Best Twin-engined fighter

[Glider]

But the experience showed the need for a navigator...

That was the thing that interested me. The RN had used a number of single engined fighters before the war without any problems. They knew that other navies used single seat aircraft and had recent experience.

 

[Soren]

Me-262A-1a hands down!

 

[SoD Stitch]

Me-262A-1a hands down!

Soren, I hate to break this to you, but the -262 isn't even on the freakin' list! I think that the title of the poll is supposed to be best twin engined reciprocating fighter; if you want to get into a battle of semantics, then you are correct, but I don't think that's the spirit of this poll.

 

[renrich]

I have checked my reference closely and I don't believe any F4Fs had armor or SS tanks from the factory until the US got into the war. Of course SS tanks and some armor could have been installed by the RN in the field. I have mentioned this before but the quality of the AC such as the Fulmar that were used by the RN was the result of having the RAF responsible for AC design, development and procurement for the RN.

 

[Glider]

Thanks for the info on the Martlet I always thought that the mk II was effectively the same as the F4F3 with the 'extras'. The Mk I may have been another thing.
Re the Fulmar design it was the result of RAF having responsibility but the RN were masters of their own destiny from 1937 and had time to sort things out.

 

[kool kitty89]

Yeah, I think we've decided that jets weren't really comparable in this topic. Better in the best jets topic, but since that one kind of died, maby we should start a new one on that topic...

 

[renrich]

Thanks Glider, I did not realise the RN took over it's airplane business in 1938.

 

[kool kitty89]

Any ideas why the RLM disliked the Fw-187. Besides the fact that it wasn't a Messersmitt product, or was that the main reason? (as seems to be with the He 100 as well) The forced requirement for the second crewman isn't too surprising due to some of the other forced requirements the RLM issued on a/c that shouldn't have been (He 177 being a perfect example). Similarly the design was restricted to Jumo 210 engines while the Me 110 was free to use DB-600's or progresive models.(though the Fw 187 still outperformed the 110 in spite of this). With 601's the 187 had similar perfrmance to early lightnings, with excelent climb, speed (~400 mph) and range. With progressive developments of the DB-600 series of engines the 187 had similar development potential as the P-38. (the 4x MG 17 and 2x MG FF in the nose could have been later replaced with 4x MG 131 and 2x MG 151/20, or possibly even heavier armaments. (ie 30mm cannon replacing the 20mm's, though even the previous armament would have been devestating to US bombers and fighters)

It may simply have been politics that killed it, but was it more, and was it just the Messersmitt reason or somting else? From what I'v read the reason isn't verry clear or well understood. (even compared to the He 100, as Heinkel had other political issues with the RLM that may have affected this, while Focke-Wulf didn't seem to have this problem)

Any ideas or knoledge on this?

 

[HoHun]

Hi Koolkitty,

>Any ideas why the RLM disliked the Fw-187.

My guess is that it comes down to it that it was not built for a RLM specification. They didn't order it, so they didn't want it.

Probably it was also seen as overly expensive due to being a twin that competed with the single-engined Me 109. This has been occassionally mentioned in the literature, but I'm not sure how much there is to it.

The Fw 187 was actually revived by the RLM when Messerschmitt ran into trouble with the Me 210, though that might have been as much to put pressure on Messerschmitt as to provide an emergency backup. (This version was to have DB 605 engines.)

>Any ideas or knoledge on this?

There seems to be very little useful information on this. I have Hermann/Petrick's "Fw 187" here, which appears to be really well-researched, and they point out that for RLM decisions regarding the Fw 187 history, there is no information available.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Crumpp]

Probably it was also seen as overly expensive due to being a twin

Everyone knows the purpose of the second engine right?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Everyone knows the purpose of the second engine right?

A suicide device for low time pilots?

 

[Crumpp]

A suicide device for low time pilots?

That is one function of it!

However it's primary purpose is ensure the aircraft makes it all the way to the crash site.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is one function of it!

However it's primary purpose is ensure the aircraft makes it all the way to the crash site.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Freebird]

I have floated this theory here before but of course the Wildcat came along just too late for the Battle of Britain,(BOB) By October of 1940 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN and on Dec 25, 1940, a Martlet shot down a JU88 off Scapa Flow. If the F4F3 (Martlet) had been available for the BOB, it would have been a valuable addition to the British arsenal. Similar performance to the Hurricane, better armament against bombers with a longer ammo load, more range and more rugged than either Hurricane or Spitfire. I believe Thach said,"if you can't hit with four, you will miss with six." Alluding to the British mandated six gun change. I believe the F4F4 weighed at least 500 pounds more than the F4F3 which degraded it's performance but the rate of climb and shorter firing time were the major drawbacks since a Wildcat could not turn with a Zero any way except above 275 mph which a Wildcat was not going to exceed very often except in a dive.

The heavier F4F would be just fine too, used against the bombers, the heavier firepower would help bring down the He111 or Ju88's. With more Martlets the British could switch some of the hurricanes against the Me109's

Frankly they would be happy with whatever they could get, P-40's, P-39's, Hawk 75's, P-36's etc.

Though even with the lower performance of the Buffalo Mk-I it still would have been better than the Fulmar, and probably the Firefly, and had a larger combat radius than the F4F-3, or Sea Hurricane. (more than the Seafire too I think)

Firefly was a Fighter-bomber primarily and wasn't ready until late 1942. The carriers by that time had Seafire's, the Firefly Barracuda were the primary bombers for the British (remember that the FAA had Avengers but not Helldivers from the US) The Firefly was a very good aircraft, used as a bomber, but available as recon as fighter in a pinch.

I wonder why they replaced the Marlets with Fulmars, why not Sea Hurricanes? They were available in 1941, right?

It seems that the British carriers would often have a mix of fighters, 3 Hurricanes or Martlaets to 1 Fulmars. For example "Illustrious" in sept 1942 has 21 Martlet, 6 Fulmar 18 Swordfish. The HMS Hermes landed her aircraft on Ceylon in early 1942, (they fought against the Japanese Indian Ocean raiders in April) there were 12 SeaHurri's 4 Fulmars.

The primary design function of the Fulmar was Recon which it did quite well, it had double the range of single engine fighters. Remember that pre-war thinking was that the A/C would be the scouts for the (big-gun) Battle Fleet. It was also to be used as a fighter, against other long range bombers or TB aircraft (He 115, Ju 86's etc.) it was never envisioned fighting against short range land-based fighters like the Me 109 or Zero!

 

[kool kitty89]

Well the Zero was both carrier and land based...

The Fulmars would have been effective aganst the Fw-200 Condor recon/bomber, which was the the main purpose of the "Hurricat" iirc.

 

[B-17engineer]

Ju-88 for me.........

 

[kool kitty89]

How was the Ju 88 better than the Mossie.

 

[B-17engineer]

Hey, its my opion............I am not gone have people keep saying o how is this better than that.......It annoys me so Ju-88 is MY opion and leave it at that!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Ju 88 was an excellent night fighter.

 

[B-17engineer]

Exactly thank you Adler!