1 engine vs 2 engine fighters

[billrunnels]

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]

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

 

[BiffF15]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[swampyankee]

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]

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]

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

 

[GregP]

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]

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.

 

[pinehilljoe]

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

 

[gumbyk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Koopernic]

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]

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]

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