Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With a top speed at mid-level of over 330 mph, was there anything with two engines and two or more crew that was faster in 1939/40? The other twin-engined fighters like the Fokker G.I were slugs by comparison. So we must give Messerschmidt some credit.We can recall that Bf 110 have had a positive exchange (kills/loses) during the BoB. Despite being big and heavy, bigger and heavier than needed.
Point me in their direction pleaseI'm talking about what can be read in the most recent publications, not just dividing the claims with losses.
In 1939/1940, the Luftwaffe were flying the least manoeuverable and the most successful fighters. This included the Bf110. They were using hit and run tactics, and making no effort to dogfight. With an altitude advantage, a Bf110 could engage and break off combat with Hurricanes running at 6-1/4psi. Spitfires were too fast. The only way to break off from a Spitfire is to hope it switches to the bombers you were protecting.I'm talking about what can be read in the most recent publications, not just dividing the claims with losses.
A bit simplistic. No production single seat fighter with a single Allison engine used the turbo, The turbo added several hundred pounds and a number of cubic feet of volume.A twin engined fighter, if well designed to eschew anything but necessary weight gain and extra crewmen should be faster than a single engined fighter. For example, is there any fighter powered by a single Allison V-1710 that's faster than a P-38 powered by two? The only twin engined, single-seat fighter powered by the Merlin is the post-war DH Hornet. If we made the DH Hornet in 1939 using the early Merlin, can we outpace 1939's Spitfire or Hurricane? Otherwise I don't see the point. As the P-51 shows, if you want longer range, you needn't add an engine.
I don't want to turn this into another Whirlwind thread but...................Somebody (or more than one?) wanted to cancel the Whirlwind because it used two engines, not one. Fair enough except that the plane they wanted to replace the Hurricane (and Spitfire) with used 24 cylinder engines, not 12 cylinder engines. It also used larger wing, and it weighed over 9,500-10,500lbsWhy use 2 engines when 1 can do the job? One propeller to purchase and maintain. This can be extended to all the auxiliary systems such as fuel. Double the maintenance. Less pilot training, very important when your air force is expanding at a breakneck pace. The number of pilots qualified to teach how to fly a high performance twin in the 1930s was tiny. A smaller, more agile aircraft, rate of roll of twins is slower.
Books by J. Vasco are pretty recent. Eg. from herePoint me in their direction please
Except for V-1710-143 (very ltd) which powered F-82E and Subsequent. It was a derivative of the -119 so may have been kit mod.Johnson and Kartveli didn't have any input into the design of the V-1710, in fact Kartveli didn't use the V-1710 in his aircraft. The 2,000 HP V-1710G series were a post war development that was never installed in a P-38.
The USAAF actually preferred the V-1650. The V-1710 was the only major US engine that that saw a reduction in production in 1944 when all the others showed increases. The V-1710 was cancelled shortly after VE day while the V-1650 remained in production until after VJ day
Well yes, that's what I'm getting out. A twin-engined, single-seat fighter only makes sense if it can get more out of two engines than a single-engined fighter can get out of one. Otherwise, it's a waste of an additional engine. And that's what the Lightning accomplished, taking an engine that single-engined fighters could not maximize and by using two of them in a bespoke design to make a superlative aircraft.A bit simplistic. No production single seat fighter with a single Allison engine used the turbo, The turbo added several hundred pounds and a number of cubic feet of volume.
200 gals of fuel in the XP-39 might've probably gave the same endurance like what the XP- and YP-38s has with 400 galsThe P-38 was designed to give to give the same performance as the P-39 (or what would become the P-39) except do it for twice as long ( 2 hours of endurance instead of 1).
Granted, the 1st 'military grade' 2-stage V-1710s were lacking wrt. altitude power, perhaps mimicking what the 1-stage fully rated DB 605A was good for? The P-38J was supposed to do 1425 HP at 25000 ft, and even 1600 in WER at that altitude.The P-63 got a two stage supercharger, it also got a 2 ft longer fuselage to hold it. It also got a new wing (new airfoil) and it it makes comparing it to a P-38 rather hard. The P-63 had a more modern airfoil than the P-38. They used water injection instead of an intercooler that crossed over with the P-38 power plant. The P-63 could make around 1800hp at sea level instead of the 1500hp (about) that the P-38J could do in fall 1943. However in the thinner air (less drag) above 20,000ft the P-63 was making a bit under 1200hp while the P-38J engines were good for about 1300hp to 25,000.
P-63 also truly sucked at fuel capacity. 126 US gallons internal doesn't get much further than a Spitfire with a high HP engine.
Now shoving a pair of Merlin IIIs into a single seat fighter but doubling the fuel per engine might not give you any better speed than the Spitfire. UNLESS you also used a thin wing a few other tricks. Which makes it hard to fit in over 300 imp gals of fuel.
I think you are missing the point. While the basic engine was the same the powerplant/s were different. Unlike a two stage Merlin where the single engine and twin engined planes used pretty much the same engine/power plant the turbo Allisons (and turbo Radials) had quite a bit of extra stuff in the powerplant that added weight and bulk.Well yes, that's what I'm getting out. A twin-engined, single-seat fighter only makes sense if it can get more out of two engines than a single-engined fighter can get out of one. Otherwise, it's a waste of an additional engine. And that's what the Lightning accomplished, taking an engine that single-engined fighters could not maximize and by using two of them in a bespoke design to make a superlative aircraft.
Let's compared apples to apples then. Were the single-engine turbo Allison aircraft above faster than a P-38?Curtiss XP-60A with turbo Allison.
View attachment 798538
Maybe not the best example of packaging.
The 'same' airframe with a Packard 28.
View attachment 798539
There is a LOT of extra fuselage hiding the turbo parts/accessories.
Which makes comparing turbo and non turbo planes using the same basic engines very difficult.
We may run into the planned operational endurance vs the ferry range endurance/fuel capacity.200 gals of fuel in the XP-39 might've probably gave the same endurance like what the XP- and YP-38s has with 400 gals
I used the tested performance of a below standard (book?) example from here.Granted, the 1st 'military grade' 2-stage V-1710s were lacking wrt. altitude power, perhaps mimicking what the 1-stage fully rated DB 605A was good for? The P-38J was supposed to do 1425 HP at 25000 ft, and even 1600 in WER at that altitude.
Well, you might have been able to find room for the fuel, But the P-63A went just under 9000lbs clean so adding 300lbs of fuel plus tanks just to get it to a Mustang without rear tank isn't going to do it any favorsBell really sucked in making the most of the P-63s wing, leaving a lot of volume free by the time USAAF was eager to have long range fighters in numbers, and even the HMG didn't fit in. All of that despite the wing of generous area and thickness, and a lot information about what can be packed in a wing if one wants it.
S Shortround6 - I'm also trying not to turn this into Whirlwind rehash, but:Doubling the fuel per engine installed vs. a Spitfire (= ~350 imp gals for a 2-engined fighter) was not in the cards for the RAF's fighter until well, well into ww2.
Not that it can't be done, since the twins - especially the 1-seaters taildraggers designed around 1000+ HP engines - have generous space in both fuselage and in the wings.
I don't want to turn this into another Whirlwind thread but...................Somebody (or more than one?) wanted to cancel the Whirlwind because it used two engines, not one. Fair enough except that the plane they wanted to replace the Hurricane (and Spitfire) with used 24 cylinder engines, not 12 cylinder engines.
The Whirlwind had terrible range for a twin. Move the radiators and fill the void with fuel. But the new rads will add to drag and speed loss.Perhaps because the Whirlwind had the wrong engine.
Well, you might have been able to find room for the fuel, But the P-63A went just under 9000lbs clean so adding 300lbs of fuel plus tanks just to get it to a Mustang without rear tank isn't going to do it any favors
The P-63 was a hot rod at low altitude but the extra stage didn't do what was needed in 1944.
This is getting off topic but I don't know if that's the wisest choice. The only belt-fed 20 mm the US had at their disposal was the AN/M2 - a hilariously unreliable gun. The 37 mm M4 and subsequent M10 were not bad they just lacked muzzle velocity, something the M9 version tried to fix with a longer barrel and bigger, longer round (37x223 I think?). IIRC the M9 had a MV of 3,000 f/s or about 910 m/s.While we're at it, replace the 37mm gun with 20mm belt-fed gun.
Just give the things to the Russians or empty some .45s into the engines on the airfield/s. Save the pilots and some fuel.Remove the wing guns' installation, together with the ammo, and there is the weight allowance.
While we're at it, replace the 37mm gun with 20mm belt-fed gun.
They managed to to get the gun in the P-38 to work fairly well. Not great but few, if anyone, was yanking the 20mm out and replacing it with a 5th .50 cal?This is getting off topic but I don't know if that's the wisest choice. The only belt-fed 20 mm the US had at their disposal was the AN/M2 - a hilariously unreliable gun. The 37 mm M4 and subsequent M10 were not bad they just lacked muzzle velocity, something the M9 version tried to fix with a longer barrel and bigger, longer round (37x223 I think?). IIRC the M9 had a MV of 3,000 f/s or about 910 m/s.
What I would suggest is dropping the wing guns and attempting to mate the M9 to the M10's link system. The extra weight of the M9/10 would be compensated for by the removal of the wing guns and the centre-of-gravity would be much better.