# 1 engine vs 2 engine fighters



## Thorlifter (Sep 20, 2017)

Why was the P-38 and the Mosquito so successful when engaging single engine fighters as compared to other 2 engine fighters, such as the Me-110, Do-17, Me-410, Ju-88, Ki-45, J1N1 Gekko, and others.

I'm guessing with the Me-110 and Do-17 it was lack of power and maybe the same reason for the Ju-88.

Were the P-38 and Mosquito just faster so they could get away when needed?


----------



## Greyman (Sep 20, 2017)

It was definitely a bad idea to get in a scrap versus single-engine fighters with a Mosquito.

Only the Lightning and Whirlwind really had a shot in a dogfight, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Ascent (Sep 20, 2017)

A Mosquito wouldn't be your first choice of plane for a dogfight. I'm not saying they couldn't give single engine jobs a nasty shock because they did have victories over them but the odds were definitely on the side of the singles. 

Anti shipping Mosquitoes flying out of Banff would be given Mustang escorts for protection when flying to Norway.


----------



## alejandro_ (Sep 20, 2017)

Me 110 (and other types) were designed for a large number of missions (*), and had a crew of 3. This meant more weight and less manoeuvrability. By having 2 engines the manoeuvrability is going to be affected, especially the roll.

P-38 was designed as an interceptor and had quite a revolutionary design. IMO is the best TE fighter of WW2.

The Zerstorer concept that led to the Bf 110 was due to the fact that single engine fighters did not have the required performance (range, bombload), but as more modern single engine fighters (more powerful engines, heavier armament/load, drop tanks) were developed the type became obsolete.

(*) Requirements were very general, more details in Messerchmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410, An Illustrated History, de H. Mankay y P. Patrick, Schiffer Military History (2003).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 20, 2017)

The Mosquito was a heavy fighter, I think it is a mistake to judge it against other aircraft. It was great at fighting submarines and shipping. In combat with a top single engine fighter it would lose out most times, but you didn't take a few hits from a Mosquito, four cannon and four MGs on a single axis meant your chances of surviving being hit were small.


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 20, 2017)

Perhaps I misunderstand the term or role, but I tend to think of the Mosquito as a classic Fighter/Bomber not a fighter. In my mind I always think of a pure fighter as an aircraft designed specifically to target other aircraft. Whereas a Fighter/Bomber to me is primarily a ground attack or anti shipping job. In fact I always felt there was a missing name for this type of aircraft. Mind you any fighter can carry a few bombs and engage ground targets with its guns, e.g. strafing. Am I way off base in this way of thinking?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2017)

To have a shot a being a successful fighter the twin engine plane has to be stressed for fighter maneuvers. Many twin engine "fighters" were actually fast bombers which, with sufficient forward firing armament, made useful anti-bomber interceptor aircraft. Both by day and night. 

But these aircraft usually had poor rates of climb and were not stressed for high "G" turns which means that they could not "dog fight" single engine fighters even if they could "boom and zoom" under favorable circumstances. The rate of climb is an "indicator" of power available to maintain speed in a turn. 

The P-38 was stressed to be a fighter, it had a good power to weight ratio. It may have had trouble with certain single engine fighters but it was in the ball park. 

The Mosquito, fine aircraft that it was, was a converted high speed bomber and not built to withstand the "G" loadings the P-38 was. It was also larger and heavier. It could do many things the P-38 could not but engaging single engine fighters in dog fights was not one of them.

Most of the German twins, with the exception of the 110 fall into the converted bomber category. Sorry but an internal bomb bay capable of holding a pair of 500 kg (or eight 50kg) bombs and remote control power defensive guns make the 210/410 light bombers, not air superiority fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 20, 2017)

Personally I think the F-15 Eagle was a great TE fighter...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jon Ellison (Sep 20, 2017)

What about a Hornet?


----------



## Fighterguy (Sep 20, 2017)

Mosquito's were very successful night fighters, where most times, the attacker gets the drop on his target. Much of fighter combat is just that, catching your opponent when he's not expecting it. It was also very good at destroying German air assets while on the ground, the preferred and less risky method. It should be noted, that the primary purpose of a fighter is to take out enemy bombers, attack, and reconnaissance aircraft before they complete their mission. The primary purpose of an Air Force is to support the guys on the ground through interdiction. The platform doesn't drive the mission or task. Strategic bombers can be used to support tactical missions, such as B-52's at Khe Sanh. Fighters can attack strategic targets, as F-117's did during Desert Storm.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 20, 2017)

Jon Ellison said:


> What about a Hornet?



Ask Biff...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Sep 20, 2017)

We would deploy with our F-15's to Marine and Navy air bases to go up against F-18's. Hornets make great Eagle snacks. Much of it has to do with dual role/multi-role pilots and aircraft vs single mission pilots and aircraft. Most Marine and Navy Hornet drivers performed a dual role mission, attacking/bombing was their primary. The Eagle drivers only trained and practiced air combat. It's like having a water leak in your basement. Do you call the Carpenter who occasionally installs plumbing, or do you call a Plumber?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## YF12A (Sep 20, 2017)

Newbie here throwing this out into the wind, my mistake if this is incorrect. How does the Collective here think the F-82 twin Mustang would have done?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 20, 2017)

YF12A said:


> Newbie here throwing this out into the wind, my mistake if this is incorrect. How does the Collective here think the F-82 twin Mustang would have done?



Hi and welcome! Personally I think it would have done pretty good, but I'm far from being as knowledgeable as the forum experts.


----------



## Fighterguy (Sep 20, 2017)

The F-82 achieved the first three aerial victories in Korea. Again, it all has to do with getting the drop on your opponent. Usually, the first to shoot wins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 20, 2017)

Pilots of the F-82 loved it as an airframe and thought it was a first-class fighter. Alas, it was not in a large-scale war of piston fighters, and had to make its way in a sky full of jet fighters. Had the F-82 been fielded in WWII. I think it would have done well, but you could argue the other way with some reasonable justification. It's probably one of those, "I wonder what might have been ..." questions that will never have a definitive answer.

Next, someone will bring up, "which version? Merlin or Allison," but I think it is immaterial. The airframe flew quite well and maneuvered with ease. The guns were exactly in the center and did not require synchronization or convergent aiming. The list goes on since it could be flown from either side.

Still, it never DID have a lot of gaggle-type dogfights with other pistons, so that is my opinion only, which is like EPA gas mileage ... yours may vary.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 20, 2017)

Besides the P-38, the only twin engine fighters I can think of that could compete 1 vs 1 with a single engine opponent, would be the Whirlwind (bit of a dead end), Fw187 (Didn't get a chance to prove itself), and the Hornet (Missed the war). Even the P-38 struggled somewhat against single engine fighters.


----------



## GregP (Sep 20, 2017)

The P-38 struggled very early in the U.S. effort with a few faults, poor training, and misunderstood fuel mixture. It was also the mount of out two top-scoring aces of the war, and did very well in the MTO and PTO where the low critical Mach number wasn't a disadvantage, and the few faults had been cured.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 20, 2017)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Besides the P-38, the only twin engine fighters I can think of that could compete 1 vs 1 with a single engine opponent, would be the Whirlwind (bit of a dead end), Fw187 (Didn't get a chance to prove itself), and the Hornet (Missed the war). Even the P-38 struggled somewhat against single engine fighters.


For much of the war there were huge domains that were ruled by twin fighters, the North Sea the Atlantic and the dark.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 20, 2017)

pbehn said:


> For much of the war there were huge domains that were ruled by twin fighters, the North Sea the Atlantic and the dark.


Granted. But these were also domains where the presence of single engine fighters was very limited, if not non existent

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 20, 2017)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Granted. But these were also domains where the presence of single engine fighters was very limited, if not non existent


A single engine fighter can only stop your opponent doing what it wants to do or enable you to do what you want to do.


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 20, 2017)

Thorlifter said:


> Why was the P-38 and the Mosquito so successful when engaging single engine fighters as compared to other 2 engine fighters, such as the Me-110, Do-17, Me-410, Ju-88, Ki-45, J1N1 Gekko, and others.
> 
> I'm guessing with the Me-110 and Do-17 it was lack of power and maybe the same reason for the Ju-88.
> 
> Were the P-38 and Mosquito just faster so they could get away when needed?



If the larger two engine aircraft had a wing loading and power to weight ratio as good as a single engine fighter there is no reason it should not be competitive. The P-38 was designed from the outset to compete with single engine aircraft and at altitude had a very good power to weight ratio due to its turbo superchargers. Adolf Garland noted good turn rate but its poor role rate "We were long gone" but that was fixed in late 1944 with the addition of power assisted ailerons.

After some disappointments the RAF and DeHaviland realized that an bomber could be ruined by two much weight, complexity and function so the Mosquito was designed light from the start. The British seldom tried to use it to engage single engine fighters though coastal command mosquitos did not hesitate to engage Luftwaffe fighters at low altitude if confronted.

Remember however the Bf 110/Me 110 was in widespread service in 1939 at the outset of the war. There were no P-38's, Mosquitos or Beaufighters. The Germans did have something, the allies did not. The P-38 and Mossie were really 1942 aircraft though flying a few missions late in 1941. Even the Beaufighter was only starting missions in late 1940. Analysis of losses also suggests that the Me 110 had a favorable exchange ratio (more victories versus losses) against RAF fighters during the BoB. This was especially so if allowed tactical freedom and not tied to escorting bombers where its poor acceleration would be at its worst.

Note also that the Me 110 was not designed as an escort. The Zerstoerer was supposed to
1 Penetrate enemy airspace ahead of bombers and strafe up and bomb enemy airfields and air defenses before they could scramble to engage the Luftwaffe's own bombers.
2 Attack enemy bombers using its powerful armament.
3 Bad weather fighter (incl night fighter). The pilot could concentrate on instrument flying or combat while the observer tracked the position of the fighter in terms of target, own airfield, took care of radio communications and kept a lookout towards the rear.

The Me 110 was a successful aircraft when used within its designated area. The RAF never used Beaufighters to try and escort bombers nor send up night fighters to attack escorted bombers.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 20, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Personally I think the F-15 Eagle was a great TE fighter...



Yes, the Eagle is a great TE fighter. One of the best IMO, with many, many years as the king of the hill. The Eagle earned its keep over 3 decades, landing at minimums in blowing snow at Keflavik with nearest divert 850 miles away, or sitting alert in the Middle East, Europe, Iceland, USA, Alaska, and Korea (this is just the US stuff) at the same time for years. Plus lots of kills.

However, today's problems are the same, you have to design a jet for a mission, and it's tough sometimes to do it with just one engine. Engines are getting better no doubt as we once again have the F-22 F35 two engines versus one engine relative to mission.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> If the larger two engine aircraft had a wing loading and power to weight ratio as good as a single engine fighter there is no reason it should not be competitive. The P-38 was designed from the outset to compete with single engine aircraft and at altitude had a very good power to weight ratio due to its turbo superchargers. Adolf Garland noted good turn rate but its poor role rate "We were long gone" but that was fixed in late 1944 with the addition of power assisted ailerons.



Improved would be a better word than fixed.

There still remained a time lag between when a roll was initiated and when the aircraft actually began to roll. Inertia is such a bitch!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2017)

The P-38 is solidly a 1939 / 1940 airplane that was updated later. Most good fighters had an evolution over several years, including all the great ones.


----------



## Jon Ellison (Sep 21, 2017)

Oop's I mean't Dehaviland Hornet (not F-18!).


----------



## Marcel (Sep 21, 2017)

I think the doctrine for these aircraft was faulty, earlier in the war. My own favorite, the Fokker G-1 is a great example. This big, heavy machine could turn with the single engined Fokker D.XXI, which was quite a feat. But is was conceived a a 'lucht kruiser' (=air cruiser). This meant that they had to make long patrols so they would be in the air when the bombers came. This idea was actually faulty. In the end it did point defense when the germans came. In this it performed remarkably well, even being able to take on the nimble BF109, while being under-powered, but in the end, the D-XXI was still much more suitable for it at a much cheaper cost. 

I guess the same was true for all those Zerstörer-like aircraft. They were not bad perse, but in the wrong role. The BF110 for instance performed remarkably well in the nightfighter role, so did the Blenheim and a couple more. So it was not a failure, only the Zerstörer role was a failure. 

I guess the Mosquito and the P38 were never in that role, but became operational as a fighter when they all knew better already.

You just have to use the tool for the role that it excels in.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2017)

GregP said:


> The P-38 is solidly a 1939 / 1940 airplane that was updated later. Most good fighters had an evolution over several years, including all the great ones.



Luckily for the USA, there was no aerial threat in 1939-40 that a P-38 would've been called to defend against. There was one (X)P-38 delivered in 1939 (crashed very soon), and one YP-38 delivered in 1940.


----------



## YF12A (Sep 21, 2017)

Ok, after just recently visiting the Udvar Hazy Museum, I will throw two more aircraft into this mix. These two sole survivors caught my eyes. The Do-335 and the He-219.First impression, as I am 6'8" tall, the 335 is one large aircraft! The He-219 has, to me, an elegant look to it. But as both of these were end of War aircraft, manufacture and quality control would probably have caused their own issues, IMHO.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 21, 2017)

Before jets, there were many more compromises required for two engines, like having the engines far enough apart so the props don't interfere too badly, and increased wetted area, so more drag, than for one. Add to that the customer's tendency to have feeping creaturism (it's bigger and more expensive, so it should do more) and there are lots more grounds for project failure as a result. The USAAF also found that the P-38 pilots required significantly more training. 

Twin-engined fighters also need more maintenance personnel, more spares, more logistics support in general, and cost more and were only marginally more useful. Since jets, the design compromises are smaller (although requirements will still creep) and jet engines require much less maintenance than piston ones, so there are fewer downsides to twins. 

The F-15 and F-14 were designed with two engines because they *needed* the thrust; 50,000+ lbf thrust fighter engines were too big a leap to attempt at the time. An F-18-class could have been built with one (well, it was: the F-16), but the customer felt it needed redundancy (but did it get it? At least one F-18 was lost when one engine failed and fod'ed the other to death. )


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2017)

Hi Tomo,

When I say 1939 / 1940, I mean design, not production. You could build a Boeing P-26 today, but it's still a 1932 airplane. At least, I see it that way. Your viewpoint may differ, and that's OK. The only thing that made them deliver the WWII fighters as soon as they could was the fact that a war was on. Otherwise, they'd have drifted into service in small numbers over several years. But their technology and design wouldn't particularly change.


----------



## stona (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm not sure why the Mosquito is being included in this thread at all. It is true that some early Marks were specified as day and night long range fighters (among other things), but in reality they were not used as day fighters. From memory the F.B.VI was the last to be designated this way.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 21, 2017)

WWII-era nightfighters rarely needed to dogfight, plus the need to put a bulky radar_ someplace_, meant the choices were a twin, a pod, or a pusher. Nobody fighting deployed a pusher fighter, and hanging a pod on a single-engined fighter had its own penalties, although the USN did just that, which could not have helped pilot workload. This left twins. 

There were probably only two twin-engined fighters really able to mix it up with single-engined fighters that entered service in WWII, the P-38 and the Whirlwind. The later F7F may have been intended to do so, but it was too late. The Mosquito may have been able too, but I suspect the "FB" was more for shooting up Ju-88s and Dorniers than FW190s. 

I'm not forgetting the Do.335. It had its own set of problems, one of which may have been the sort of roll-yaw coupling that was so problematic for the F-100.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 21, 2017)

Jon Ellison said:


> What about a Hornet?



A great performer in most categories - it had a relatively low rate of roll and turn that would make dogfighting difficult.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 21, 2017)

Would a Mosquito equipped with the most sophisticated radar available in WW2 be able to get the better of the best German piston engined fighter controlled by radar from the ground?


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2017)

At night they did with considerable regularity, the Mosquito was simply the best nightfighter no matter what you put up against it

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 21, 2017)

Glider said:


> At night they did with considerable regularity, the Mosquito was simply the best nightfighter no matter what you put up against it


I was wondering if it could have enough to get in the best position before both were in visual range.


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2017)

At night that isn't the normal situation. A radar on borad the aircraft almost any aircraft will have a significnt advantage.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 21, 2017)

Glider said:


> At night that isn't the normal situation. A radar on borad the aircraft almost any aircraft will have a significnt advantage.


I meant in day time, the radar would give a situational advantage until both were in visual range.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 21, 2017)

In terms of range I think the Mk.I eyeball has WWII airborne radars beat by a long shot, generally.

3-6 miles and only gives returns in a cone in front of the aircraft. This varies a lot depending on the set of course, but in general - if you have your head stuck in a radar screen trying to get the jump on a single engine fighter on a bright, clear day ... you're in trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 21, 2017)

Greyman said:


> In terms of range I think the Mk.I eyeball has WWII airborne radars beat by a long shot, generally.
> 
> 3-6 miles and only gives returns in a cone in front of the aircraft. This varies a lot depending on the set of course, but in general - if you have your head stuck in a radar screen trying to get the jump on a single engine fighter on a bright, clear day ... you're in trouble.



Concur! 

Radars / sensors have matured greatly in the interim, however back in the day they were limited to night or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) do to high workload and small contributions to situational awareness.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2017)

For a good part of WW II many radars had patterns like this






ANd with the somewhat primitive displays situational awareness could actually be lost if concentrating on the display too much. 
Some radars had range gates in which the operator selected a certain range or max and min distance/s the radar would display. You might be "following" one or more aircraft just fine but be totally unaware of others just a few miles away. especially if they were around 90 degrees to your flight path.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 21, 2017)

stona said:


> I'm not sure why the Mosquito is being included in this thread at all. It is true that some early Marks were specified as day and night long range fighters (among other things), but in reality they were not used as day fighters. From memory the F.B.VI was the last to be designated this way.
> Cheers
> Steve



In reality the last day fighter type was the F.II. 

The FB.VI (and Canadian and Australian equivalents) were fighter-bombers - they could give a fighter if necessary, but that was not their role. 

And in many raids in which the FB.VIs participated, such as the Amiens prison and Shellhus raids, the FB.VIs were escorted by fighters.

The ADFU did tactical trials of an F.II as a long range day fighter, concluding that it was not suitable for that role.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 22, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> Analysis of losses also suggests that the Me 110 had a favorable exchange ratio (more victories versus losses) against RAF fighters during the BoB.



The ME110 was actually very successful when used as intended. It was designed to sweep ahead of the bombers, catching opponents in the climb (or on the ground), effectively the _Freijagd_ role preferred by the ME109 pilots. When used so against opponents from Poland through until the BoB it was very successful, even scoring well against the Spitfire. Acceleration was its weakness, and when Goering forced the ME110 into the slow, close escort role, giving up the advantage of initiating combat on their own terms, and pushed the bombers out on longer raids into the UK airspace, giving more time for the radar-guided Hurricanes and Spitfires to get the height and speed they needed, the ME110 groups began to suffer. But part of the reason the ME110's failings have become such a myth was propaganda - Goering had personally lauded the _Zerstorer_ concept so the British saw great value in embarrassing Goering by making out it was a failure. The reality was the ME110 was actually one of the first victims of the lack of preparedness of German industry - in 1940 they simply could not make ME110s fast enough to meet replacement demands, hence operations by the _Zerstorer_ groups had to be curtailed. The ME210 was supposed to replace it as the day _Zerstorer_, but in Russia and North Africa it was still a valued long-range day fighter for another two years after the BoB. For example it was ZG26 ME110s that shot down South-African ace Marmaduke "Pat" Pattle, thought to be the highest scoring Commonwealth ace of WW2, over Athens in 1941.

In an artificial, one-vs-one dogfight, starting at equal height and speed, the ME110 was not going to beat many single-engined fighters the majority of times, excepting maybe _Barbarosa_ era Soviet fighters. But in the reality of 1939-40 - striking from above with the advantage of speed and surprise - they shot down a lot of single-engine fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 22, 2017)

Mad Dog said:


> ..........
> In an artificial, one-vs-one dogfight, starting at equal height and speed, the ME110 was not going to beat many single-engined fighters the majority of times, excepting maybe _Barbarosa_ era Soviet fighters. But in the reality of 1939-40 - striking from above with the advantage of speed and surprise - they shot down a lot of single-engine fighters.



Probably due to better tactics: 4-loose fingers against 3-tight Vic.
.


----------



## stona (Sep 22, 2017)

wuzak said:


> In reality the last day fighter type was the F.II.



Yep! Even less reason to include it 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

There was a reason that some countries persevered with the large twin engine piston fighters (lets leave the jets out of this) and that is that the single engine fighters had trouble performing _some _tasks.

Please also note that until 1945 there were few, if any, _single-seat _twin engine fighters _in service _in quantity *except* for the already mentioned Whirlwind and P-38. and the quantity of Whirlwinds is debatable. 

Evolution also played a part in that more powerful engines rapidly became available which meant that large, well armed single engine fighters became possible instead of having to use two engines of lower power. 

The _goal _of most air forces (not always achieved) was to to have fighters that were superior to their enemies fighters in *most * circumstances. Not in specialized circumstances or situations although that was a tactic often used when the original performance goal was not met. 

The weight penalty of the 2nd seat in early war fighters was such that that the two seat fighter could rarely compete with a single seat fighter of the same generation. Please note that the weight penalty is not JUST the weight of the 2nd crewman but the larger fuselage needed to house him. the extra equipment he was there to operate ( long range radio, primitive radar,) extra oxygen and so on. Pre war the 2 seat fighter was expected to operate from the same air fields/carriers as the single seat fighters which would mean a larger wing to handle the extra weight of the payload which, in turn, increased the weight of the aircraft. 

Converted bombers simply can't pull enough "G"s without breaking the airplane to try to dog fight single engine fighters. 
The 110 Might have been strong enough, at least there are few, if any, reports of them breaking up in flight.


----------



## stona (Sep 22, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> the quantity of Whirlwinds is debatable.



Not really. The ORBs of both squadrons are available and show that there were not many weeks when they could field a double figure number of serviceable aircraft between them.

For example, you often see accounts of Whirlwinds flying 'Rhubarbs' to aerodromes in France, but they often fail to mention that the number of Whirlwinds involved was sometimes only two!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2017)

Does updating a twin cause more problems than a single engine aircraft. As an example could a Griffon engine have been put in a mosquito more easily than a Spitfire?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

stona said:


> Not really. The ORBs of both squadrons are available and show that there were not many weeks when they could field a double figure number of serviceable aircraft between them.
> 
> For example, you often see accounts of Whirlwinds flying 'Rhubarbs' to aerodromes in France, but they often fail to mention that the number of Whirlwinds involved was sometimes only two!



True enough but then many 'Rhubarbs' were flown with only 2-4 Blenheims as "bait".
Point is that any other single seat twin engine planes (again barring the P-38) were in even smaller numbers, either issued or operational at any given time.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2017)

In daytime all the advantages of having a radar are gone (assuming good weather). Beaufighters and later Mosquitos were sometimes used as what we would now call all weather fighters, if the weather was poor.


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 22, 2017)

Lets not forget at least one other inherent advantage to twin engine fighters, survivability when having lost one engine. Probably enough to get home or a controlled landing, but not enough to continue to fight. But with a single if it takes a hit and dies you are pretty well out of options.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Lets not forget at least one other inherent advantage to twin engine fighters, survivability when having lost one engine. Probably enough to get home or a controlled landing, but not enough to continue to fight. But with a single if it takes a hit and dies you are pretty well out of options.


For a surprising number of twins they didn't have single engine survivability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

It took quite a while for the idea that to be truly twin engine, *both* engines had to have generators and hydraulic pumps to sink in.

Twin engine *fighters* generally had a good enough power to weight ratio to have a positive rate of climb on one engine. Some bombers did not. This was not helped on many early British twin engine bombers by the fitting of non-feathering propellers. 

Many WW II twins also could not cross feed the fuel from one side to other which meant a high fuel consumption on the remaining engine to fight the out of trim drag (lots of rudder and aileron) meant a shorter range on one engine than with both running.


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> For a surprising number of twins they didn't have single engine survivability.


Very true. The P-38 could, but it was tricky and the surviving engine had to be throttled back quickly. If an engine was lost on takeoff, rare but it did happen, the aircraft was prone to yaw wildly and almost always resulted in a crash. Again it required very quick action on the pilot to throttle back to idle right away. Not sure of the British twins as to how well they could perform on a single engine. But several recorded instances of P-38's surviving to land on a single engine are out there including one by Lindberg done on purpose.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Very true. The P-38 could, but it was tricky and the surviving engine had to be throttled back quickly. If an engine was lost on takeoff, rare but it did happen, the aircraft was prone to yaw wildly and almost always resulted in a crash. Again it required very quick action on the pilot to throttle back to idle right away. Not sure of the British twins as to how well they could perform on a single engine. But several recorded instances of P-38's surviving to land on a single engine are out there including one by Lindberg done on purpose.


SR just covered it above, basically the plane could survive losing an engine if the enemy hit the engine that the designer wanted them to.
To run on one engine you need all the pumps and electrics to run and also the ability to take fuel from one side to the other.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Very true. The P-38 could, but it was tricky and the surviving engine had to be throttled back quickly. If an engine was lost on takeoff, rare but it did happen, the aircraft was prone to yaw wildly and almost always resulted in a crash. Again it required very quick action on the pilot to throttle back to idle right away. Not sure of the British twins as to how well they could perform on a single engine. But several recorded instances of P-38's surviving to land on a single engine are out there including one by Lindberg done on purpose.



In the SE Asian theater some P-38s made it back to base on one engine flying 600 miles.

It is quite different loosing an engine due to combat damage (including flak) when you have sufficient speed and altitude to sort things out vrs loosing an engine at low speed and low altitude. 

Another Squadron operating out of India lost about 12 engines due to mi-rigged engine controls. I believe it was 11 engines on one side vs 1 engine on the other? to know this I would assume that most of the planes would have had to make it back to base? Problem was solved when a few flights were made with engine panels removed and factory tech rep was crammed behind the pilot to observe the throttle/supercharge control operation. Locally made modification kits were fitted to the planes in the India/Burma Theater and several hundred kits were supplied to the South Pacific Theater. Lockheed instituted a similar fix from the factory for Med and European P-38s. 
The engines did NOT use mirror image controls which is why the difference between left and right engines. 

British "twins" covers quite a range and it is doubtful if some of the lower powered twins (Blenheims, Pegasus powered Wellingtons, Whitleys and such) could maintain altitude except at the lowest levels on one engine and only if there was no major damage to the plane (large holes or flaps of metal sticking out.) 
The Canadian Bolingbrokes fitted with Twin Wasp juniors had to have the bomb load cut to 500lbs because they could not maintain height on one engine with a 1000lb bomb load. This is on search or training missions with no extra damage. 

I have always wondered if the Lockheed Hudson was called "old Boomerang" because it was really so tough or because it had a better power to weight ratio than most contemporary British twins AND fully Feathering propellers.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 22, 2017)

One of the early problems with the P-38 was inadequate pilot training. The most common -- and dangerous -- non-combat time for engine failure is near takeoff, when the engines are at high powers and the aircraft's controls have the least authority. Pilots have to do the right thing _right now_ or find that twin-engine redundancy just means that there's more noise on the way to the crash site (an interesting datum I saw many years ago: for general aviation aircraft flown by private pilots, who would tend to have a hundred or more hours in type, insurance rates were higher than for singles: twins crashed more. Many pilots entering squadron service in WW2 probably had less than 200 hours flight time, and less than 10 hours in type).

The pilot training issue was sorted out eventually, partly with demo flights by Tony LeVier

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Does updating a twin cause more problems than a single engine aircraft. As an example could a Griffon engine have been put in a mosquito more easily than a Spitfire?



Interesting question.

I would not think it any easier, nor more difficult.

In both cases the structure has to be strengthened to cope with the heavier engine, the CoG change has to be compensated for and stability issues from the extra power need to be addressed.

In the case of the Mosquito the stability issue could be harder than on the Spitfire, since both engines turned the same way, which would mean twice the torque effects, etc. And, of course, the Griffons turned the other way, so that may cause more issues.

I don't think the Griffon was considered for the Mosquito, but it was for one of the larger "Super Mosquito" proposals. That didn't proceed due to insufficient performance improvement over the Mosquito.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

It may be more difficult. There is more stuff you have to change.

I am using the Hornet because I can find the numbers easy. somewhere we have the numbers for the Mosquito. 

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Hornet/Hornet_F1_weight.jpg

Please note that the power plant with Merlin 130/131 engines was 40.3% of the normal gross weight, powerplant does not include fuel tanks or fuel or oil. 

The plane weighed 16,141lbs loaded and was rated at 10 "G"s ultimate load. Service load would be between 7 and 8 "G"S??

Switching to Griffons is going to require not only the greater weight of the engines but a greater weight of much of the rest of the "powerplant" Please note that 18% of the loaded weight of the aircraft is comprised of items in the "powerplant" that are not included in the bare weight of the engines. 
A two speed, two stage Griffon weighs about 350lbs more than a Merlin 130. Now throw in the heavier propellers, radiators and such needed for the Griffons.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you have solved the CG problem with no increase in weight.
We now have the ultimate stress factor problem. If we cut either armament or fuel (or both) we _may _be able to keep the 16141 lb gross weight and have a real hot rod of plane even if short ranged and lightly armed. However if we wish to keep the armament and fuel (or even add to the fuel) we have to do at least two things. One is beef up the structure to keep the ultimate 10G stress rating. No 2 is beef up the landing gear to handle the extra weight. Please note the main gear already weighs 598lbs and the tail wheel gear weighs 90lbs perhaps it will take extra weight by simply using more air pressure, perhaps it won't. 
in any case if we add 1000lbs of powerplant and up the gross weight to 17141lbs we have lowered the ultimate stress factor to 9.4 and lowered the service load by about 0.4 Gs, this _may _be acceptable or it might be. 

Now simply because a twin is larger and more complicated (on average) than a single it is going to be more work to modify and do the stress calculations to beef up the structure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> SR just covered it above, basically the plane could survive losing an engine if the enemy hit the engine that the designer wanted them to.
> To run on one engine you need all the pumps and electrics to run and also the ability to take fuel from one side to the other.


Actually it could survive loosing either engine, with some limitations. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Carlo Kopp in a technical report on the P-38:

_"Another problem seldom mentioned was the single generator problem. If a generator was lost or a low battery the Curtis Electric prop would lose the Dynamic Brake and go to extreme Low Pitch. This was called a RUN AWAY. It could happen on Take Off with a low battery. Since you couldn't feather it set up a lot of drag making it difficult to make it around to land. The Killer situation was to lose the Generator or lose the engine with the Generator on it while 2 or 3hrs into Germany. Procedure was to SET the Props then turn off all electrical power. Then momentarily turn it back on to reset the props as needed. Being sure everything electrical was also turned off -- No Radios. The forgotten thing was you were at altitude and the OAT was -60degrees and the little old battery was cold soaked. Hence, dead as a dog. Result, with a lot of altitude you have less than an hour with one or two props in RUNAWAY._

The single generator was replaced with dual generators starting with the later "L" models but not on all of them. There were other mods made as well to make the aircraft more survivable. One significant one was the replacement of fuses by circuit breakers.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Actually it could survive loosing either engine, with some limitations. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Carlo Kopp in a technical report on the P-38:
> 
> .


Got mixed up in the conversation, I was only speaking in general terms Robert. Generally speaking, on a twin if there was anywhere to hit it that would knock both engines out then that would be where all stray bullets are attracted to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> It may be more difficult. There is more stuff you have to change.
> 
> .



Thanks for the answer S/R I guessed that it was more difficult simply because twin aircraft in general didn't change by a huge amount from first entering service but were replaced by re designed aircraft if a substantial change to the power plant was needed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2017)

I think, for the US, the only twin engine planes to radically change engines were the Douglas A-20 from the P & W R-1830 to the Wright R-2600 and the champion of engine swaps. the Lockheed Super Electra/Loadstar. (or Lockheed 14/18) This airframe, with the aid of a fuselage stretch, went from P & W Hornets and Wright Cyclones to P & W twin wasps, later Cyclones, then R-2600s and finally R-2800s.

For the British the only large scale production twin engine aircraft I can think of offhand is the Wellington going from Pegasus engines to Hercules. Not sure how the Merlin Beaufighters rate as Merlins didn't really supply more power than the Hercules.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 23, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> For the British the only large scale production twin engine aircraft I can think of offhand is the Wellington going from Pegasus engines to Hercules. Not sure how the Merlin Beaufighters rate as Merlins didn't really supply more power than the Hercules.



Not forgetting Merlin and R-1830 variants. Though not makor variants, several hundred Merlin versions were built and a couple hundred with the R-1830.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2017)

I would like to find more details of the Wellington MK II and MK IV. You are certainly correct in mentioning them but I don't think there was a a major change in performance or capability with the Merlin X engine or the P & W R-1830. details on weights would be interesting. 
According to one source the tare weight of the MK III with Hercules engines was almost 4000lbs heavier than the 1C with the Pegasus engines which is obviously way more than the difference of the bare weight of the engines. 

Like I said, it would be interesting to see where the Merlin and Twin Wasp version landed on the spectrum.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 24, 2017)

Wellington II
Tare 20,050 lb
Light 22,500 lb
Mean 27,600 lb
Max 32,000 lb

Wellington IV
Tare 20,150 lb
Light 23,200 lb
Mean 27,500 lb
Max 31,600 lb

Mk.II seems to perform better (especially at higher alt) in everything but take off distance.


----------



## Jimbob (Sep 25, 2017)

Having met many WW2 Luftwaffe pilots in my line of work, I asked them about the various Allied fighters they faced and they always rated the P-38 as a dangerous opponent when it had the energy/ airspeed advantage. Once it became a dogfight, then the single engine fighters had a distinct advantage. As expected.They to a man had a great respect for the P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> For much of the war there were huge domains that were ruled by twin fighters, the North Sea the Atlantic and the dark.



Then there were aircraft carriers.....


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Then there were aircraft carriers.....




Yes, but my post said "for much of the war". In Europe the conflict was one sided because the Germans didn't have any. An aircraft carrier group looks formidable and it is, for a carrier group. In an imaginary conflict between all 1944 USA carrier groups and Malta stocked with the best equipment the UK had in 1944 my money would be on Malta because you cant sink it and the damage you can do with single engine planes is limited. Aircraft carriers big and small and escort carriers were best on the open sea, when they come within range of land bases they face an opponent that can sink them but cannot be sunk.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2017)

True, true, but their fighters will be able to defeat twins. How would a Me110 fair against even a Wildcat?


----------



## pbehn (Sep 29, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> True, true, but their fighters will be able to defeat twins. How would a Me110 fair against even a Wildcat?



The point I originally made was about a domain controlled by twins. This is as permanent as the land bases they flew from. The domain controlled by Wildcats (martlet) is within the range of the few carriers in service. The same could be said for the mid Atlantic which for a while was the complete domain of the B24. By 1944 twin engine aircraft in 1944 would monitor your wilcats group, conduct its activities elsewhere and when the time is right attack its supply chain and escorts.


----------



## YF12A (Sep 30, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The point I originally made was about a domain controlled by twins. This is as permanent as the land bases they flew from. The domain controlled by Wildcats (martlet) is within the range of the few carriers in service. The same could be said for the mid Atlantic which for a while was the complete domain of the B24. By 1944 twin engine aircraft in 1944 would monitor your wilcats group, conduct its activities elsewhere and when the time is right attack its supply chain and escorts.


Theoretically thinking only. If this had happened in 1944, the German twins would have been up against USN Carrier based not Wildcats, but Hellcats and then Corsairs, a serious game changing performance difference here. Just my thoughts. .


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2017)

And in 1944 the British were getting F6Fs and F4Us, I believe the carrier strikes against the Tirpitz were escorted/supported by F6Fs and F4Us? 

However we can get confused by timelines, many times the introduction of a *new *aircraft (either single or twin) can change the tactical situation for a time. Like 2000hp singles vs twins with 1200-1500hp engines. Introducing twins with 2000hp engines can swing things back. 

This makes talking about generalities hard as often you can find specific examples that counter them.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 30, 2017)

YF12A said:


> Theoretically thinking only. If this had happened in 1944, the German twins would have been up against USN Carrier based not Wildcats, but Hellcats and then Corsairs, a serious game changing performance difference here. Just my thoughts. .


I was discussing purely from a theoretical point of view. Carriers have a problem when operating near land. If the wind blows toward your target you must sail away from it and if it is blowing from your target you must sail towards the land. Staying stationary is an option that leaves you vulnerable and causes heavy landings. When Malta was under siege the British never considered sailing carriers there to "duke it out" but re supplied Malta with Hurricanes and later Spitfires launched from a long way away to land on Malta. In the second world war, with all aircraft being carrier capable and numbers being limited they were multi role and generally suffered from it.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 30, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The point I originally made was about a domain controlled by twins. This is as permanent as the land bases they flew from. The domain controlled by Wildcats (martlet) is within the range of the few carriers in service. The same could be said for the mid Atlantic which for a while was the complete domain of the B24. By 1944 twin engine aircraft in 1944 would monitor your wilcats group, conduct its activities elsewhere and when the time is right attack its supply chain and escorts.



The domain I think you're referring to is the domain ruled by long-ranged patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, not two-engined fighters; in the WW2 era there were very few twin-engined fighters that could fight on equal terms with contemporary single-engined fighters including contemporary carrier-based fighters. Part of this was because twins will have proportionately larger wetted area than singles, part because they were frequently biased for longer range, part because they tended to have much greater roll inertia and correspondingly reduced instantaneous maneuverability. As an aside, part of the mission of those single-engined carrier fighters is to shoot down recon aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 30, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The domain I think you're referring to is the domain ruled by long-ranged patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, not two-engined fighters; in the WW2 era there were very few twin-engined fighters that could fight on equal terms with contemporary single-engined fighters including contemporary carrier-based fighters. Part of this was because twins will have proportionately larger wetted area than singles, part because they were frequently biased for longer range, part because they tended to have much greater roll inertia and correspondingly reduced instantaneous maneuverability. As an aside, part of the mission of those single-engined carrier fighters is to shoot down recon aircraft.


In my opinion all military planes fight, they just fight in different ways against different things. The Beaufighter and Mosquitos fight against shipping is just as valid as the Bf109s fight against heavy bombers. As was the Ju88 against Sunderlands and Liberators in the mid atlantic.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 30, 2017)

pbehn said:


> In my opinion all military planes fight, they just fight in different ways against different things. The Beaufighter and Mosquitos fight against shipping is just as valid as the Bf109s fight against heavy bombers. As was the Ju88 against Sunderlands and Liberators in the mid atlantic.



I'm not arguing here -- combat airplanes fight -- this started because I stated that twin-engined fighters would not be able to compete with carrier-based air in the areas where land-based single-engined aircraft would be unable to reach.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 1, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> And in 1944 the British were getting F6Fs and F4Us, I believe the carrier strikes against the Tirpitz were escorted/supported by F6Fs and F4Us?.



They were indeed. Operations Tungsten, Mascot and Goodwood all made use of the American fighters operated by the FAA.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Oct 9, 2017)

Jon Ellison said:


> Oop's I mean't Dehaviland Hornet (not F-18!).



The Hornet (DH) is a great example to use in this discussion. While working on a Whirlwind project I wanted to compare it to its nearest UK equivalent as it used the streamlined Merlin versions that would have been ideal for the WW and came up with some interesting information as I did so. The most relevant here perhaps would be a post war encounter whereby a SeaFury pilot in conversation boasted about how his aircraft could wipe the floor with the Hornet in a dogfight. So they put it to the test and reports say that the result was anything but a slam dunk for the SF. The aircraft seem to have been pretty competitive depending upon the skill of the pilot using the different qualities of their type to its full advantage. 

As for the Whirlwind its pilots (certainly while it was current in its first year) felt it was competitive in engaging 109s especially at low level indeed its first engagement was successful against them later ones less so and there are all sorts of arguments in and around this regarding its competitiveness, but sadly as a frozen design even before its first engagement there is no real compelling evidence on which to come to true conclusions. However during the war it was probably the only significant twin aircraft that was specifically designed as a lightweight intercepter in the same way as a Spitfire or ME109 was. The mossie was not though its qualities and potential through experience spawned the Hornet as a true fighter derivative ideal for the direction the fighter was already headed, i.e. heavier, more powerful, longer range over lightweight short range dogfighter. Had the WW been developed or equipped with Merlins as originally planned it would have been a true test between twins and singles of the time but sadly it never happened for reasons other than its innate qualities. So this is always going to be a what if argument in an environment where the goal posts moved considerably from 39 to 45. 

Fanciful I know, but later drawing board designs such as the Miles M22 which on paper would have been lethal even to early jets, would I suspect have tilted the balance towards twins in this argument substantially because the type of engagement by the end of the war had become very different with the qualities of an out an out lightweight dogfighting single far less important than the outright power of a twin.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Oct 9, 2017)

stona said:


> Not really. The ORBs of both squadrons are available and show that there were not many weeks when they could field a double figure number of serviceable aircraft between them.
> 
> For example, you often see accounts of Whirlwinds flying 'Rhubarbs' to aerodromes in France, but they often fail to mention that the number of Whirlwinds involved was sometimes only two!
> 
> ...



Whirlwinds were held back from the BOB which also precludes any real assessment of their capabilities in the role that they were designed for i.e. killing bombers. As the only cannon armed fighter available at the time it seems from available evidence they were being prepared for the role of ground attack against tanks and soft vehicles should the invasion come, preservation was the priority, as their numbers were finite with numbers long set by that time, so air combat losses were just not acceptable.

Thereafter, especially as there was going to be no effort to improve their high level performance (which progressively became more important in air combat), or indeed any aspect of the aircraft sadly, their ground attack (or shipping) role was set in stone. As it turned out they were exceptional in that role and ended up as the longest serving single Mk British fighting aircraft of the war. When the pilots were finally re equipped with Hurricanes in this role they were not at all impressed, but as you say numbers even in the early days were always slow to arrive (even after development delays) because Westland were forced to give priority to other aircraft, not to mention the overall lack of faith in them as a producer at the time, they not being one of the MOD established 'favourites'.

Perhaps its greatest contribution as a fighter was in being used by the Americans to perfect the P38 Cannon installation.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 9, 2017)

Not really 'held back' from the BoB. There were only five in service with 263 Sqn in Scotland by mid August, and _none_ of these were serviceable. By the time deliveries, and serviceability, had caught up, and the Sqn had 'worked up' on the type, the BoB was over.
They did not become properly operational until December 1940, when the Squadron moved to Exter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 9, 2017)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> ...
> Had the WW been developed *or [the Whirlwind was] equipped with Merlins as originally planned* it would have been a true test between twins and singles of the time but sadly it never happened for reasons other than its innate qualities.





SPYINTHESKY said:


> ...
> Perhaps its [Whirlwind's] greatest contribution as a fighter was in being used by the Americans to perfect the P38 Cannon installation.



(my comment in brackets, my bold)
As a person that rates the Whirly high, I'll politely ask for surces for the quoted claims.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2017)

By the end of the war there were only few _lightweight dogfighters_ left in production anywhere but Russia and Japan. 
A late model Spitfire going about 9000lbs clean gross. 

The big singles that showed up at the end of war were pushing the envelope pretty well as it was. That is with drop tanks they had about all the range that could be reasonably used given pilot fatigue on long missions , they could do over 450 mph and they could carry four 20mm cannon (P-47N had eight . 50s) and had fair amount of ammo. 

With so few from each country and with different start dates and development times it gets a bit tough to draw conclusions as to what was state of the art at any given time but the big singles had engines of 2000hp and up (some over 2500hp) and any twin was going to need something over 3000 hp to match them. 

A single dogfight doesn't prove much as it only tests two pilots under one set of conditions.

Try pitting an F4U-5 against an F7F-4 but do it at 30,000ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 9, 2017)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> Whirlwinds were held back from the BOB which also precludes any real assessment of their capabilities in the role that they were designed for i.e. killing bombers. As the only cannon armed fighter available at the time it seems from available evidence they were being prepared for the role of ground attack against tanks and soft vehicles should the invasion come, preservation was the priority, as their numbers were finite with numbers long set by that time, so air combat losses were just not acceptable.



The Whirlwind was not held back from the Battle of Britain. No. 262 Squadron didn't receive its first Whirlwind (P6966) until 10th July 1940. The intention was to form one Flight (C ) to develop the aircraft for squadron use. At the end of July the squadron had just two Whirlwinds. In early August C Flight was disbanded, such were the teething problems. Dowding did plan to use them as tankbusters should an invasion be attempted, but there were never more than a handful available. What they might have achieved we will never know.

The reason they were never considered for operational use in 11 Group during the battle of Britain, even if a couple of Flights could have been made available in the late stages of the Battle was simple. Most combat was taking place at altitudes above or close to the Whirlwind's service ceiling. They couldn't be used as bomber killers, they could barely reach the bombers. In fact they were never available or operational for any role during the BoB.

On 4th November, after 'Sealion' was had been 'postponed', the 263 Squadron ORB notes:

_"Of fifteen aircraft built, the squadron had eight, but four were grounded with engine problems and two were unserviceable, leaving two for training."_

In the end Sholto-Douglas had enough. He wrote to Westlands.

_"It is now five months since 263 Squadron re-formed, allegedly on Whirlwinds. I am taking its Hurricanes away and making it operational on Whirlwinds at RAF Exeter. It is up to you to make the squadron's initial strength up to sixteen at once."_

The Squadrons reaction was rather different, the ORB noting.

_"It was with great regret that leave was taken of the Hurricanes."_

So, finally, twenty six months after the maiden flight and five months since first delivery the Whirlwind was declared operational. It was too late for the BoB, it was December 1940.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2017)

The F7F won't need to be at 30,000 feet. It is a fleet defense fighter, not an escort fighter.

Try it at S.L. to 15,000 feet, which is where anything trying to attack a Naval task force will have to be to do any damage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2017)

Hmmmm, you want to explain that to the USN in late 40s. Around 500 F4U-5 built and I would guess that most of them were classified as fleet defense fighters, at least the ones equipped with radar. Granted it turned out that no enemy or potential enemy came up with plane that operated at the altitudes the F4U-5 could operate at.

However the point was that there weren't that many of these late war/post war piston engine fighters and trying to draw any conclusion about general trends from a single rather impromptu match-up really isn't going to tell us much.

DH Hornet used two stage engines while the Sea Fury used a single stage engine with an FTL in high gear of 16,500ft. 

The match up I suggested flips things, The F4U-7 having the most sophisticated two stage mechanical supercharger ever built in large numbers. It would give 1800hp at 30,000ft, no RAM for Military power. 
The late model F7Fs got the same engines as the F8F-2 Bearcat a single stage supercharger with variable speed drive. 1700hp at 16,000ft Military power no RAM. 

You want the F4U-5 to come down to the F7Fs best altitude where it would be lugging around 350lbs of excess supercharger plus inter-coolers and duct work. 

I was pointing out that different match-ups could have different results than the original and we need to be careful about the conditions before declaring either the single engine or the twin "best" in any circumstances. 

You want interesting?? how about the Hornet vs the F4U-5 and the Sea Fury vs the F7F?


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 9, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Lets not forget at least one other inherent advantage to twin engine fighters, survivability when having lost one engine. Probably enough to get home or a controlled landing, but not enough to continue to fight. But with a single if it takes a hit and dies you are pretty well out of options.


I think this is over-estimated. As others have said, single-engine performance may not get you home. If it does, you're a sitting duck for any young fighter pilot trying for his first kill.
Couple that with twice the chance of getting hit in the engine, and getting hit in an engine during a turn, reduced roll rate, and I don't think that (generally) they provided all that they promised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2017)

I don't WANT it Shortround, but the F7F was not designed nor used as a high-altitude fighter. The Corsair was never a high-altitude fighter, either, in US service. After WWII, it was a stop-gap fighter until they figured out how to get jets with enough power to be attack planes. That didn't "take" all that well until the A-10. So, the Skyraider was REALLY useful in Korea and Viet Nam.

I believe a lot of the F7Fs were used as night pickets around carriers and carrier task groups after the war, and they never encountered a Japanese fighter during the war. Being a WWII forum, I am confining my comments to WWII situations.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2017)

What started us in this "tangent" was a post trying to compare a DH Hornet to a Sea Fury, neither of which were aircraft that "served" in WW II, even if development started during the war. 
SO I guess, according to you, we can't talk about them either? 

and since they didn't serve in WW II I guess the over 500 Corsairs built with this engine 





don't count as "high altitude" and can't be talked about either. even though testing started in late November 1944 on the basic power section and the two stage engine started testing on March 10th 1945. 

Over 1/2 of the F5U-5s were equipped with radar 




BTW first flight of the Prototype F4U-5 may have been on 21 December 1945. Three F4U-4 airframes were used as prototypes. 
In any case the requirement/desire of the navy to have such planes was certainly of WW II origin.


----------



## GregP (Oct 10, 2017)

I like the F4U-5 myself because it had all-metal wings. To be sure, the F4U-5's could get to high altitude, but by the time they were flying, they were not going to be first-line high-altitude fighters (I'd take one versus a Grumman F9F, myself). They might well have been the best available at sea over the oceans right after WWII ended, but there was nobody to fight since the war was over. But they made for a formidable Navy higher-altitude capability when none was needed.

I wasn't thinking of post-war when I posted above since this is mainly a WWII forum.

When they DID fight, they were used for ground attack in Korea, not for high-altitude anything.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 15, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> I think this is over-estimated. As others have said, single-engine performance may not get you home. If it does, you're a sitting duck for any young fighter pilot trying for his first kill.
> Couple that with twice the chance of getting hit in the engine, and getting hit in an engine during a turn, reduced roll rate, and I don't think that (generally) they provided all that they promised.



Not just was, is. There have been several F-18 crashes where the remaining engine quickly failed; in at least one of these was when one engine fodded the other. In a different aviation realm, back when I worked in the helicopter industry, it was found that two (and possibly three) engine helicopters had more forced landings due to transmission failures than single engine helicopters had due to engine failure or transmission failure. In other words, a single engine helicopter was less likely to have a forced landing.


----------



## Dawncaster (Oct 15, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Try pitting an F4U-5 against an F7F-4 but do it at 30,000ft





GregP said:


> Try it at S.L. to 15,000 feet








So I tried it. 

Maximum speed and rate of climb for altitudes for F4U-5 and F7Fs.

I could not find SAC or ACP for F7F-4.

So I used ACP of F7F-3 for F7F-4's 460 mph maximum speed. (both had same -34W engine)

This is just addition of the F4U-5's performance summary and flight test data on F7F-3 ACP with estimated F7F-4 curve.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2017)

I'd take the Tigercat over the ocean and for any carrier landing, the Corsair over land ... or in a one-on-one dogfight.

But, most squadrons didn't have the choice to make. They flew what was assigned. The Navy wanted the Tigercat for a reason and they STILL want twin engines today.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2017)

Greg,

The USN today fly's the T-6 Texan II and T-45, both of which are SE. The newest USN/USAF/USMC fighter is SE. I'm not exactly sure what you are driving at, but if a SE aircraft can accomplish the defined mission, it's going to be more "cost effective" than it's multi engined friend. Don't get me wrong, I prefer two over one, but it will eventually come down to cost and meeting mission requirements.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2017)

It might not have been possible to carry the radar and missile load of the F-14 and get the performance desired using a single engine at the time the F-14 was conceived/designed. Performance including range/endurance. 

AS Biff says, the choice of one or two engines comes down to mission requirements many times.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2017)

SR6,
The Eagle fell into the same category of mission requirements driving the final configuration. Engine technology, missile technology, and advanced manufacturing techniques along with every present costs are driving us towards a SE centric fighters in my opine.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2017)

As you say, changing technology can change designs.
Engine in the F-35 weighs a few hundred pounds less than one of the original engines in the F-14 and yet offers about double the non-afterburner power. and 85% of the power or both TF-30s in after burner. 
Fuel burn is probably better too

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2017)

Hi Biff,

The T-6 and T-45 are trainers. I'm talking fighters. The F-4 was a twin, the F-14 was a twin, the F-18 is a twin. A lot of people got home on the second engine in combat. The a-4 was a long-serving holdover from the 1950's, but the A-6 was a twin, too. Anyone who doesn't think the A-7 was the direct stepchild of the 1950s F-8 hasn't seen them side-by-side. The Navy flies assets when it has them and they are in service, but they acquired twins for the important planes from the F-4 forward. Let's face the facts here. The Navy is acquiring the F-35 because they were directed to, not because the Navy wanted it, though the Marines DID want a replacement for the AV-8Bs they lost. I just haven't spoken with anyone in the Marines who wanted the F-35 specifically. Today, you speak the party line or you get fired, and they're getting in line and talking it up, as expected. There are a lot of active-duty people who think the F-35 is a mistake, in every service that will fly or flies them.

But we are getting them, so the task is to learn to employ them correctly and they are in the process of that now. It seems to be doing well, at least in the press. I'm not anxious for combat just to prove it good or bad, and will gladly wait until it is actually needed to find out. Meanwhile, it seems to be maturing, though that hasn't helped the amount of weapons it can carry and stay stealthy.

I'll get back to WWII ... or shortly post-war. I'd still like to see a turboprop Skyraider Attack plane with modern avionics. We have the technology now, and would not use that unreliable, geared transmission that the Skyshark used so ineffectively coupled with the Allison XT-40 engine. That was a dud of an engine-transmission combination, if ever there was one, though it never failed in the Pogo planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 16, 2017)

Turbojet engines are much more reliable than piston engines. Indeed, I think that even a 1970's vintage military turbojet, such as the one in the Crusader, had MTBF at least an order of magnitude better than the commercial piston engines during the last gasp of piston-engined airliners. In other words, a pilot is more likely to get home with a single J-75 than with one or posssibly two R-2800 or R-3350.


----------



## billrunnels (Oct 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Biff,
> 
> 
> I'll get back to WWII ... or shortly post-war. I'd still like to see a turboprop Skyraider Attack plane with modern avionics. We have the technology now, and would not use that unreliable, geared transmission that the Skyshark used so ineffectively coupled with the Allison XT-40 engine. That was a dud of an engine-transmission combination, if ever there was one, though it never failed in the Pogo planes.


----------



## billrunnels (Oct 16, 2017)

Speaking of WWII, I was at an air show not long ago where they were giving B-17 rides. A col. helicopter pilot took the flight and was interviewed following return. He was amazed at the open control cables, the instruments etc stating complication of control. He said " I can fly my helicopter with a cell phone". HA

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Turbojet engines are much more reliable than piston engines. Indeed, I think that even a 1970's vintage military turbojet, such as the one in the Crusader, had MTBF at least an order of magnitude better than the commercial piston engines during the last gasp of piston-engined airliners. In other words, a pilot is more likely to get home with a single J-75 than with one or posssibly two R-2800 or R-3350.



Swampyankee,

I think the odds change such that two 2800s might actually have a higher safety margin. Oh by the way the F-16 has the best SE fighter safety record in US history. I don’t think it compares well to a F-4 (but do not have that info in front of me).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> Speaking of WWII, I was at an air show not long ago where they were giving B-17 rides. A col. helicopter pilot took the flight and was interviewed following return. He was amazed at the open control cables, the instruments etc stating complication of control. He said " I can fly my helicopter with a cell phone". HA



Bill,

Next time you see that guy tell him to look in the main gear wells of the mighty DC-8! There is probably a 1/4 mile of cables in sight!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Biff,
> 
> The T-6 and T-45 are trainers. I'm talking fighters. The F-4 was a twin, the F-14 was a twin, the F-18 is a twin. A lot of people got home on the second engine in combat. The a-4 was a long-serving holdover from the 1950's, but the A-6 was a twin, too. Anyone who doesn't think the A-7 was the direct stepchild of the 1950s F-8 hasn't seen them side-by-side. The Navy flies assets when it has them and they are in service, but they acquired twins for the important planes from the F-4 forward. Let's face the facts here. The Navy is acquiring the F-35 because they were directed to, not because the Navy wanted it, though the Marines DID want a replacement for the AV-8Bs they lost. I just haven't spoken with anyone in the Marines who wanted the F-35 specifically. Today, you speak the party line or you get fired, and they're getting in line and talking it up, as expected. There are a lot of active-duty people who think the F-35 is a mistake, in every service that will fly or flies them.
> 
> ...



Greg,

Your jets are correct but dated from what I was speaking to. Going forward watch and see. As far as the F35 goes it appears to be an adopted child from the off the record conversations I’ve had. Good luck DOD.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 17, 2017)

There are penalties, in initial and operating costs, and availability for that second engine. I’m also going to hazard a guess that the loss rate for F-18s operating from land based isn’t far different from that for the F-16. I know there have been multiple Hornet crashes where either both engines failed due to a common cause or where one engine failed and caused the other to fail. 

As for F-18 vs F-35, hunt up USNI Proceedings from the time when the F-18 was close to service entry. Many naval aviators were highly critical of the plane.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> There are penalties, in initial and operating costs, and availability for that second engine. I’m also going to hazard a guess that the loss rate for F-18s operating from land based isn’t far different from that for the F-16. I know there have been multiple Hornet crashes where either both engines failed due to a common cause or where one engine failed and caused the other to fail.
> 
> As for F-18 vs F-35, hunt up USNI Proceedings from the time when the F-18 was close to service entry. Many naval aviators were highly critical of the plane.




SY,

I agree there are serious cost / mx / time penalties associated with 2 versus 1 engine. The reverse is quite true as well. I would fathom a guess that the cost difference between F-15's and F-16's are not as large as first blush would suggest. I remember when Tac Attack, the monthly mag the USAF produced would have yearly losses in it. I have seen 20+ in one year. Not too many years ago Luke AFB lost 6 in 6 months. If you took all the costs associated with purchasing, owning, upgrading, & replacing F-16s and compared it to the same info for the F-15 it would be close (in my opine). We have not lost anywhere the near the same amount of jets. I have a bud who jumped out of one with 3.5 hours on it, simple engine failure.

As for the F18 vs F16 safety record they in my opine, are probably close but not for the same reasons. The USN and USA have a complete different attitude towards safety than the USAF. The two former have "acceptable losses", while the USAF does not. There is much more to it than that, but won't dive in at the moment. The airlines oh by the way have the same approach as the USAF.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 28, 2017)

The Grumman F7F would have been an interesting addition to the Pacific War IF it had been fielded in '44.


----------



## GregP (Oct 29, 2017)

Though I really like the F7F, methinks the roll rate was too slow for fighter combat. But you do NOT want to intersect the armament stream from an F7F in ANY airplane. Four 50s and four 20s, with no convergence,


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 29, 2017)

GregP said:


> Though I really like the F7F, methinks the roll rate was too slow for fighter co,bat. But you do NOT want to intersect the armament stream from an F7F in ANY airplane. Four 50s and four 20s, with no convergence,



An old issue of Wings/Airpower had a pilot interview where he said the F7F N was not allowed to fly above the 38th in the Korean War, so as not risk a capture of the Radar and Avionics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 30, 2017)

I'm coming to this thread late, but did anyone mention the He-219?


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 30, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> An old issue of Wings/Airpower had a pilot interview where he said the F7F N was not allowed to fly above the 38th in the Korean War, so as not risk a capture of the Radar and Avionics.


Weren't they fitted with a self-destruct like the IFF units?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 1, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> I'm coming to this thread late, but did anyone mention the He-219?



In regards to fighting S/E fighters?

I would think they would struggle, since they struggled with twin engine light/medium bombers which had no guns with which to shoot back.

And generally because they were underpowered.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2017)

He 219 may have been fast but that is about all it had, similar sized wing to an A-20 but weighing thousands of pounds more. 

If you can't turn and you can't climb it doesn't really matter what kind of guns of you have as you can't get into firing position very often.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 1, 2017)

Don't believe that 400mph+ speed for the He219. That speed was reached with a non production a/c that had mods done to it.


----------



## Todd Secrest (Nov 6, 2017)

Thorlifter said:


> Why was the P-38 and the Mosquito so successful when engaging single engine fighters as compared to other 2 engine fighters, such as the Me-110, Do-17, Me-410, Ju-88, Ki-45, J1N1 Gekko, and others.
> I'm guessing with the Me-110 and Do-17 it was lack of power and maybe the same reason for the Ju-88.
> Were the P-38 and Mosquito just faster so they could get away when needed?



The P-38 Lighting and Mosquito, with their higher top speeds, means they can catch up to an enemy (single) fighter and attack, better then an enemy (single engine) fighter could catch up to and attack them (the twin engine plane).

The Lighting and Mosquito, with their higher top speeds can also break off after the attack and get away, before the single engine fighter has a chance to attack them (twin engine fighter).

With some guns mounted in the wings, like on some single engine fighters, the guns have their alignment to concentrate their fire at a fixed range, lets say 200 yards, so at less then two hundred yards or greater then 200 yards, the concentration of bullets is less, so less damage is done, or should I say less concentrated damage is done.
Where as with the P-38 and Mosquito, which have their guns close together (center line), the bullet concentrate will be just as good at 100 yards or at 500 yards, so the P-38 and Mosquito do not have to spend as much time getting to (preferred) optimum range, before opening fire.

The Mosquito, with four 20mm cannons in the nose, means it does not have to spend as much time pouring cannon shots into the enemy fighter, for the enemy fighter to sustain enough damage (like to it's single engine), to be shot out of the sky.
Where as the P-38 or Mosquito could get back to base, with only one engine working.
So an enemy single engine fighter plane would have to spend a lot more time pouring fire (bullets or cannon) into the P-38 or Mosquito, to shoot that twin engine fighter out of the sky, and the P-38/Mosquito are going to do any maneuver they can to get out of the line of fire.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 6, 2017)

As has been pointed out the two types converged as the range of single engine fighters increased and the agility of twins improved. The two then ran into the limit of human endurance and the twin mustang was developed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 8, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> I'm coming to this thread late, but did anyone mention the He-219?



The He 219 was more in the Mosquito class than the fighter class. It never received the Jumo 222A/B or Jumo 222E/F with which it was expected to achieve 460mph. These engines were in fact on the production list for 1944 1945 despite their lengthy development.

The He 219 showed a slight speed advantage over the Ju 88 and Ju 388 but with the similar engines there was a difference, I think perhaps 25mph or 40kmh.

The He 219A7 with DB603E engine was expected to do 385mph (616kmh) and would be the equivalent of the Ju 88G6 with Jumo 213A capable of 360mph (575kmh). This is with radar and ventral gun packs etc. A few Ju 88G7 with the two stage Jumo 213E were delivered and they achieved 385mph but this is an unfair comparison because of the higher power of the two stage intercooled Jumo 213E at altitude over the DB603E. 

He 219 was manufactured with 3 engines in WW2.

DB603A, DB603AA and DB603E. Very few DB603E were delivered and never saw service.

There was also the DB603EM, a development of the DB603E which produced about 2250hp through water injection but was probably unpopular with Luftwaffe planners since it also required C3 fuel. .

I would have been used on the Ta 152C1 which would have been the first Ta 152 but for bomb damage to its wing factory and concerns over C3 fuel avauiabillity.

There was also the DB603L and Jumo 213E proposed for the He 219, both had two stage superchargers and ranged from 2100hp to 2400hp at wars end.

The DB603LA was in fact delivered to the Luftwaffe in the form of the Ta 152C3.

Here are figures from the DB engine list of 7.44 on the performance of the DB engines used by the He 219. Taken from a Post by Hopp.

DB 603A. Length: 2610mm, Height: 1167mm, Width: 830mm. (B4 fuel)

At sea level.

T/off and emergency (3'): 1750PS, 2700rpm, 1.4ata, 570l/h

Climb and combat (30'): 1580PS, 2500rpm, 1.3ata, 460l/h

At critical altitude of 5.7km

Emergency (3'): 1620PS, 2700rpm, 1.4ata, 530l/h

Climb and combat (30'): 1510PS, 2500rpm, 1.3ata, 460l/h

Emergency power at 10km: 950PS, 2700rpm, .85ata


DB 603AA. Length: 2610mm, Height: 1167mm, Width: 830mm (B4 fuel)

At sea level. This engine had essentially different supercharger settings)

T/off and emergency: 1670PS, 2700rpm, 1.4ata, 550l/h

Climb and combat: 1580PS, 2500rpm, 1.3ata, 460l/h

At critical altitude of 7.3km (emergency), and 7.2km (climb and combat)

Emergency: 1450PS, 2700rpm, 1.4ata, 480l/h

Climb and combat: 1370PS, 2500rpm, 1.3ata, 440l/h

Emergency power at 10km: 1020PS, 2700rpm.


DB 603E. Length: 2706mm, Height: 1167mm, Width: 830mm (B4 fuel)

At sea level.

T/off and emergency: 1800PS, 2700rpm, 1.48ata, 580l/h

Climb and combat: 1575PS, 2500rpm, 1.35ata, 490l/h

At critical altitude of 7.0km (emergency), and 7.1km (climb and combat)

Emergency: 1550PS, 2700rpm, 1.48ata, 510l/h

Climb and combat: 1430PS, 2500rpm, 1.35ata, 460l/h

Emergency power at 10km: 1060PS, 2700rpm.


Be advised that these figures don't always agree exactly with the figures posted in "Mustertafeln und Leistungsschaubilder der deutschen Flugmotoren. Nach dem Stand vom 15.9.44" even though the narratives are both dated in July 1944.


This is the info on the Jumo 213E from the above reference.

Jumo 213E-1; Length (fighter installation): 2536mm, Height: 1140mm (B4 fuel)

At sea level.

T/off and emergency: 1750PS, 3250rpm

Climb and combat: 1580PS, 3000rpm

At critical altitude of 9.8km (emergency), and 9.6km (climb and combat)

Emergency: 1320PS, 3250rpm

I suspect we could expect the He 219 with this engine to reach at least 25mph or more faster 415 mph with full radar and flame damper kit.

Also the DB603L series with a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler. It was delivered to the Luftwaffe in the guise of the Ta 152C3 so they were in service though not combat.

The He 219A7 with DB603E with radar and guns supposedly could achieve 385mph so obviously with either water injection DB603EM or with a two stage supercharged engine such as the DB603L or Jumo 213E which themselves could handle water injection and in the case of the Jumo 213 nitrous oxide.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 13, 2017)

No Ju 88G-7 was ever delivered, the small amount of Jumo 213E becoming available was fitted to G-6 airframes.
5x He 219D with Jumo 213E were built but were not in service due to engine problems.
He 219A-7 with DB603E was in service with 50-80 delivered


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 13, 2017)

Denniss said:


> No Ju 88G-7 was ever delivered, the small amount of Jumo 213E becoming available was fitted to G-6 airframes.
> 5x He 219D with Jumo 213E were built but were not in service due to engine problems.
> He 219A-7 with DB603E was in service with 50-80 delivered



What’s the difference between a Ju 88G6 upgraded from Jumo 213A to Jumo 213E Engines versus a Ju 88G7 which has Jumo 213E from the start?

In General I was making the point that if the Ju 88G6 could jump from 360mph to 389mph (29mph or 47kmh) by going from 213A to 213E then a similar technological jump from the DB603E to DB603L would push the 385mph He 219A7 to 415mph-420mph. Probably more given the emergency power sondernotleistung of these engines.

Information on Ju 88G7 is rare. I’m assuming the speed is the same as the Jumo 213E engined Ju 388 which is published in black cross publications Ju 288,388 and 488


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2017)

The G-7 was not simply a G-6 with Jumo 213E, it also had some structural changes. By war's end G-7 airframes were in production but none known as completed.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 17, 2017)

Sorry, back to an earlier diversion. Neither the F-16 nor the F-18 were wanted by their services, the AF wanted more F-15s and the Navy wanted more F-14s. AF selected the F-16 because it wanted the engine to be the same as the F-15, therefore lowering unit cost of engine. Navy didn't want the F-16, 1) it was an AF bird, and 2) they wanted twin engines for safety (I guess this was unimportant for the F-35!). I'm prejudice here but I don't think the F-16 was a good selection for the AF. Initially, it could only carry AIM 9 due to the lack of an illuminator so it was a VFR Fighter, and sold to Europe as such. In addition, growth space for avionics was very limited, 2 cuft (I think this was measured by filling the fuselage with water and measuring what poured out). Initially (IIRC), the F-16 had severe engine failure problems causing the loss of quite a few aircraft and some pilots. The AF started installing only engines in the F-16 that had been satisfactorily pre-flown in F-15s. Obviously this problem was corrected. The F-16 did not seem to play much of a role in the Persian Gulf War in the air to air role, having very few engagements and only two kills. The F-18 also played only a small part in the air to air role. The F-15 seemed to be king of the air to air fighting.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't think twin engines were unimportant at all for Navy, but a twin-engine STOVL wasn't in the cards as an engine failure in vertical mode would be a landing immediately ahead almost regardless of load.

Had they gone for a fleet defense fighter NOT with VTOL capabilities, I'm pretty sure it would have been a twin.

I know it never happens, but they SHOULD let the pilots decide on the next fighter, not the poiticians.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 22, 2017)

davparlr said:


> Sorry, back to an earlier diversion. Neither the F-16 nor the F-18 were wanted by their services, the AF wanted more F-15s and the Navy wanted more F-14s. AF selected the F-16 because it wanted the engine to be the same as the F-15, therefore lowering unit cost of engine. Navy didn't want the F-16, 1) it was an AF bird, and 2) they wanted twin engines for safety (I guess this was unimportant for the F-35!). I'm prejudice here but I don't think the F-16 was a good selection for the AF. Initially, it could only carry AIM 9 due to the lack of an illuminator so it was a VFR Fighter, and sold to Europe as such. In addition, growth space for avionics was very limited, 2 cuft (I think this was measured by filling the fuselage with water and measuring what poured out). Initially (IIRC), the F-16 had severe engine failure problems causing the loss of quite a few aircraft and some pilots. The AF started installing only engines in the F-16 that had been satisfactorily pre-flown in F-15s. Obviously this problem was corrected. The F-16 did not seem to play much of a role in the Persian Gulf War in the air to air role, having very few engagements and only two kills. The F-18 also played only a small part in the air to air role. The F-15 seemed to be king of the air to air fighting.



One significant issue with the rejection of a navalized F-16 was that the F-16 couldn't get to a sufficient angle of attack to meet the USN's approach speed requirements. To do so would require a massive redesign of the landing gear or a significant upsweep of the rear fuselage.


----------

