione have more info on the turbocharger export ban?


And there's no way the Brits could have practically modified the P-38 to use Merlins, even Lockheed's proposal to use Merlins would have requried months just to reequip the factories with the necessary retooling and machinery, not to mention going through the extencinve structural redesign of the nacelles. Afterthough modification as such would be daunting at the vary least...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Brits quickly realized their mistake and, after only receiving a handful of Lightning I's, canceled the order in favour of Lightning Mk II's with turbos (and counter-props too iirc) but only one was built and none sent for some reason. Perhaps by then there realy was a prohibition on turbocharger exports, if so it only lasted until just after Pearl harbour....


Again that's wrong - as stated, the British order stretched the production line and enabled Lockheed to retain manpower on the P-38 line, this I heard from several people when I worked there.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> And there's no way the Brits could have practically modified the P-38 to use Merlins, even Lockheed's proposal to use Merlins would have requried months just to reequip the factories with the necessary retooling and machinery, not to mention going through the extencinve structural redesign of the nacelles. Afterthough modification as such would be daunting at the vary least...



This is correct; Lockheed did have plans on the drawing board for re-engining the P-38 w/Merlins, but the plans went nowhere for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of completely redesigning the nacelles and the cooling system. Also, it apparently would've been much more difficult to build Merlins that rotated in the opposite direction, so the P-38 may have lost that beneficial feature if Merlins had been installed.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> THE "P-38 LIGHTNING" was the best twin engined fighter of WW2!!!!!! no questions asked it had more kills then any other allied fighter in the pacific theater!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)



Did you mean 'land based'? so as to not compare against F6F?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Did you mean 'land based'? so as to not compare against F6F?


When did the F6F get a second engine? 

Now the F7F had 2 engines.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> When did the F6F get a second engine?
> 
> Now the F7F had 2 engines.


It was dumbass factor - I didn't notice 'twin engine' in his comment.. oh, well.


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2007)

He said the P38 had more kills than any other allied fighter in the Pacific which I believe is incorrect. I don't believe he said the P38 had more kills than any other twin engined Allied fighter in the Pacific.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again that's wrong - as stated, the British order stretched the production line and enabled Lockheed to retain manpower on the P-38 line, this I heard from several people when I worked there.



I thought that the RAF only received a handful of Lightning I's and then the rest were redirected to the USAAF, mostly for training, being completed with counter-rotating props, but still no turbos.

What's the story on the Lightning Mk II then? And was there a prohibition on turbocharger export in the US durring WWII?


You're comment reminds me of how the Republic lines were kept open producing the rather poor P-43 Lancer to facilitate production of the P-47 when it was ready.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 20, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> THE "P-38 LIGHTNING" was the best twin engined fighter of WW2!!!!!!



There are, apparently, many who believe that . . . and not a few who do not.



> no questions asked it had more kills then any other allied fighter in the pacific theater!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)



Nope, not even close.

Air to air credits, US piloted fighters, in the Pacific Theater (includes Aleutians, Central Pacific, South Pacific and Southwest Pacific operating areas), 7 December 1941 to 15 August 1945:

F6F = 5,257
F4U/FG = 2,155
P-38 = 1,700 – *Third Place*
F4F/FM-1/FM-2 = 1,408
P-47 = 697
P-40 = 661
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 297
P-39/P-400 = 288
P-61 = 64
F2A = 10
P-36 = 3
P-70 = 2
P-26 = 2
P-35 = 1

How about European Theater? Okay, same deal, only through VE day.

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 4239
P-47 = 2686
P-38 = 497 – *Third Place*
P-61 = 59
Spitfire = 15
F6F = 8
Beaufighter = 6
P-39/P-400 = 3
F4F = 2

Mediterranean Theater?

P-38 = 1,431 – *First Place*
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 1,063
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 364
P-47 = 263
F4F = 26
Beaufighter = 25
P-39/P-400 = 25
Mosquito = 1

How about the China-Burma-India Theater? okay, start to finish, including the AVG:

P-40 = 741
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 345
P-38 = 157 – *Third Place*
P-47 = 16
P-39/P-400 = 5
P-61 = 5
P-43 = 3

So, what about just against the European opponents?

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,302
P-47 = 2,949
P-38 = 1,928 – *Third Place*
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 379
P-61 = 59
Beaufighter = 31
P-39/P-400 = 28
F4F/FM-2 = 28
F6F = 8
Mosquito = 1

Or, just against the Japanese?

F6F = 5,257
F4U = 2,155
P-38 = 1,857 – *Third Place*
F4F/FM-2 = 1,408
P-40 = 1,402
P-47 = 713
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 642
P-39/P-400 = 293
P-61 = 69
F2A = 10
P-43 = 6
P-36 = 3
P-26 = 2
P-70 = 2
P-35 = 1

I know, let’s add them all together!!

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,944 = 1st Place
F6F = 5,265 = 2nd Place
P-38 = 3,785 = *3rd Place*
P-47 = 3,662 = 4th Place
F4U = 2,155 = 5th Place
P-40 = 1,994 = 6th Place
F4F/FM-2 = 1,436 = 7th Place
Spitfire = 379 = 8th Place
P-39/P-400 = 321 = 9th Place
P-61 = 128 = 10th Place
Beaufighter = 31 = 11th Place
F2A = 10 = 12th Place
P-43 = 6 = 13th Place
P-36 = 3 = 14th Place
P-26 = 2 = 15th Place tied
P-70 = 2 = 15th Place tied
P-35 = 1 = 16th Place tied
Mosquito = 1 = 16th Place tied

Only place the P-38 comes out on the top of a theater list is for the MTO. In any other theater never better then third, including solely against European opponents and solely against Japanese opponents, and overall for all theaters combined, a definite, solid, third place.

And from whence come the numbers? Official USN and USAAF statistics and various well known compilations such as the works of Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner. 

Can we put the "pilots flying P-38s shot down more Japanese planes than any other Allied type" myth to bed once and for all?

Regards

Rich


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2007)

Rich, your convincing arguments never cease to amaze me.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 20, 2007)

Does anyone have the number of kills scored by Mosquitos? I would think with the night-fighter variants in Europe and the other marks, it did a bang up job.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

Would V-1 kills count?


And some of those kill scores are surprisingly low, the Spit only downed 15 a/c??? The Mossie only 1???
And only 3 kills by the P-400/39 in the ETO, or is this not including the Eastern front?

But the P-38 was certainly the highest scoring USAAF fighter, and the highest scoring non-USN fighter in the PTO.


----------



## marshall (Dec 21, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> And some of those kill scores are surprisingly low, the Spit only downed 15 a/c??? The Mossie only 1???
> And only 3 kills by the P-400/39 in the ETO, or is this not including the Eastern front?







R Leonard said:


> Air to air credits, US piloted fighters,





Hope that now everything is clear.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 21, 2007)

Not entirely clear, no.

Not US-piloted, but attached to US Squadrons. Plenty of US pilots in RAF Mossies scored kills, only one US pilot in a USAAF Mossie scored a kill.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 21, 2007)

Plenty??

Numbers??


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2007)

Rich, as always, great posts. The P38, only slightly more successful than the lowly Wildcat. Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 21, 2007)

I wouldn't call the Wildcat "lowly". Of course, then again, I have some well known biases.

Regards

Rich


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2007)

I meant the Wildcat was not necessarily held in high regard. It more than held it's own in a lot of theatres but does not get the credit it deserves in the uninformed popular media. Believe me, I appreciate it. In fact I have often postulated that the F4F3 or Martlet would have been a formidable fighter in the BOB. My reference shows the P38 with 129,849 sorties in Europe with 1758 losses. I wonder if the number of sorties and losses includes those in the Med?


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 21, 2007)

Well, off the top of me head there were people like Lou Luma on 418, Archie Harington on 406, both of whom were USAAF pilots "on loan". Then there were folks like Clarence Jasper, an American on 418 in RAF service.

I only quote those fellows as I'm somewhat familiar with the (nominally) Canadian squadrons. To get exact numbers, one would need "hometowns" for all of the RAF Mossie pilots, pull out the Americans, etc. There is a fellow somewhere who's compiling a list of US servicemen in the RAF, but I've no access to his results.

Point is, American pilots achieved more than one kill on the Mossie in total, but only one of those kills was in a Mossie in USAAF service.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 21, 2007)

I guess that is something of the point. In which service did they serve? What uniform were they wearing? I could cite Leslie Knox, VF-42 fighter pilot off Yorktown, killed at Coral Sea, Ensign USNR, and an Australian . . . doesn't mean we chalk his loss up against the Australians, no, he was a US pilot, in a US uniform, in a US plane. Or how about Hollis Hills? US citizen serving in 414 Squadron RCAF; scored the first credit in a Mustang. Later scored 4 A6Ms flying in VF-32 in F6Fs. His four A6Ms are in the F6F count. His FW 190 credit with 414 is NOT in the P-51 count; the Canadians get that one . . . Canadian uniform, Canadian Squadron, Canadian service. Hills transferred to the USN rather than the USAAF because he did not want his proposed assignment to P-38s. 

Citizenship of record is not the issue.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

The F4F4 was a dog, the extra 2 guns (with the same total ammo) were not worth the loss of performance (which was already marginal) the F4F-3 was decent, the FM-1 was better, the FM-2 was a good fighter.

Plus there were probably alot more Wildcats involved with those kills (and more lost) than with the P-38s.

I'm surprised the US F2A's scored 10 kills, where else did they serve other than Midway?


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 21, 2007)

Well, now you know why I am always very careful to use the words "claims" and "credits". Only very, very, rarely will I stick my neck out with a confirmation. Once the dust settled at Midway, cooler heads looked at the VMF-221 report with its "calculated" scores for lost pilots based on claims of survivors and said, essentially, "give me a break", the settled upon official number of claims credited was 10. Probably less in reality, but I'm not in the business of sorting that out. Personally I've always thought some, though not all, of 221's F4F claims were rolled up in their somewhere. One of the things I remember Marion Carl saying was that things were a real mess there after the battle.

Where else did F2As serve? Oh, a few places at various times, but not in combat. VMF-211 at Palmyra was equipped with F2As; as was VMF-112 at Camp Kearney; VMFs 222, 223, and 224 at Ewa; and even VMD-2 had a couple at San Diego. Also, remember VF-2 started the war with F2As aboard Lexington and VF-3 had it's share, too, though as I recall they may have gotten rid of them by 7 December.

I'm, personally, perfectly statified with the F4F. Got my father through Lae-Salamaua; Coral Sea; Midway; and the Solomons . . . otherwise I probably wouldn't be here.

Rich


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 21, 2007)

Luma and Harrington both wore the US uniform, there's a number of pictures of Luma on 418 looking exceedingly dapper in leather jacket and peaked cap.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 21, 2007)

418, that's a Canadian Squadron is it not? Shoot down a plane in a Canadian squadron and that's a Canadian credit. You seem to want to have your own rules for counting that fly in the face of the generally accepted. I guess you're just smarter than I. 

If you want to twiddle away on this knock yourself out, but you're going to be the only one playing as everyone else seems to get the point.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't want my own rules for anything, I'm actually agreeing with you.

"Only one Mossie claim? Surely not!"

"US-piloted Mossies, clear?"

"No, Mossies in US Service." 

Your number of 1 on your list is correct.

FWIW: MM746, an NF.30 of the 416th NFS, Capt. Lawrence E. Englert 2nd Lt. Earl R. Dickey. "Every night at around nine o’clock for several weeks during the winter 1945, a German Ju-188 reconnaissance aircraft would fly over the American air base of Pontedera, Italy. Because of the regularity of these overflights, the intruder was nicknamed “Recon Charley”. On the night of the February 28, however, a de Havilland Mosquito was readied with USAAF Capt. Larry Englert al the controls and Lt. Earl Dichney working the radar. When the Ju-188 reappeared on the scene like a clockwork, the Mosquito took off in pursuit. The night fighter located Recon Charley but because of the Mosquito’s rapid closure rate it was in dangerous proximity to the target at the time the pilot opened the fire. The Ju-188, caught unaware of the Mosquito’s presence, began to disintegrate. Some of the debris struck the Mosquito, harming the engines and causing hydraulic damage. Upon return to Pontedera, the limping aircraft was greetedby a fog blanketing the base. Able to spot the glow of the runway lights, Captain Englert manoeuvred the Mosquito over the faint landmarks, and than, with Lieutenant Dickey bailed out. These two members of the 416th Night Fighter Squadron not only survived, but became the only Americans to achieve a confirmed victory flying a British built Mosquito during World War II.

E/A Ju 188D-2 of 4(F)./122,Shot down NW of Cremona at about 2300 hour by a Mosquito night fighter while returning from a night photo recce over Naples, 100%, 4 KIA (including pilot Ltn. Fritz Wollert) and 1 WIA."


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2007)

That "dog" of an F4F4, flown by USN and US Marine pilots in the early part of the Pacific war when the the US seldom outnumbered it's enemy and there were lots of experienced and well trained Japanese pilots still flying flew 2628 sorties, lost 178 Wildcats to enemy AC and downed 905 Japanese AC. I doubt the P38 did any better during the same time frame. A quote from Jimmy Flatley about the F4F4: " Let us not condemn our equipment. It shoots the enemy down in flames and gets most of us back to our base."


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 21, 2007)

RCAF 418 City of Edmonton Squadron was based in GB and spent most of the time flying Mosquito IIs and VIs.

RCAF 416 City of Oshawa Squadron flew Spitfires.

USAAF 416th NFS was based in Italy and ended up flying P-61s as the war in Europe ended.

USAAF 418th NFS was based in the PTO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> A quote from Jimmy Flatley about the F4F4: " Let us not condemn our equipment. It shoots the enemy down in flames and gets most of us back to our base."



And didn't Thatch say "Why do you guys want 2 more guns? You can't hit anything with what you have!"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 22, 2007)

I read that many US pilots complained about the lower firing time of the F4F-4, and that they preferred the F4F-3. (not to mention the performance drop, which the folding wings didn't help either) 

4x .50 cal BMG's would have been more than suficient aganst the lightly armoured Japanese fighters and the F4F-3 asnd F4F-4 had the same ammo load, just spread-out in 6 guns instead of 4. It was the Brits who requested the increase in firepower iirc, their European opponents being quite a bit more damage resistant than those the USN was facing.

Plus if you notice, all later Wildcats, FM-1 and FM-2, had 4x guns again... Coincidence?

The Hellcat and Corsair had six BMG (except for the cannon-armmed F4U's) but they were considderably larger too.

But the F4F was certainly important and was the best option the USN had, inless they were willing to use inline engined fighters... (the F2A was decent, but Brewster was in no position to produce it in the quantity and quality necessary, as Grumman was; rember that quite a few USN pilots preferred the Buffalo to the Wildcat, as long as it wasn't at max fuel load/overweight) And for the environment, the F4F was akin to the P-47 in ruggedness, though only by comparison to the Japanese. (overall, the F4F was probably about as tough as the P-40, except for the engine, which was inherantly more durrable)

On the same note the USAAF needed the P-40 and P-39 to stave off Japanese attacks untill better fighters arrived.


The only carrier based a/c in the PTO that could fight the zero in a turn-n'-burn dogfight and that saw significant service in WWII would have been the Supermarine Seafire.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 22, 2007)

The F6F Hellcat did have the highest kill to loss ratio of any allied fighter in the war though, right? (the Brewster B-239 with the Finns had the highest of the war)


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 22, 2007)

FM-2 (sufficiently different from the F4F for its results to be tracked separately by the USN) has a better credit/loss ratio than the F6F.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

R.Leonard,

Didn't the FM-2 come late in the war?
If so, that could explain its win-loss record, in the guise of the _grade_ of pilot that was controlling that aircraft.

-----------------------------------------



renrich said:


> In fact I have often postulated that the F4F3 or Martlet would have been a formidable fighter in the *BOB*.


Forgive my ignorance, but, "BOB"?
What's that?







Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2007)

BoB = Battle of Britain


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

...and I think that deserves a big ol' "*D'OH!*".  

Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet.




Elvis


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2007)

I have floated this theory here before but of course the Wildcat came along just too late for the Battle of Britain,(BOB) By October of 1940 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN and on Dec 25, 1940, a Martlet shot down a JU88 off Scapa Flow. If the F4F3 (Martlet) had been available for the BOB, it would have been a valuable addition to the British arsenal. Similar performance to the Hurricane, better armament against bombers with a longer ammo load, more range and more rugged than either Hurricane or Spitfire. I believe Thach said,"if you can't hit with four, you will miss with six." Alluding to the British mandated six gun change. I believe the F4F4 weighed at least 500 pounds more than the F4F3 which degraded it's performance but the rate of climb and shorter firing time were the major drawbacks since a Wildcat could not turn with a Zero any way except above 275 mph which a Wildcat was not going to exceed very often except in a dive.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

...of course, if the Brits had the F4U, the whole world would be speaking with an English accent about now, eh?




Yes, it's too bad we didn't place more F4's over there.
Seems the British were quite pleased with them.
In fact, probably moreso if we didn't deliver them with degraded engines.




Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Dec 22, 2007)

WHOOPS!
Sorry, my mistake.
The Martlett was powered by the same versions of the same engines as we had.


Elvis


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2007)

The early Martlets( the 81 AC earlier mentioned) were originally destined for the French but were taken over by the RN when France fell. They were powered by a Wright R1820 with a Hamilton Standard prop. I have some b&w photos of those factory fresh Martlets and for some reason they look less portly than the USN Wildcats. Must be the color scheme. Handsome little AC. I imagine the RN pilots were tickled to death to get them.


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2007)

After about 4 months if my memory serves me correctly they had to hand them over and they were replaced with Fulmars. I bet that news went down well.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2007)

At least they had company when their Fulmars got shot down.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 23, 2007)

And it was the British export B-339E (Buffalo Mk-I) version of the F2A-2 that had been downgraded. (and made heavier with increased armor and bullet proof glass) They lacked the more powerful better supercharged engine of the F2A-2 as well as carrier equipment. They would have been quite useful if they'd been completed as the USN F2A-2's had and the F2A-2 was in service by the Battle of Britain too. Performance was generally better than that of the F4F-3 and the lower damage resistance was made up for somewhat by smaller size and better agility. (ie. harder to hit)

But the B-339E ordered by the Brits was worse performing than the F4F-3 (except in range) and had been redesigned for land use as well as the other downgrades so it couldn't be used on carriers if they wanted too, despite a breif attemt to engage the carrier arrestor wire with the main gear...

Though even with the lower performance of the Buffalo Mk-I it still would have been better than the Fulmar, and probably the Firefly, and had a larger combat radius than the F4F-3, or Sea Hurricane. (more than the Seafire too I think)

I wonder why they replaced the Marlets with Fulmars, why not Sea Hurricanes? They were available in 1941, right?


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2007)

To be honest I don't know but at a guess the FAA were so short of aricraft they took anything that could fly.
The development of the Fulmar was a travesty that should never have happened. Using the resources to build licence copies of the Wildcat would have been far more beneficial.
Buffalo's were sent to Crete just before the invasion but couldn't take part due to reliability problems and a lack of spare parts. However I agree the Buffalo would have been a major improvement over the Fulmar.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 24, 2007)

The original Martlets were rated as unsuitable for combat because of the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour. As a result those Martlets were shifted onto the first couple of escort carriers to be built where the only likely resistance was Fw 200s and possibly Ju 88s.

The Fulmar came about because of the spec. issued, not because the designers were incompetent. Hand them a spec. for a single engined carrier borne fighter and you'll see something like a dedicated Sea Hurricane instead of the Fulmar.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 24, 2007)

kool kitty,

I think the Brits got the same 950 HP G5 engine as the Finn's did.
Lack of performance could've, then, sprung from the additional weight of the thicker glass, armour, etc.



Elvis


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2007)

red admiral said:


> The original Martlets were rated as unsuitable for combat because of the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour. As a result those Martlets were shifted onto the first couple of escort carriers to be built where the only likely resistance was Fw 200s and possibly Ju 88s.
> 
> The Fulmar came about because of the spec. issued, not because the designers were incompetent. Hand them a spec. for a single engined carrier borne fighter and you'll see something like a dedicated Sea Hurricane instead of the Fulmar.



I am pretty sure that the British Martlets were fully combat ready and indeed the first success was over Scapa Flow on Christmas Day in 1940. The reason for putting them on escort carriers was because they were the best plane for the job. In spec they were very similar to the F4F3 but with Wright R-1820 "Cyclone 9" engines. They did have armour, self sealing tanks and 4 x 0.5.

As mentioned earlier the RN took almost anything that could fly and had ex French versions (the original Martlet 1), ex Greek versions, US versions all slightly different.

Re the Fulmar no one is blaming the designers who no doubt could have come up with a better design but either way, it was criminal to build such an aircraft despite all the experience that had been built up.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 24, 2007)

The Martlet Is lacked the self-sealing tanks and armour, the Mk II brought these improvements in.



> it was criminal to build such an aircraft despite all the experience that had been built up.



But the experience showed the need for a navigator...


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2007)

red admiral said:


> But the experience showed the need for a navigator...



That was the thing that interested me. The RN had used a number of single engined fighters before the war without any problems. They knew that other navies used single seat aircraft and had recent experience.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

Me-262A-1a hands down!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Me-262A-1a hands down!



Soren, I hate to break this to you, but the -262 isn't even on the freakin' list! I think that the title of the poll is supposed to be best twin engined reciprocating fighter; if you want to get into a battle of semantics, then you are correct, but I don't think that's the spirit of this poll.


----------



## renrich (Dec 25, 2007)

I have checked my reference closely and I don't believe any F4Fs had armor or SS tanks from the factory until the US got into the war. Of course SS tanks and some armor could have been installed by the RN in the field. I have mentioned this before but the quality of the AC such as the Fulmar that were used by the RN was the result of having the RAF responsible for AC design, development and procurement for the RN.


----------



## Glider (Dec 25, 2007)

Thanks for the info on the Martlet I always thought that the mk II was effectively the same as the F4F3 with the 'extras'. The Mk I may have been another thing.
Re the Fulmar design it was the result of RAF having responsibility but the RN were masters of their own destiny from 1937 and had time to sort things out.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 26, 2007)

Yeah, I think we've decided that jets weren't really comparable in this topic. Better in the best jets topic, but since that one kind of died, maby we should start a new one on that topic...


----------



## renrich (Dec 26, 2007)

Thanks Glider, I did not realise the RN took over it's airplane business in 1938.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 10, 2008)

Any ideas why the RLM disliked the Fw-187. Besides the fact that it wasn't a Messersmitt product, or was that the main reason? (as seems to be with the He 100 as well) The forced requirement for the second crewman isn't too surprising due to some of the other forced requirements the RLM issued on a/c that shouldn't have been (He 177 being a perfect example). Similarly the design was restricted to Jumo 210 engines while the Me 110 was free to use DB-600's or progresive models.(though the Fw 187 still outperformed the 110 in spite of this). With 601's the 187 had similar perfrmance to early lightnings, with excelent climb, speed (~400 mph) and range. With progressive developments of the DB-600 series of engines the 187 had similar development potential as the P-38. (the 4x MG 17 and 2x MG FF in the nose could have been later replaced with 4x MG 131 and 2x MG 151/20, or possibly even heavier armaments. (ie 30mm cannon replacing the 20mm's, though even the previous armament would have been devestating to US bombers and fighters)

It may simply have been politics that killed it, but was it more, and was it just the Messersmitt reason or somting else? From what I'v read the reason isn't verry clear or well understood. (even compared to the He 100, as Heinkel had other political issues with the RLM that may have affected this, while Focke-Wulf didn't seem to have this problem)

Any ideas or knoledge on this?


----------



## HoHun (Jan 10, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Any ideas why the RLM disliked the Fw-187. 

My guess is that it comes down to it that it was not built for a RLM specification. They didn't order it, so they didn't want it.

Probably it was also seen as overly expensive due to being a twin that competed with the single-engined Me 109. This has been occassionally mentioned in the literature, but I'm not sure how much there is to it.

The Fw 187 was actually revived by the RLM when Messerschmitt ran into trouble with the Me 210, though that might have been as much to put pressure on Messerschmitt as to provide an emergency backup. (This version was to have DB 605 engines.)

>Any ideas or knoledge on this?

There seems to be very little useful information on this. I have Hermann/Petrick's "Fw 187" here, which appears to be really well-researched, and they point out that for RLM decisions regarding the Fw 187 history, there is no information available.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 10, 2008)

> Probably it was also seen as overly expensive due to being a twin



Everyone knows the purpose of the second engine right?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> Everyone knows the purpose of the second engine right?


A suicide device for low time pilots?


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 10, 2008)

> A suicide device for low time pilots?



That is one function of it! 

However it's primary purpose is ensure the aircraft makes it all the way to the crash site.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> That is one function of it!
> 
> However it's primary purpose is ensure the aircraft makes it all the way to the crash site.
> 
> ...


----------



## Freebird (Jan 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> I have floated this theory here before but of course the Wildcat came along just too late for the Battle of Britain,(BOB) By October of 1940 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN and on Dec 25, 1940, a Martlet shot down a JU88 off Scapa Flow. If the F4F3 (Martlet) had been available for the BOB, it would have been a valuable addition to the British arsenal. Similar performance to the Hurricane, better armament against bombers with a longer ammo load, more range and more rugged than either Hurricane or Spitfire. I believe Thach said,"if you can't hit with four, you will miss with six." Alluding to the British mandated six gun change. I believe the F4F4 weighed at least 500 pounds more than the F4F3 which degraded it's performance but the rate of climb and shorter firing time were the major drawbacks since a Wildcat could not turn with a Zero any way except above 275 mph which a Wildcat was not going to exceed very often except in a dive.



The heavier F4F would be just fine too, used against the bombers, the heavier firepower would help bring down the He111 or Ju88's. With more Martlets the British could switch some of the hurricanes against the Me109's

Frankly they would be happy with whatever they could get, P-40's, P-39's, Hawk 75's, P-36's etc.



KoolKitty said:


> Though even with the lower performance of the Buffalo Mk-I it still would have been better than the Fulmar, and probably the* Firefly,* and had a larger combat radius than the F4F-3, or Sea Hurricane. (more than the Seafire too I think)



Firefly was a *Fighter-bomber* primarily and wasn't ready until late 1942. The carriers by that time had Seafire's, the Firefly Barracuda were the primary bombers for the British (remember that the FAA had Avengers but not Helldivers from the US) The Firefly was a very good aircraft, used as a bomber, but available as recon as fighter in a pinch.



> I wonder why they replaced the Marlets with Fulmars, why not Sea Hurricanes? They were available in 1941, right?



It seems that the British carriers would often have a mix of fighters, 3 Hurricanes or Martlaets to 1 Fulmars. For example "Illustrious" in sept 1942 has 21 Martlet, 6 Fulmar 18 Swordfish. The HMS Hermes landed her aircraft on Ceylon in early 1942, (they fought against the Japanese Indian Ocean raiders in April) there were 12 SeaHurri's 4 Fulmars. 

*The primary design function of the Fulmar was Recon* which it did quite well, it had double the range of single engine fighters. Remember that pre-war thinking was that the A/C would be the scouts for the (big-gun) Battle Fleet. It was also to be used as a fighter, against other long range bombers or TB aircraft (He 115, Ju 86's etc.) it was *never* envisioned fighting against short range land-based fighters like the Me 109 or Zero!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 11, 2008)

Well the Zero was both carrier and land based...

The Fulmars would have been effective aganst the Fw-200 Condor recon/bomber, which was the the main purpose of the "Hurricat" iirc.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 11, 2008)

Ju-88 for me.........


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 12, 2008)

How was the Ju 88 better than the Mossie.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Hey, its my opion............I am not gone have people keep saying o how is this better than that.......It annoys me so Ju-88 is MY opion and leave it at that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

The Ju 88 was an excellent night fighter.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Exactly thank you Adler!


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Ju 88 was an excellent night fighter.



True, Almost as good as the Mossie


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

I just knew someone was gonna say that


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 12, 2008)

I wasn't trying to criticize, I was just curious about your reasoning... I should have been more clear.

The Mossie was a good nightfighter too, though with no flexible gun mounts/turrets, but the foreward armament it had was very powerful and the Mossie was fast and maneuverable enough to largely mitigate any need for defensive armament. (it was designed as an unarmmed fast-bomber after all) The Mossie was probably a better night interceptor though...

But the Ju-88 was certainly a very versitile multi-purpose a/c and it did a good job in most roles it served. (though the early versions had inadequate defences for the bomber role) And for its time it was fast for a bomber and its performance was considderably better than the He 111

The He 219 outclassed either craft as a night fighter though, with excelent armament and performance similar to the Mossie . The Ar 240 was also an excelent a/c once the bugs had worked out, but it never saw production, though a few saw service as recon craft iirc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The He 219 outclassed either craft as a night fighter though, with excelent armament and performance similar to the Mossie .



Go and check out the Nightfighter thread.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Yea........Thanks for clearing it up Kool Kitty


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 13, 2008)

Of course the political issues and practicallity of the He 219 is a different issue and high speed isn't as important for night fighters (as long as you have decent speed) inless of course you're intercepting V-1s like the Mossie did, or if you're intercepting fast-bombers like the Mossie.

The Ju 88 was a more practical and cost effective aircraft than the He 219 or Bf 110, and possibly the Mosquito. It was probably a better bomber overall than the He 111 once it got a proper armament.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2008)

Again please go and check out the Night Fighter thread. The He 219 was not all it was cracked up to be.


----------



## Goodrapid (Jan 13, 2008)

Do 335 should be able to fill quite a few roles nicely, especially as interceptor.
Probably would have made a decent night fighter as well.
Good armament options and possibility for fuel as well, if I remember correctly.

And speed IS life.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 14, 2008)

I've read some more on the He 219 and you're right, it wasn't that good. (by any standards, technical or practical). I knew about the official dislike by the RLM, but this is often for political reasons (as seen in the He 100 and Fw 187 by most accounts), but with the bad performance record and dislike by its crews shed more light on the matter. 

Conversely the few preproduction Fw 187s flown in Norway were very well liked by thos who flew it (even with the underpowered engines) and found it much superior to the Bf 110. The recomended immediate production to replace the 110 in the role in use there but at this time the recomendation was refused and the 187s were then recalled as they were only in unofficial service. (I know less about the He 100's record, but it apears to have been well liked as well and was in use by Heinkel plant security units) 

Info from: Focke-Wulf 187 archive file


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 14, 2008)

How good of a night fighter do you think the Ar 240 would have been. Fast, maneuverable, long-ranged, well armmed and with good overall characteristics from the V3 onwards.


----------



## hillbillyburg (Jan 29, 2012)

How about the up engined Mossie, the de Havilland Hornet?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 30, 2012)

hillbillyburg said:


> How about the up engined Mossie, the de Havilland Hornet?


It was a little more than that, and a single-seater was never favoured by the Air Ministry, due to the workload; that's why the radar-equipped Typhoon and Hurricane were rejected. At height, though, the Hornet could give the Meteor a hard time, so it would've been a formidable nightfighter.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Feb 2, 2012)

p-38 was good. but the dornier 335, was better. imagine having to fight a plane that can easily outrun a tempest.
and its armed to the teeth with a 30mm and 2 20mm cannon. plus a fair amount of bombs make it an excellent fighter bomber. if the germans produced the 335 when the war was still in their favor(they almost did actually), the plentiful supply of high quality materials would have chartered the luftwaffe into absolute air supremacy


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2012)

Expecting from the plane that was in service in late 1941/ early 1942 to compete, on level footing, with the almost post-war plane is hardly fair, though the P-38K and latest P-38Ls would've given any late war plane a good run for their money, even half a continent/ocean away. Not sure many others were capable to return the favor.

One could compare planes of '1946' - ones that were ready to be produced, but the end of war occured 1st. Hence, the Do-335 is in the league of DH Hornet, or Grumman F7F - exceptional engines mated to the airframes of modest size (the smallest that could accomodate the engines, while the complete plane offers great deal of usability).


----------



## woljags (Feb 2, 2012)

mossie for me chaps


----------

