1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'

Zmauky said:

the Dutch Fokker DXXI

Click to expand...

Did you perhaps mean the Fokker G.1?

And the IJA's KI-96 had alot of potential.

GreenKnight121 said:

The P-61 was a heavy night-fighter with a 2-3 man crew (pilot, radar operator, optional gunner).
To dispense with the gunner the dorsal 4 x .50 mg turret would be locked to fire directly forward.

Perhaps you meant the P-82 Twin Mustang?

Click to expand...

GrauGeist said:

Did you perhaps mean the Fokker G.1?

And the IJA's KI-96 had alot of potential.

Click to expand...

In fact, it should have been written P-38 (I should read what I'm writing ), and not for the Fokker G I because it was not a single-seat fighter but a multi-seat destroyer concept (like the Bf 110).
F-82 yes .. it would fall into that category (regardless of the two pilots). Even though the F7F is better known in its two-seater NF variants, it was designed as a single-seater.
That's why I didn't include Mosquito either.

Admittedly, in the spirit of the thread, the idea is about a larger number of two-engined fighters towards single-engined fighters. Now, fighter, interceptor, destroyer, night fighter ... are not just different words for the same thing - we here know the finesse and differences in meaning.

So we need to exclude missions for which twin-engine (multi seat with best engines) fighters are needed - say night fighters and long range fighter-bombers (read eg Mosquito FB 6 and maybe Beaufighter).

And here it seems to me that there are two possibilities for Tom's (wiff) idea.

The first is as small an airplane as possible, barely larger than the first line of fighters (Spitfire, for example, because the Bf 109 and its size will give us the wrong size measure ), so at most, for example, Whirlwind or Fokker XXIII, which would not use engines that are better used in single-engine fighters, but still have top performance. The already mentioned Fokker XXIII with, say, RR Kestrel or Jumo 210 (so 400-500 hp more) would have not respectable but exceptional performance. (and outperform the average DXXI so much that it is better to produce it than the DXXI) If I'm not mistaken, I think that Fokker had projects for those two engines. The Polish Wilk (in the single-seater version and with engines approx. 700 hp) could fit in there.

Another possibility is to use first line of the most powerful engines used by single-engine fighters. Only the USA could afford it (with the P-38). The Luftwaffe tried the Bf 110, but it was a concept of the '30s, so a large multi-seat multi-purpose plane - like the aforementioned Fokker GI. From our time position, it would certainly have been better if they had used the FW 189 as a long-range fighter, and the role of the Bf 110 (as a night fighter and bomber fighter) could have been taken over by the Bf 162.
Now if you were to ask me , I would put the Jumo 211 or even better improved Avia 1000 (licensed Y12 from the Czechoslovakia ) on it (and save DB 601/605 for Fw 189).

At the main altitudes of aerial combat it was superior to other Soviet day fighters (with the exception of the I-185) in 1941 in terms of overall performance. Surprisingly, for some reason there were no complaints about the performance and reliability of the M-89 engines installed on this fighter.

Addendum. There were still complaints about the work of M-89. But the airplane passed the tests and was ready for serial production.

Oh yes, the Tairov (along with the DIS / MiG-5) are nice examples of the "P-38" category, unfortunately the CCCP had other more priority needs.


Otherwise, I don't know if it's OK to send a link because of copyright, but the book is over 25 years old and archive.org is not exactly a pirate site, but if it's not OK, please delete the post.



"Двухмоторные Истребители 1930 1945" is a nice summary and illustration of our topic. And is worth even for photos and drawings.

Zmauky said:

unfortunately the CCCP had other more priority needs.

Click to expand...

The problem was rather in the voluntaristic Soviet management.

I would recommend more recent publications - primarily Oleg Rastrenin's articles. In my opinion, he is the most accurate and least politicized contemporary Russian aviation historian.


There is also such a book in English:

Regarding the Soviet 2-engine types, several were promising but hardly could be competitive with domestic engines.
Ta-3, DIS-200(MiG-5), TIS, and VI-100 but with Western engines could have a better future. Probably, even Yakovlev's 2-engine models of 1939-1941.

Do 335 was not mentioned yet? Assuming that the overheating problems were resolved.

well ... The Do 335 was, undoubtedly, very fast, and in one of the prototypes they crammed 2 large 30 mm mk 103 and in the other radars, but the fact is that it had a bomb bay (they used it to cram more tanks) so I would declare him a hunter ... out of necessity. And even more at that time, the production of bombers for the Luftwaffe stopped so ....

Dimlee said:

Do 335 was not mentioned yet? Assuming that the overheating problems were resolved.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate about the overheating problems?

Zmauky said:

Admittedly, in the spirit of the thread, the idea is about a larger number of two-engined fighters towards single-engined fighters. Now, fighter, interceptor, destroyer, night fighter ... are not just different words for the same thing - we here know the finesse and differences in meaning.

So we need to exclude missions for which twin-engine (multi seat with best engines) fighters are needed

Click to expand...

The "spirit of the thread" is twin-engined day fighters.

And a two-seat heavy fighter is just exactly that, a fighter. It's purpose, when conceived, was long range escort and bomber interception, which in the 1930's, required a radioman/navigator. Adding a flexible-mount MG for the RO was a plus.

Tomo never stipulated crew placement when he started the thread.

Since we are talking about twin engine fighters from 1937 to 1945, what about the Supermarine Type 327?

Its predecessor, the Type 324, was a competitor for the F.18/37 specification, which was won by the Hawker Tornado/Typhoon.

The Type 327 was a deeloped concept that replaced the 12 x 0.303" mgs with 6 x 20mm cannon. It was powered by 2 x Merlin XX.

It lost out to the Beaufighter!

It was basically the size of the Typhoon, so less span than the Whirlwind, but quite a bit heavier.

Neve built, of course, but would have been interesting competition.

Admiral Beez said:

If we swapped out all (or some) the Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1939-40 with something equal to the P-38G of 1943, then sure. There's nothing inherently wrong with twin-engined fighters, provided they keep or exceed the power-to-weight ratio, high wing loading, top speed and rate of climb of the opposing single-engined fighters. Any deficits in low speed agility should be made up with advantages in top speed and heavier armament.

View attachment 796230

The Mk.2 Spitfire of 1939-40 had a 1,175 horsepower Merlin XII engine. So, let's put two of these into a single-seat P-38 equivalent, with the best British superchargers then available. As it was, we did not see the British put two Merlins into an operational single-seat fighter until the postwar DH Hornet. I'd stay away from the Westland Welkin high altitude interceptor concept - we need the ability to mix with Bf 109s and Fw 190s. Maybe we should start here:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2tOq0qmNXI

Click to expand...

I'd love to see a Merlin-powered P-38, but in 1940-1941, and even beyond. I think the Brits are wanting a lot of fighters. Going on engines alone, you'll get twice as many Spitfires as Lightnings. Against that is that the Brits will be relying on American export direction. So maybe fewer airframes. Do you keep those Merlins sitting around awaiting P-38 frames, or do you pump out Spits?

I'm not sure we'd release many, even the neutered variety we LLed the British. They made the right decision to expand upon the Spitfire. As elegant and deadly as that fighter was, a quality not often noticed about it is its sheer growth potential. In choosing between awaiting the next tranche of P-38s, or getting the Spit rolling at volume, I think the Air Ministry chose well. Not because a twin-Merlin P-38 would be bad, but because if it's not available they get to build two Spits.

British didn't have quite enough Merlins at was in 1940 and the short fall was only going to get worse in 1941 and a lot worse in 1942.
Kind of the reason for whole deal with Packard
French and British ordered a lot of fighters, but then they expected France to last a bit longer and by a bit I mean more than a few more weeks.
Lockheed built ONE P-38 in 1940, In September. In 1941 they built
Jan..............1
Feb.............0
Mar............2
April...........4
May............4
June...........4
July..........23
By the end of the year they had built 207, They were building the -Es and in Aug they had delivered the first 322 at the factory,
changes to the -E model dropped production to 3 in Oct but Nov saw 74 planes built.

Now perhaps the British could have specified Merlin engines back in March/April of 1940 and sent over a few engines to get them started on how to fit them in?
Packard delivered 19 engines by the end of Nov 1941.

P-38 powered by MK I Defiant engines?

Could a P-38 have been made smaller and lighter?

Thinking 45-46ft wing span vs 52ft for the actual P-38.

Would you have to ditch the turbos to make lighter weight a possibility?

wuzak said:

Could a P-38 have been made smaller and lighter?

Thinking 45-46ft wing span vs 52ft for the actual P-38.

Would you have to ditch the turbos to make lighter weight a possibility?

Click to expand...

They were actually thinking bigger.
The XP-58 was to be a "super" version of the P-38, powered by Allison's experimental V-3420 engines.

The P-58's wingspan was 70 feet (21.3m), just to give you an idea of it's size.

wuzak said:

Could a P-38 have been made smaller and lighter?
Thinking 45-46ft wing span vs 52ft for the actual P-38.
Would you have to ditch the turbos to make lighter weight a possibility?

Click to expand...

The turbo-less Lightning I was lighter than the P-38, due to lacking the turboes (doh). Remove the cannon, replace it with the HMG. Clip the wings a bit?

Thumpalumpacus said:

I'd love to see a Merlin-powered P-38, but in 1940-1941, and even beyond. I think the Brits are wanting a lot of fighters. Going on engines alone, you'll get twice as many Spitfires as Lightnings. Against that is that the Brits will be relying on American export direction. So maybe fewer airframes. Do you keep those Merlins sitting around awaiting P-38 frames, or do you pump out Spits?

I'm not sure we'd release many, even the neutered variety we LLed the British. They made the right decision to expand upon the Spitfire. As elegant and deadly as that fighter was, a quality not often noticed about it is its sheer growth potential. In choosing between awaiting the next tranche of P-38s, or getting the Spit rolling at volume, I think the Air Ministry chose well. Not because a twin-Merlin P-38 would be bad, but because if it's not available they get to build two Spits.

Click to expand...

If bomber interception is the mission you are doubling the fuel consumption per mission, which with the fuel situation in 1940 is not a good idea.
To justify a twin merlin for the interception role it must be twice as effective per mission (ie double the kills) for the same expenditure of resources.

I think I stand by my statement that the Do 335 was designed (bomb bay) and intended as a schnellbomber. Given that the all of the literature is out of reach, I cannot confirm (unless we count the wiki), although no one can say whether and how successful he would have been as a fighter. And it is not strange that the devil eats flies in the needs, as the saying goes.

Actually, I always like a conversation where I can learn something (or find out that I'm wrong ), but I understood that we were trying to find ...

tomo pauk said:

so this is me playing the devil's advocate: making the case for the beligerents to make even more of them.

Click to expand...

And back to the discussion...

The P-322 (turboless P-38) was rejected by the British and the USAAF only used it at home as a training plane - because it was simply not good enough.

And the Merlin on the P-38 ... if I'm not mistaken, there is a rather long thread here and the conclusion was that the Alison+ turbo is almost the same as with Merlin. Now the never produced K model ( + wing root changes + ...) is something else.

tomo pauk said:

Care to elaborate about the overheating problems?

Click to expand...

I noticed that the overheating of the aft engine was mentioned in several materials dedicated to Do 335.

Zmauky said:

I think I stand by my statement that the Do 335 was designed (bomb bay) and intended as a schnellbomber. Given that the all of the literature is out of reach, I cannot confirm (unless we count the wiki), although no one can say whether and how successful he would have been as a fighter. And it is not strange that the devil eats flies in the needs, as the saying goes.

Actually, I always like a conversation where I can learn something (or find out that I'm wrong ), but I understood that we were trying to find ...



And back to the discussion...

The P-322 (turboless P-38) was rejected by the British and the USAAF only used it at home as a training plane - because it was simply not good enough.

And the Merlin on the P-38 ... if I'm not mistaken, there is a rather long thread here and the conclusion was that the Alison+ turbo is almost the same as with Merlin. Now the never produced K model ( + wing root changes + ...) is something else.

Click to expand...

The P-322 was for a French order for hundreds of them and the reason for the non-turbo engines and their non-handedness was that the engines would be the same as those used on the Hawk81s ordered as well. A logistical simplicity. The RAF took on those in the pipeline already but found them unsatisfactory as delivered and wanted no more and spent their money on Hawk81 Tomahawks to replace the Lysanders in Army C-operation Command initially. A better use of the money and engines.

Pre lend lease, whilst British capital was being siphoned off to the USA. One consequence being one part of the reduction of the British civilian food rations post war to a lower level than during the war with no US dollar reserves to purchase US grain etc.