Best Twin-engined fighter

[AL Schlageter]

Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast.

95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph

That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast.

95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph

That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.

Agree - especially if the aircraft of the day were slower on landing but compared to the P-51, Fw 190 or Bf 109? And then to add once again, it was a twin....

 

[DBII]

Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war.

There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno.

DBII

 

[renrich]

The empty weight originally of the P51B was 550 lbs above the P51A most of which was caused by the engine and prop change. The fuselage fuel tank added another 150 lbs to it's empty weight.

 

[kool kitty89]

According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome."

But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?

Other than the lack of engines, the Whirlwind had too short of a range to be a good escort (though better than the Spitfire or Hurricane), and though it had a good climb rate and strong armament, its role as an interceptor would be hampered by its altitude performance. (if bombers were attacking above 20,000 ft it was in trouble, a similar problem in planes like the P-39 and P-40) Though the altidude issue would likely have been solved if development of the Peregrine had continued, as it would have likely seen similar modifications and upratings as the Merlin did)

Perhaps the Rolls-Royce Kestrel could have been used in place of the Peregrine (designed as a "rationalized" Kestrel) as it had been developed extensively and would have been more readily available, and by the time the Peregrine was cancelled the Kestrel eventually topped out at 1,050 hp (780 kW) in the XXX model. And it was dementionally nearly identical to the Peregrine. Or maby switch to a small radial engine like the Bristol Mercury (like the Miles Master did) or Taurus, if it was close-coweled and fan cooled it wouldn't alter the nacelles, weight, or drag much and would add the toughness of an air-cooled engine.

As things were, the Whirlwind performed exceptionally in the fighter-bomber role (Whirlybomber) and could outfight intercepting fighters (mainly Bf 109s) at low level (around 15,000 ft)

 

[pbfoot]

heres a quote out from pilot flying the Whirlwind for the first time I'll take this guys word as gospel when he arrived at 263 Sqn there were 93 Whirlwinds left in service his logbook said he flew 33 of them
" okay now its . time to land Join the circuit downwind throttle back to 150mph , prime the exactors , lower the undercarriage ,set the cooling flaps , turn in, props fully fine , slow down a little , flaps down a little more , set at 125mph, come in over the fence at no more then 110mph and drop onto the rwy. Whoops i didn't get the final speed down enough, So i float for a bit ,geez those big fowler flaps really slow you down"
his biggest complaint was that you could not feather the props nor could you cross feed the wing tanks. He prefered it to the Mossie in which he flew his last 2 tours. Said it would outclimb anything under 20000

 

[FLYBOYJ]

According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome."

I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!

But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?

Depends on the aircraft - Take the stall speed and multiply it by 1.3 - that should be the speed at final approach over the numbers just before the flare.

The Mossie stalled at 110 flaps and gear down - that meant her approach speed should of been 143 mph!!!!

 

[drgondog]

Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war.

There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno.

DBII

The first flight was Nov 1943, first delivery to USMC April 1944, first deployment was as night fighter to Okinawa before end of war in June/July timeframe.

Every USMC and USN pilot I have talked to about this airplane preferred it to F6F and F4U

 

[kool kitty89]

I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!

I didn't think that was right. That site also got some other things wrong, like saying the Whirlwind had poor maneuverabillity comparable to the Bf 110!
from Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It showed some promise in combat, however, like its German counterpart it was not agile enough to successfully combat enemy fighters."

The Whirlwind could have made a good escort if its bomb racks were fitted ta accept drop tanks. Even if it could only carry 2x 50 gal. tanks they would still nearly double the fuel capacity. (75% increase) So range would be well over 1000 miles. If 100 gal. tanks could be carried it could reach about 2000 miles.

The F7F was a great fighter, but did it really see service in WWII, or maby it just didn't see any combat? (ie. never met any enemy fighters on missions)

Here's another apraisal of it:
Performance met expectations too; the F7F Tigercat was one of the highest-performance piston-engined fighters, with a top speed well in excess of the US Navy's single-engined aircraft—71 mph faster than a F6F Hellcat at sea level.[2] The opinion of Capt. Fred M. Trapnell, one of the Navy's premier test pilots, was that "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."

 

[AL Schlageter]

From the manual for the Mossie FBVI, the final approach speed, flaps down, is 100-105kts (115-120mph) at 17-18000lb.

At max landing weight, flaps up, the final approach should be made at 115kts (132mph). At lighter weights this speed could be reduced by 5kts.

Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
u/c and flaps up: 105kts
u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
u/c and flaps up: 105kts
u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts

Do the math 95 knots times 1.3 = 123 knots

 

[AL Schlageter]

Just posting what the manual says.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Understand - someone might of determined that the aircraft was stable enough on final to beyond the 1.3Vso rule.

 

[kool kitty89]

Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus? (though I think the taurus wasn't supercharged and was heavier, it was more compact though.)
Does anyone know the diameter of the taurus?

The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37 was also designed around the Peregrine, but its prototype used Taurus engines, so maby it would have worked.

As said previously, what the Whirlwind really needed for escort was the ability to cary drop-tanks on the wing racks. I dont think it would have been that difficult to modify the wings with the necessary plumbing, so I wonder why they didn't...

 

[kool kitty89]

I still think it would have been cool to see a Whirlwind powered by a couple Welland or Derwent I engines. It was a pretty clean a/c even by 1944 standards, and with the narrower/higher aspect ratio wings and the nacelle placement, I donn't think it would have had the compressibillity problems of the Meteor. (Nacelles about the same as the meteor's but with the different wing junction and more extended infront of the wing would have made the airflow transition smoother) Though it would have lacked the fuel space and development potential of the Meteor, ther were a decent quantity of retired Whirlwinds in decent condition by the advent of the Welland and since the engine was of similar size and weight as the Peregrine the airframe would just need a necelle redesign and refitting. Would have certainly been a good intrim measure for the meteor, instead of the Mk I or early F. III. (say it would be used for about 1-2 years untill the bugs in the Meteor had been worked out and Derwent II's or IV's could be fitted in the longer nacelles of the late model F. III in early 1945)

Though maby this is a better topic for the "what plane (any side) would you develop further" thread...

 

[Graeme]

The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37..

Neither competed, for the same specification. Both were designed to different specifications. The Whirlwind won the tender for specification F.37/35, for "a single-seat, day-and-night fighter equiped with 4 20mm cannon." The competition consisted of the Supermarine 313, Bristol 153 and a Hawker project.

As it's name states, the Gloster design, after a convoluted history, competed for specification F.9/37 requesting a tender for an interceptor with "very heavy fixed armament". But by mid 1940 the Bristol Beaufighter had been selected for production. Gloster also failed once again, using the F.9/37 with Merlins, for specification F.18/40 requesting a "Merlin-engined day-and-night interceptor with fixed guns".

 

[Theo]

P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.

Adolf Galland

 

[kool kitty89]

Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?

Lightweight radial? That's almost an oxymoron...

 

[Kurfürst]

Not that much, radials and inline do not weight that much differently. The bare engines yes, but considering the numerous cooling stuff the inlines require as extra... they are almost the same weight.