DBII
Senior Master Sergeant
The poll is for fighters but the Mosquito keeps poping up. Since the Mosquito and B-25 are both twin engine medium bombers, I was wondering everone thoughts. May be a poll for a later time.
DBII
DBII
Best Twin-engined fighter
- Thread starter Njaco
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I got on a role there naming off jets, didn't I?
koll kitty89 said:
Yeah I must have forgotten that...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Mosquito had many roles, including night-fighter and fighter-bomber. Both would fit the "fighter" catigory. Anyway, in the bomber role the Mossie was more of a fast-bomber or light bomber than a medium bomber.
I agree though, the P-38 would ceartainly win in a dogfight.
I agree though, the P-38 would ceartainly win in a dogfight.
I think it's funy some people voted the Whirlwind as in the best of my knowledge, it never performed well because of the underpowered engines. A claim that it would have been brilliant if it was equiped with Merlins isn't valid according to the question. If the question is about how good it would have been if, then I vote for the G.I as Fokker wanted to equip it with Merlins, too and it would have been a plane as versatile and fast as the Mossie, long before the latter would have entered service.
But I think the P-38 was the best plane in actual used configuration.
But I think the P-38 was the best plane in actual used configuration.
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
Marcel, Westland Whirlwind Fighter
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
None the less,
The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese planes in the Pacific Theater than any other USAAF fighter. Came in third behind the F6F and the F4U.
Rich
The P-38 was credited with destroying more Japanese planes in the Pacific Theater than any other USAAF fighter. Came in third behind the F6F and the F4U.
Rich
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I always liked the looks of the Westland Whirlwind also. Really pugnacious looking with those engines jutting out there. I doubt though the Merlin would have worked in the Whirlwind without extensive redesign. The merlin was a heavy and large engine. If I recall correctly it weighed 450 lbs more than the V1710 Allison.
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
Allison V-1710 - Weight 1,595 lbs
Griffon - Weight 2,000 lbs
Merlin - Weight 1,690 lbs
Unlimited Excitement Home Page
Griffon - Weight 2,000 lbs
Merlin - Weight 1,690 lbs
Unlimited Excitement Home Page
drgondog
Major
I didn't dive into this one early because I wasn't sure what the 'best' definition encompassed... and Chris purposely left off Me 262.
Of all the ones listed the P-38 has to be in top 2, the Do 335 would have been interesting to see in an exhaustive evaluation as 'next gen' and I would have to nominate F7F based on the raves I heard from the pilots that flew it in contrast to F6F and F8F.
But for pure demonstrated 'fighter', with track record, on the list, the 38 seems a clear choice. Would have been interesting the see a complete flight profile test comparison between Mossie, P-38L/M, Do 335 and F7F.
Of all the ones listed the P-38 has to be in top 2, the Do 335 would have been interesting to see in an exhaustive evaluation as 'next gen' and I would have to nominate F7F based on the raves I heard from the pilots that flew it in contrast to F6F and F8F.
But for pure demonstrated 'fighter', with track record, on the list, the 38 seems a clear choice. Would have been interesting the see a complete flight profile test comparison between Mossie, P-38L/M, Do 335 and F7F.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
How much did the Peregrine I weigh though?
I also agree that the Merlin probably wouldn't work, I think it's too large for the fit, as well as too heavy (the 1710 might have worked size wise, but it was still heavy compared to the peregrine and was not domestically produced). Remember, the Whirlwind was light for a heavy fighter, lighter than the Meteor actually (about 10,400 lbs loaded, 11,400 lbs max) and was only slightly larger than the Hurricane and actually had a lower frontal area. If work on the Peregrine had continued it could have been made more reliable and powerful (maby more than 1000 hp) and maby a second supercharger could be added for altitude performance (like in later merlins), but the Merlin was of higher priority. Pluss the Whirlwind still had altitude problems (due to the Perigrine's low critical altitude) and short range for a heavy fighter. Though in the early stages of the war it was faster than the Spit, and the firepowere, was virtually unmatched, but lack of reliable or even available engines doomed it.
quote: "the Merlin had become much more important to the war effort and the Peregrine was relegated to a secondary status. Soon the engine was cancelled outright and since much of the performance of the Whirlwind depended on the careful streamlining around that specific engine, there was little choice but to cancel the aircraft as well."
Though with that high tail and the engine placement, it might have been possible to fit some Welland turbojets on it, they were small and light enough. (though the landing gear would still need to be redesigned, and the range would be even shorter, though still reasonable for an interceptor, and external tanks could help) Though jets would certainly solve the altitude problem.
The bubble canopy was also a nice feature which was ahead of its time, the lightning was the only other production craft at the time with one (the Gloster F.5/34 also had one but was cancelled).
It also had a veryy clean airframe and good aerodynamics. It could go 360 mph, and had good low-altitude performance. The range was somewhat inadequate for escort at ~800 miles and a combat radius of under 300 mi.
quote: "The resulting design was quite small, only slightly larger than the Hurricane in overall size, but smaller in terms of frontal area. All of the wheels fully retracted and the entire aircraft was very "clean" with few openings or protuberances. Careful attention to streamlining and two 885 hp Peregrine engines powered it to over 360 mph (580 km/h), the same speed as the latest single-engine fighters, using much higher-powered engines. The speed quickly garnered it the nick-name Crikey.
The first prototype (L6844) flew on 11 October 1938 with production starting early the next year. It exhibited excellent handling and was very easy to fly at all speeds. The only exception was landing, which was all too fast. Fowler flaps were added to correct for this problem, which also required the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) to be moved up, out of the way of the disturbed air flow when the flaps were down. Hopes were so high for the design that it remained "top secret" for much of its development, although it had already been mentioned in the French press."
Though there was a proposal for a redesign with Merlin engines:
"Westland argued for the creation of the Mk II model using two Merlin engines, but by this time the role was becoming less important. As Bomber Command turned to night bomber missions the need for an escort fighter became less important. By 1940, the Supermarine Spitfire was mounting 20 mm cannons, so the "cannon-armed" specification was also being met. The main qualities the RAF were looking for in a twin was range and ordnance load (to allow for the carriage of radar), which the Bristol Beaufighter could do just as well as the Whirlwind."
Another comment: "No better proof of the Whirlwind's quality can be given than the fact that in the intense combat conditions of Northern Europe, a squadron flew the same fighter mark (not just the same fighter type but the same airframes) for three years. When No. 263 Squadron received its first Whirlwind, the newest Spitfire in service was the Mk IA; by the time it gave them up, the Mk XIV was a month away from entering service. If the Whirlwind had been a "bad" aircraft, it never would have served with Fighter Command for that length of time. A second Whirlwind squadron, No. 137, flew the type from September 1941 until June 1943."
From: Westland Whirlwind (fighter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"(An appraisal
Philip J.R. Moyes notes in Aircraft in Profile 94: The Westland Whirlwind, "The basic feature of the Whirlwind was its concentration of firepower: its four closely-grouped heavy cannon in the nose had a rate of fire of 600 lb./minute – which, until the introduction of the Beaufighter, placed it ahead of any fighter in the world. Hand in hand with this dense firepower went a first-rate speed and climb performance, excellent manoeuvrablity and a fighting view hitherto unsurpassed. The Whirlwind was, in its day, faster than the Spitfire down low and, with lighter lateral control, was considered to be one of the nicest 'twins' ever built… From the flying viewpoint, the Whirlwind was considered magnificent."
Bruce Robertson, in The Westland Whirlwind Described[3] quotes a 263 Squadron pilot as saying, "It was regarded with absolute confidence and affection."
At low level, the aircraft was a devastating fighter-bomber, armed with both cannons and bombs, and it could hold its own with the Bf 109 at low-level. The performance of the Peregrine fell off at altitude, so the Whirlwind was used almost exclusively at low level.
The aircraft is well summed up by Francis K. Mason's comments in Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Vol. One:
"Bearing in mind the relatively small number of Whirlwinds that reached the RAF, the type remained in combat service, virtually unmodified, for a remarkably long time…The Whirlwind, once mastered, certainly shouldered extensive responsibilities and the two squadrons were called upon to attack enemy targets from one end of the Channel to the other, by day and night, moving from airfield to airfield within Southern England.
"In retrospect the lesson of the Whirlwind is clear… A radical aircraft requires either prolonged development or widespread service to exploit its concept and eliminate its weaknesses, Too often in World War II such aircraft suffered accelerated development or limited service, with the result that teething difficulties came to be regarded as permanent limitations."
In 1941, the Luftwaffe started a number of extremely high-altitude bombing missions using specially modified Junkers Ju 86 bombers and Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters carrying bombs. These were met by modified Spitfires, but the pilots were extremely exhausted as a result of the forced-air breathing system. The Air Ministry then ordered a new purpose-built high-altitude fighter with a pressurized cockpit, and Westland responded with a new twin-engined design known as the Welkin. However, the Germans called off the attacks, unaware of the British problems and the Welkin was produced in an even more limited number, only 77.)"
I also agree that the Merlin probably wouldn't work, I think it's too large for the fit, as well as too heavy (the 1710 might have worked size wise, but it was still heavy compared to the peregrine and was not domestically produced). Remember, the Whirlwind was light for a heavy fighter, lighter than the Meteor actually (about 10,400 lbs loaded, 11,400 lbs max) and was only slightly larger than the Hurricane and actually had a lower frontal area. If work on the Peregrine had continued it could have been made more reliable and powerful (maby more than 1000 hp) and maby a second supercharger could be added for altitude performance (like in later merlins), but the Merlin was of higher priority. Pluss the Whirlwind still had altitude problems (due to the Perigrine's low critical altitude) and short range for a heavy fighter. Though in the early stages of the war it was faster than the Spit, and the firepowere, was virtually unmatched, but lack of reliable or even available engines doomed it.
quote: "the Merlin had become much more important to the war effort and the Peregrine was relegated to a secondary status. Soon the engine was cancelled outright and since much of the performance of the Whirlwind depended on the careful streamlining around that specific engine, there was little choice but to cancel the aircraft as well."
Though with that high tail and the engine placement, it might have been possible to fit some Welland turbojets on it, they were small and light enough. (though the landing gear would still need to be redesigned, and the range would be even shorter, though still reasonable for an interceptor, and external tanks could help) Though jets would certainly solve the altitude problem.
The bubble canopy was also a nice feature which was ahead of its time, the lightning was the only other production craft at the time with one (the Gloster F.5/34 also had one but was cancelled).
It also had a veryy clean airframe and good aerodynamics. It could go 360 mph, and had good low-altitude performance. The range was somewhat inadequate for escort at ~800 miles and a combat radius of under 300 mi.
quote: "The resulting design was quite small, only slightly larger than the Hurricane in overall size, but smaller in terms of frontal area. All of the wheels fully retracted and the entire aircraft was very "clean" with few openings or protuberances. Careful attention to streamlining and two 885 hp Peregrine engines powered it to over 360 mph (580 km/h), the same speed as the latest single-engine fighters, using much higher-powered engines. The speed quickly garnered it the nick-name Crikey.
The first prototype (L6844) flew on 11 October 1938 with production starting early the next year. It exhibited excellent handling and was very easy to fly at all speeds. The only exception was landing, which was all too fast. Fowler flaps were added to correct for this problem, which also required the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) to be moved up, out of the way of the disturbed air flow when the flaps were down. Hopes were so high for the design that it remained "top secret" for much of its development, although it had already been mentioned in the French press."
Though there was a proposal for a redesign with Merlin engines:
"Westland argued for the creation of the Mk II model using two Merlin engines, but by this time the role was becoming less important. As Bomber Command turned to night bomber missions the need for an escort fighter became less important. By 1940, the Supermarine Spitfire was mounting 20 mm cannons, so the "cannon-armed" specification was also being met. The main qualities the RAF were looking for in a twin was range and ordnance load (to allow for the carriage of radar), which the Bristol Beaufighter could do just as well as the Whirlwind."
Another comment: "No better proof of the Whirlwind's quality can be given than the fact that in the intense combat conditions of Northern Europe, a squadron flew the same fighter mark (not just the same fighter type but the same airframes) for three years. When No. 263 Squadron received its first Whirlwind, the newest Spitfire in service was the Mk IA; by the time it gave them up, the Mk XIV was a month away from entering service. If the Whirlwind had been a "bad" aircraft, it never would have served with Fighter Command for that length of time. A second Whirlwind squadron, No. 137, flew the type from September 1941 until June 1943."
From: Westland Whirlwind (fighter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"(An appraisal
Philip J.R. Moyes notes in Aircraft in Profile 94: The Westland Whirlwind, "The basic feature of the Whirlwind was its concentration of firepower: its four closely-grouped heavy cannon in the nose had a rate of fire of 600 lb./minute – which, until the introduction of the Beaufighter, placed it ahead of any fighter in the world. Hand in hand with this dense firepower went a first-rate speed and climb performance, excellent manoeuvrablity and a fighting view hitherto unsurpassed. The Whirlwind was, in its day, faster than the Spitfire down low and, with lighter lateral control, was considered to be one of the nicest 'twins' ever built… From the flying viewpoint, the Whirlwind was considered magnificent."
Bruce Robertson, in The Westland Whirlwind Described[3] quotes a 263 Squadron pilot as saying, "It was regarded with absolute confidence and affection."
At low level, the aircraft was a devastating fighter-bomber, armed with both cannons and bombs, and it could hold its own with the Bf 109 at low-level. The performance of the Peregrine fell off at altitude, so the Whirlwind was used almost exclusively at low level.
The aircraft is well summed up by Francis K. Mason's comments in Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Vol. One:
"Bearing in mind the relatively small number of Whirlwinds that reached the RAF, the type remained in combat service, virtually unmodified, for a remarkably long time…The Whirlwind, once mastered, certainly shouldered extensive responsibilities and the two squadrons were called upon to attack enemy targets from one end of the Channel to the other, by day and night, moving from airfield to airfield within Southern England.
"In retrospect the lesson of the Whirlwind is clear… A radical aircraft requires either prolonged development or widespread service to exploit its concept and eliminate its weaknesses, Too often in World War II such aircraft suffered accelerated development or limited service, with the result that teething difficulties came to be regarded as permanent limitations."
In 1941, the Luftwaffe started a number of extremely high-altitude bombing missions using specially modified Junkers Ju 86 bombers and Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters carrying bombs. These were met by modified Spitfires, but the pilots were extremely exhausted as a result of the forced-air breathing system. The Air Ministry then ordered a new purpose-built high-altitude fighter with a pressurized cockpit, and Westland responded with a new twin-engined design known as the Welkin. However, the Germans called off the attacks, unaware of the British problems and the Welkin was produced in an even more limited number, only 77.)"
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Too bad they couldn't modify the Westland Welkin's wings so it could act in a normal fighter role, ie clipping the wings. Get 'em down to 50-55ft (ceiling down to ~35,000ft from 44,000) and it would be a decent a/c with many of the characteristics of the Whirlwind but with longer range and more-powerful engines. It would put good use to unused airframes (75 complete planes +26 engineless), and if the redesign showed the merit, production of the alterd version might have followed.
eddie_brunette
Senior Airman
4 me its the P38 for sure, pure fighter, but i absolutly love the mossie, my favourite a/c ever!
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
1,140 lb
A myth debunked by this author/book. Highly recommend it.
Actually, my sourse said the landing speed problem was rectified:
"The only exception was landing, which was all too fast. Fowler flaps were added to correct for this problem, which also required the horizontal stabilizer (tailplane) to be moved up, out of the way of the disturbed air flow when the flaps were down."
So that would never have been a problem with the production version.
Nice book, I hope to eventually read it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
What was considered "too fast?"
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
What was the landing speed of single engines fighters at the time?
Would say 'too fast' is relative to the other fighters of the time.
The 190 is said to be a fast lander compared to the 109, for example.
This, according to 'officialdom'..
It wasn't, but the myth that it's landing speed restricted it to certain airfields (runway length) has persisted.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That is a bit fast but not unreasonable - the P-38 in it's heaviest configuration landed at 102 mph - the Whirwind was a taildragger so that could present problems for a "green" pilot, especially a low time multi-engine guy. (Joe's soap box again )
BTW depending on the weight, I show the Bf 109 with a gear down, flaps down stall speed of 85 - multiply that by 1.3 and you should be carrying 110 mph over the numbers. I also think you'll find the P-51 close to the same speeds as well. Bill has flown in P-51s he might know the exact numbers.
)BTW depending on the weight, I show the Bf 109 with a gear down, flaps down stall speed of 85 - multiply that by 1.3 and you should be carrying 110 mph over the numbers. I also think you'll find the P-51 close to the same speeds as well. Bill has flown in P-51s he might know the exact numbers.
drgondog
Major
The P-38 was one helluva a fighter
Joe - the book said 105mph over the threshold but I was brutally beaten into 110-115 under the theory that you can't 'buy' airspeed there w/o throttle and that was dangerous with flaps at that speed.
The 51 was also a little coltish on a three point - particularly in a cross wind. I kept the butt up for awhile befor dropping tail.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks for the info Bill - I bet the scars are still there from those beatings!
For more info I show the Fw 190D with a gear down full flap stall speed of 100 mph which equates to 130 mph over the numbers, the 190A I show a 95 mph full flaps gear down for a 123 mph over the numbers....
With all that said I don't think the Whirwind's landing speed was that unreasonable. I could see engine out landings in a crosswind as a problem however...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
