A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Wetted area is far more important than frontal area for subsonic aircraft. That said, a side-by-side aircraft may have significantly more frontal area, and, depending on fineness ratio (roughly, length over square root of cross-sectional area) and avoidance of separation, may have more wetted area.

That said, I think that it's more likely that tactical considerations (including getting out of a damaged aircraft) likely make tandems more attractive for military aircraft, regardless of minor differences in drag. Given the limits on engines available in the Fulmar's time frame, I'm not sure how much better a two-seater that fits all the specifications could be.
 
swampyankee said:
Given the limits on engines available in the Fulmar's time frame, I'm not sure how much better a two-seater that fits all the specifications could be.
Click to expand...
How about something like this?





Let's remember the man in the back is there to observe, radio operate and navigate. He doesn't need a ton of internal space like a Bf 110.
 
Can we "cheat" and offer 2 engines foreign design?
Let's cooperate with Fokker.
Twin boom with large rear canopy for the observer... let him observe with comfort.
Fokker G.1.
Range/speed/climb rate - all is better. Larger wingspan but the wing can be made folded?
 
Last edited:
Dimlee said:
Can we "cheat" and offer 2 engines foreign design?
Let's cooperate with Fokker.
Click to expand...
I'm game. But my favourite Fokker for the FAA has to be the D.XXIII.


A two seat variant with two Merlins should do the trick. But we must prevent the rear prop striking the deck or eviscerating those tasked with releasing the hook.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
How about something like this?


View attachment 618988

Let's remember the man in the back is there to observe, radio operate and navigate. He doesn't need a ton of internal space like a Bf 110.
Click to expand...

From Wiki
"The Bf 109 G-12 was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109. This was a conversion of "war-weary" or rebuilt G-4 and G-6 airframes;[85][89] the space needed for the second cockpit was gained by reducing the internal fuel capacity to only 240 L (60 US gal) meaning that the 300 L (80 US gal) drop tank was employed as standard equipment. This version was rarely armed with anything more than one or two cowling machine guns.[90] The rear cockpit canopy was bowed out to give the instructor, who sat behind the student pilot in an armoured seat, a clearer view. The rear cockpit was also equipped with a basic instrument panel and all flight controls.[91]

Bolding by me.
Two seat conversion trainers are not two seat fighters and are certainly not reconnaissance aircraft.
 
re the D.XXIII

I think the lines between the main gear wheels and the skids under the aft end of the booms would prevent the prop from striking the deck. Designing a reliable arrestor hook arrangement that would not be struck by the prop might be a problem though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
Single seat F-82?
Replies
2
Views
904
Admiral Beez
A
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
wuzak
W
What if: a de Havilland single seat, single piston engine fighter for World War II
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register