Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
Rate of climb. The Spitfire was much better. Rate of climb is extremely important in the interceptor role.
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
Isn't that like saying my dishwasher is a terrible oven.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- Dec 6, 2006
That makes no sense
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 740
- Mar 16, 2014
The Spit was great as a bomber-interceptor - its prime role in late 1940.
The Spit was also great as a dog-fighter over & moderately near its immediate airbase, but not for operations very far away.
The P-51 was a substitute for the requested low-altitude fighter-bomber (P-40).
The P-51 was modified into a very good dogfighter and high-altitude long-range escort fighter.
Two rather different design criteria and operational use sets make for different designs.
So yes - one was NOT like the other.
The Spit was also great as a dog-fighter over & moderately near its immediate airbase, but not for operations very far away.
The P-51 was a substitute for the requested low-altitude fighter-bomber (P-40).
The P-51 was modified into a very good dogfighter and high-altitude long-range escort fighter.
Two rather different design criteria and operational use sets make for different designs.
So yes - one was NOT like the other.
Shortround6
Major General
Can we please, please, please stop with this myth.
1. At the time the British accepted the North American proposal NO P-40 was fitted (actually planed to hold, there were no production P-40s) for more than six 30lb bombs.
2. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) NO P-40 was fitted for more than six 30lb bombs.
3. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) P-40Cs were being fitted for a belly drop tank, but not a bomb under the fuselage.
4. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) The P-40D/E was in the planning stage..........and they were planed to carry up to six 30lb bombs but NO under fuselage bomb.
5. At the the time Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) The P-40D/E was in the planning stage....and both planes used the Alllison -39 engine which was the best high altitude engine Allison could make at the time without using a turbo. The fact that it wasn't as good as post Merlin III or as good as the DB601 N doesn't matter. That was as good as the Allison was going to get for another 2 years,
6. Even the summer of 1941 pilots manual for the P-40D/E makes no mention of hanging a large bomb under the fuselage. They did it but that was later.
Also please note that the British P-40 and Mustang requests dated to before the fall of France let alone the BoB so the fact that the American planes were not as capable at high altitude wasn't as important as it would be in the fall of 1940. And even low altitude fighters beats no fighters.
Tomahawks with bombs don't show up in action (field mod) until late 1941 or early 1942.
Now by the time the Mustangs show up in quantity in England the P-40s are being used as fighter bombers in North Africa but that is around 2 years after the "requests" were made.
The P-40 (modified P-36) was a 1935 airframe, the P-51 was a 1940 airframe.
Granted things overlap a bit but...............
1. At the time the British accepted the North American proposal NO P-40 was fitted (actually planed to hold, there were no production P-40s) for more than six 30lb bombs.
2. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) NO P-40 was fitted for more than six 30lb bombs.
3. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) P-40Cs were being fitted for a belly drop tank, but not a bomb under the fuselage.
4. At the time the Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) The P-40D/E was in the planning stage..........and they were planed to carry up to six 30lb bombs but NO under fuselage bomb.
5. At the the time Mustang first flew (fall of 1940) The P-40D/E was in the planning stage....and both planes used the Alllison -39 engine which was the best high altitude engine Allison could make at the time without using a turbo. The fact that it wasn't as good as post Merlin III or as good as the DB601 N doesn't matter. That was as good as the Allison was going to get for another 2 years,
6. Even the summer of 1941 pilots manual for the P-40D/E makes no mention of hanging a large bomb under the fuselage. They did it but that was later.
Also please note that the British P-40 and Mustang requests dated to before the fall of France let alone the BoB so the fact that the American planes were not as capable at high altitude wasn't as important as it would be in the fall of 1940. And even low altitude fighters beats no fighters.
Tomahawks with bombs don't show up in action (field mod) until late 1941 or early 1942.
Now by the time the Mustangs show up in quantity in England the P-40s are being used as fighter bombers in North Africa but that is around 2 years after the "requests" were made.
The P-40 (modified P-36) was a 1935 airframe, the P-51 was a 1940 airframe.
If I may just pull this back on topic, would the Arado Ar 440 be eligible for this discussion?
It was brought to my attention on the War Thunder forums about a year ago and seems to be an absolute beast of a twin - comfortably within the tier 1 category of twin fighters along the likes of the Hornet, F7F, Ki-83, P-82, P-38K and post-war I.Ae. 30 - that was only cancelled because the Do 335 was prioritized instead.
This is just speculation, but the more conventional Ar 440 might've been ready for production earlier than the Pfiel with less teething issues. Although this might be a biased take from me as I loathe the Do 335 as an aircraft.
It was brought to my attention on the War Thunder forums about a year ago and seems to be an absolute beast of a twin - comfortably within the tier 1 category of twin fighters along the likes of the Hornet, F7F, Ki-83, P-82, P-38K and post-war I.Ae. 30 - that was only cancelled because the Do 335 was prioritized instead.
This is just speculation, but the more conventional Ar 440 might've been ready for production earlier than the Pfiel with less teething issues. Although this might be a biased take from me as I loathe the Do 335 as an aircraft.
My heart is broken.
- Thread starter
- #168
Both the 240 and 440 IMO - so why not.
The 240A seems to be a more ... ballanced design than the 240C, due to the lighter engines and more manageable wing loading. Wing area was in the ballpark of what the P-38 had. Delete the turrets now that we're at it, as it was the intent for the 440?
Seems a better place for Germany to invest pairs of DB 601s/605s than the Me 210, and should be much earlier than the Ta 154. Should also do reasonably well with the late Jumo 211s.
The 440 will be indeed a beast, with heavy and very powerful engines on a small wing - it was supposed to weight a lot more than even the latest P-38s.
Shortround6
Major General
An awful lot more.......
Even the 240B weighed as much empty equipped as P-38G did with 300 US gallons and full ammo (720lbs for the ammo)
The the time you get to the 440 the Arado weighes about as much as one clean loaded P-38G does towing another P-38G with empty tanks and no ammo.
An Ar 440 at normal loaded weight has the wing loading of a B-29 at just under 124,000lbs.
Granted the Ar 440 may have the strength to pull high Gs without breaking but calling it a fighter is pushing things.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Were the props on the Do 335 counter rotating? I always imagine the plane slowly rotating on its yaw axis as flew.
They weren't counter-rotating per se, both spun clockwise. It's just the orientation of the two engines that caused them to even out.
Admiral Beez
Major
A single-seat twin-Centaurus fighter would have been interesting to see. Keep the engines of the below Bristol Brigand but shrink the rest down >25%.
Was there any twin fighter considered for the Centaurus?
Was there any twin fighter considered for the Centaurus?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Perhaps the Henschel Hs127 could have been modified into a heavy fighter?
wuzak
Captain
Not sure, but since the Centaurus was slow in development it may not have.
The first fighter to use the Centaurus, the Hawker Tempest II, did not enter service until November 1945.
The first production Tempest II flew in Oct 1944 & the next in Dec 1944, coming from the Bristol production line.
183 and 247 squadrons at Chilbolton re-equipped with them in Aug 1945. No 183 was renumbered as 54 squadron on 15 Nov 1945.
The Centaurus engined Firebrand TF.IV entered front line service with 813 squadron when it reformed on 1 Sept 1945.
Admiral Beez
Major
We can still make the 1945 cutoff for a twin Centaurus fighter. But I'm not interested in the flawed concept of the multi-seat heavy fighter, but instead I want a single-seat, twin-engined fighter of the P-38 or (single-seat variants) F7F's ilk, one that can use that double power-plant to overpower its single-engined competitors.
There were a few twin Centaurus aircraft flying by 1945, such as Bristol's Buckmaster and Buckingham. No fighters, but this is still a start. Gloster Reaper (first flight April 1939) aside, if we can get to work we'll have the first single-seat, radial-powered twin fighter since the IMAM Ro.57 (first flight July 1939).
Last edited:
