1 engine vs 2 engine fighters

Clayton Magnet said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Peter Gunn said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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. )

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.

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

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.

Jon Ellison said:

What about a Hornet?

Click to expand...

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

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?

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

Glider said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Glider said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.