Best Twin-engined fighter

Best Twin Engined Fighter

  • Total voters
    154

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

Kurfürst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look at the weights of radials that put out above 1200 hp. There's a curve and it goes up drastically with horsepower. Low HP radials are the ones for good weight to power ratios....
 
I'll say it again: Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus?

Though the kestrels would have underpowered her a bit at 745 hp compared to the 885 hp Peregrine, at least it was available in numbers though, unlike the Peregrine. (yes, I know the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel)

The Mercury and Pegasus were no heavier than the Peregrine (okay the Pegasus was 40 lbs heavier, but the Merc was lighter though), and power output, was similar, in the Pegasus, higher.

The Miles Master originally used a kestrel but was redesigned to use a Mercury later. The Gloster F.9/37 was designed for Peregrines, but the Taurus worked for it in testing.

The taurus was a bit heavier than the Peregrine (about 160 lbs I think), but the power almost made up for it and it was still close enough in weight to not need structureal reenforsement. I think it was more compact than the Pegasus or Mercury, though.

Here's the weights I've got: Kestrel: 955 lb Peregrine: 1,140 lb Mercury: 1,065 lb Pegasus: 1180 lb Taurus: 1300 lb.

Power ratings (max): Kestrel: 745 hp (Kestrel XVI)(though one sourse said the XXX could make 1050 hp, another lower than the XVI at 715 hp)
Peregrine: 885 hp Mercury: 995 hp (100 octane), 840 (87 octane) Pegasus: 1065 hp (100 octane), 1000 hp (87 octane) Taurus: 1065 hp (87 octane)

The Pegasus is 55.3" in diameter, the Mercury is 51.5", and the Taurus: 50.5"
The Kestrel was 24.4" wide by 35" tall and 72.35" long.

Anyone know the the demensions for the Peregrine?
 

Kitty, understand this...

Although we saw a lot of engine swapping and different engine configurations on many WW2 aircraft, engine swap outs for the sake of better performance don't always work, especially on multi engine aircraft. Accountability has to be made for airframe construction, stress loading, fuel consumption and maintainability. I've seen engine mods that added 50 hp to an aircraft and in time started to destroy the airframe. Unless the engine is designed for a specific engine in mind, engine retrofits as an afterthought don't always work.
 
Thanks all for propping up my contention that the Whirlwind coulda been a contender. From what I read (and you've all added much more) I still think its a sharp aircraft.
 
Then use the Mercury or the Kestrel, they had less hp (only slightly for the Merc) and the kestrel was verry similar to the Peregrine, though a bit smaller and lighter. You could use the Pegasus and have it limited at low altitude to not overstress the airframe, and it would still improve altitude performance since it could be run higher at altitude to produce the same hp as the Peregrine's max. To be clearer, likit the engine so it doesn't exceed 850 hp in normal flight but allow higher power ratings for altitude (which deminishes power anyway) and WEP/boost.

But that said, if jets were put on it (in the pipedream I mentioned earlier), theres a good chance of overstressing it. Does anyone know how strong the Whirlwind's airframe was?
 
But were the Whirlwind's wings strong enough to mount 1600 lbf jets on (Wellands). I just think it would have been interesting, sort of like a mini meteor, but with the pointier nose, half underslung engines, and mid-mounted bubble canopy mabe more like a mini Meteor/Me-262 hybrid. If the such a design was tested (by converting an one of the test planes or prototypes) and was found to be workable it would have made a good intrim measure untill the Meteor had the bugs worked out and more powerful engines available (the small plane would have a much higher thrust/weight). Such a redesign isn't inconceivible as was done to a Yak-3 to make the Yak-15, which was even able to retain its taildragger landing gear. (though the Yak was far from stellar in speed and range, it was easy to produce and convert to)

On a more practical note I still think the aformentioned radials (especially the Pegasus) would have been decent replacement engines and Kestrels might have worked too. The Kestrels would obviously be fittable to the airframe with virtually no modification, but I just dont know if the performance drop (885 hp to 745 hp per engine) would provide decent performance. The main reason for the enine swap is as a replacement for the discontinued Peregrine, not to improve performance necessarily. Though if you can you might as well, though the added drag from the radials would hurt, the added hp at altitude would help alot. (I think the Pegasus had a higher critical altitude as well...)
 
Hobilar said:
It was called the Westland Welkin I-An improved Whirlwind with Merlin Engines.
Click to expand...

I believe in general layout only Holibar, otherwise a completely new Petter design for a new specification, F.4/40, with emphasis on "high altitude capabilities". Tenders prepared were the General Aircraft G.A.L.46, the Hawker P.1004, and the Westland Welkin. But the requirement was revised later as F.7/41, calling for a;

"single-seat fighter able to operate at great heights and in all parts of the world. Armament was to consist of 6 20mm. Hispano cannon with normal ammunition 120rpg and 150rpg per gun. A pressure cabin was mandatory, the machine was to provide a steady gun platform, the view all round for the pilot was to be good-particularly to the rear, and, although designed as a single seater, provision was to be made for an observer or for A.I. radar for the pilot's use only. Minimum top speed required was 415mph at 33,000ft and service ceiling demanded was to be over 42,000ft with a pair of Merlin 61s for power".

Two prototypes eventually emerged to conform to F.7/41. The Vickers Type 432 and the Westland P.14 Welkin Mk.1.

This was the G.A.L.46 design for the original specification.

 
Neto said:
allison sucks..
Click to expand...
More of the uninformed...

The Allison was actually a very good engine and were some ways better than the Merlin and DB 601. The problem with the Allison was the right coupling of the engine with a good turbocharging system that would give it a good high altitude performance and reliability (single engine aircraft). Now with that said I suggest a good dose of aviation history 101 because it seems by some of your posts you're still in aviation puberty.
 
Or aviation diapers. Take a look at the aircraft that were powered by Allison engines; The P-38, P-39, P-40 to name a few. Allison built more than 70,000 engines during the war. That's quite a few engines built for one that you claim "sucks".
 

lool realy ? what you think you are ?? you think that for be moderator of this forum you can insult me ??people here have to express ideas like they want. if you don't like the idea at least sow some respect for the others.

by the way, your theories are extremely americans,you defend allways the americans aircrafts why?? you need read more about the others cultures it is going to do well .
 

Maybe if you wrote educated posts and explained why you think something sucks rather just stating "allison sucks..." people might take your more seriously.
 
Neto said:
ok forgive me with the "sucks" i only wanted said that i don't like the alison engine. Sorry for all alison fans.
Click to expand...

Thats fine. Explain why then.

Ofcourse "Allison Sucks..." is going to get people wound up because in all actuallity it does not suck.

No one here said that it was the best engine of the war. Anyone that would say that does not know anything about them. However just saying they suck is rather stupid, you should explain why and then people might understand where you are coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Why no twin engined Griffon aircraft?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Howard Gibson
A
Yamato logic for single-engined, single seat fighter
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Reluctant Poster
R
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
26K
PAT303
P
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
Menu
Log in
Register