1 engine vs 2 engine fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thorlifter

Captain
7,980
433
Jun 10, 2004
Knoxville, TN
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
For much of the war there were huge domains that were ruled by twin fighters, the North Sea the Atlantic and the dark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
632
wuzak
W
Best piston engine(s) for fighters of 1945?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
12K
spicmart
S
S
WW2 aero engine fuel consumption comparison
Replies
19
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
8K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register