1930s/40s: no 2-engined fighters as-designed

[tomo pauk]

For reasons of, perhaps, price, air forces/services of aircraft-producing countries decide they will not do any proposal that will require two engines on an aircraft designed as a fighter, nor that they will accept proposed 2-engined fighter coming as a private venture. What options will be pursued, who might come off better without a 2-engined fighter in production & service?
Note that this does not remove the night fighters that originally were designed as bomber or recons.

 

[Kevin J]

For reasons of, perhaps, price, air forces/services of aircraft-producing countries decide they will not do any proposal that will require two engines on an aircraft designed as a fighter, nor that they will accept proposed 2-engined fighter coming as a private venture. What options will be pursued, who might come off better without a 2-engined fighter in production & service?
Note that this does not remove the night fighters that originally were designed as bomber or recons.

So does that mean that us Brits can keep the Beaufighter and Mosquito?

 

[tomo pauk]

So does that mean that us Brits can keep the Beaufighter and Mosquito?

Mosquito - certainly, it was not designed as a fighter.
Beaufighter was designed as a fighter.

 

[Kevin J]

Mosquito - certainly, it was not designed as a fighter.
Beaufighter was designed as a fighter.

The Beaufighter was a night fighter derivative of a bomber so should be okay.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Beaufighter was a night fighter derivative of a bomber so should be okay.

Beufighter was much more than a gunned-up Beaufort. But, anyway, if you want to go with Beaufighter being just a version of Beufort, go for it - I will not comment on this anymore in this thread.

 

[swampyankee]

Nobody would have really lost anything, except the YFM-1 gave a lot of information about how not to do things

 

[tomo pauk]

Nobody would have really lost anything, except the YFM-1 gave a lot of information about how not to do things

Not that anybody would lost nothing, some countries can gain a lot. Germany for example - no Bf 110 means there is extra ~2300 engines available in 1939 and 1940. Obvious destination for those engines is Bf 109 production, that can mean something like double production of those in 1939-40.
For the British - no Whirlwind (sorry, people) might mean Westland produces Spitfires earlier. The Hornet/Sea Hornet might by a rangy performer with a 2-stage Griffon?
Americans - Kelly Johnson makes a fighter that carries two 37mm cannons that is powered by turboed R-2600, and later switches on turboed R-2800?

 

[Shortround6]

The Americans come out ahead, simply because they have large engines further along in the pipeline.
The Americans and British are also ahead because of better fuel.

The Germans loose the 110 and with it one of their better recon platforms, Unknown in the late 30s, it was also a good light bomber. They also loose any hope of escorting their bombers so yes, you need a lot more 109s to try to make up the difference.

for the British, loss of the Whirlwind means a lot more Lysanders

Kelly Johnson stuffs monster motor into the fuselage and turns duel props with lots of shafts and gears. Like number 2 and 3 in the drawing

Single engine but far from cheap.

Some twin engine fighters were specified that way because some airstaffs thought that twin engine fighters were a class/type of warplane and if their enemies had one then they should have one too. Others, like the P-38, were designed because the specified/desired performance could NOT be achieved with any existing or short term (several years) single engine.

 

[GrauGeist]

Without the demand of the DB601 imposed by the Bf110, there is a good chance that the He100 would have been able to be developed further.

 

[Kevin J]

Without the demand of the DB601 imposed by the Bf110, there is a good chance that the He100 would have been able to be developed further.

Who needs the He 100 when you have the Bf 109F?

 

[Shortround6]

Without the demand of the DB601 imposed by the Bf110, there is a good chance that the He100 would have been able to be developed further.

And won the war for the Allies sooner

 

[Kevin J]

And won the war for the Allies sooner

From what I've read it was a flying sauna with a vulnerable coolant system.

 

[Shortround6]

Basically it was a radiator and fuel tank shaped like an airplane. Very efficient for flight but in combat??????

 

[Kevin J]

Basically it was a radiator and fuel tank shaped like an airplane. Very efficient for flight but in combat??????

I'd still prefer the Bf 109F.

 

[GrauGeist]

By the time of the D-1 version, the He100 had matured to the point where the evaporative system was replaced with a conventional cooling system (retractable dustpan) and an improved horizontal stab.
It also had far better visability with it's cockpit than the 109 and it had twice the combat range of the 109 while maintaining speeds of 400mph in war dress.

The only issue I'd have, is the light armament (one 20mm & two 7.9mm).

 

[tomo pauk]

Basically it was a radiator and fuel tank shaped like an airplane. Very efficient for flight but in combat??????

Perhaps it was more like the actually fast and short-legged Zero?

By the time of the D-1 version, the He100 had matured to the point where the evaporative system was replaced with a conventional cooling system (retractable dustpan) and an improved horizontal stab.
It also had far better visability with it's cockpit than the 109 and it had twice the combat range of the 109 while maintaining speeds of 400mph in war dress.

The only issue I'd have, is the light armament (one 20mm & two 7.9mm).

He 100 carried less fuel than Bf 109E and on - 250 kg vs. 304 - so I'm not sure that range was any better (despite the far better aerodynamics of the He 100). The jury still seems to be out with regard to He 100D actually received the 'classic' cooling.
OTOH - removal of internal cooling anciliaries should leave a lot of space for fuel tankage.

With all that said - how about just more Bf 109Es, half of them receiving drop tank facility for the longer range?

 

[tomo pauk]

The Americans come out ahead, simply because they have large engines further along in the pipeline.
The Americans and British are also ahead because of better fuel.
...
Kelly Johnson stuffs monster motor into the fuselage and turns duel props with lots of shafts and gears. Like number 2 and 3 in the drawing
Single engine but far from cheap.

Some twin engine fighters were specified that way because some airstaffs thought that twin engine fighters were a class/type of warplane and if their enemies had one then they should have one too. Others, like the P-38, were designed because the specified/desired performance could NOT be achieved with any existing or short term (several years) single engine.

There is nothing monster-ish about R-2180A or R-2600.
I'd go for 'classic' prop + engine combination, with turbo behind the pilot.

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps it was more like the actually fast and short-legged Zero?

The Zero at least didn't have the oil cooling system spread out through the upper rear fuselage, large parts of the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical fin.
Add in the fuel tanks in the wings. and the gun bays were in the wing roots (hatches near cockpit in drawing) so the tanks were in the areas behind the landing gear and outboard, beyond break in the rear taper, engine coolant panels were in the front part of the wing outboard of the landing gear.

There was a lot more square footage of "target area" on the He 100 than on the Zero despite the He 100 being a much smaller aircraft.

There is nothing monster-ish about R-2180A or R-2600.

In the land of the Fiat A 74, the HS 12Y, The Bristol Mercury and R-1830 the R-2600 was a monster motor

 

[tomo pauk]

The Zero at least didn't have the oil cooling system spread out through the upper rear fuselage, large parts of the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical fin.
Add in the fuel tanks in the wings. and the gun bays were in the wing roots (hatches near cockpit in drawing) so the tanks were in the areas behind the landing gear and outboard, beyond break in the rear taper, engine coolant panels were in the front part of the wing outboard of the landing gear.
There was a lot more square footage of "target area" on the He 100 than on the Zero despite the He 100 being a much smaller aircraft.

Probably going with annular radiator would've been a boon to the survivability, despite the cost in drag.

In the land of the Fiat A 74, the HS 12Y, The Bristol Mercury and R-1830 the R-2600 was a monster motor

Story was that Johnson/Lockheed were judging that one 1500 HP engine will suffice for the task/role, or 2x1000 HP.
Italians and French (HS, G&R?, Piaggio) were also trying with even big engines, 18 cylinder types.

 

[Dimlee]

USSR.
1. No Pe-2 bomber (since it was an offspring of VI-100 2 engine fighter). Instead, Ar-2 became the only dive bomber and main front line bomber in 1941-1942 before to be partly replaced by Tu-2.

2. No Pe-3/Pe-3bis fighters. Two scenarios here.
Pessimistic: the deficit of recon aircraft and lack of a long-range cover over the sea until 1943 at least. Poor intelligence, more losses at sea.
Optimistic: VVS recognizes the need for long-range single-engine fighters as early as 1940-1941 and press designers accordingly and Yak-9D/DD or similar aircraft appears earlier. Polikarpov's I-185 has more chances to be accepted. Should Soviet designers fail, P-47 is probably given more attention than in real life and ordered in large numbers?

3. More efforts dedicated to single-engine fighters and bombers production in design bureaus of Polikarpov, Tairov, Yakovlev, etc.