Favorite plane never built (or perhaps as a prototype).

[TM06]

In the twin engine category I would include for Germany the Ta 154A (Jumo 213E) and an, albeit hypothetical, Fw 187 (DB 605).
And where is the Ta 152C?
For Britain there was also the Westland Whirlwind.

I actually completely forgot about the 152C, my bad on that.
As for the three twin-engined fighters, they fall short of the performance requirements in various areas. The Ta 154 had a max speed of ~650 km/h, 50 km/h short of the required minimum for top speed and much too far away for honorary consideration. If it was closer in that respect, I'd include it.
The Whirlwind is more of the same - the top speed of 580 km/h is way too low for consideration despite it falling well within the parameters almost everywhere else.
I can't find anything concrete about the Fw 187 with DB 605's beyond a planned top speed of 680 km/h, and there isn't enough information to extrapolate any other performance figures. I'd need more data before I could consider it.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Ta154 producing over 400mph at 23,000+ ft. is not to be overlooked.
The He219 was a bit faster at the same altitude, but you'll find that the P-38 and Mosquito were comparable to these speeds at the same altitude.

Unless of course, you're comparing these twins to the max. speed of the He280 or Me262 at the same altitude.

 

[TM06]

The Ta154 producing over 400mph at 23,000+ ft. is not to be overlooked.
The He219 was a bit faster at the same altitude, but you'll find that the P-38 and Mosquito were comparable to these speeds at the same altitude.

Unless of course, you're comparing these twins to the max. speed of the He280 or Me262 at the same altitude.

Oh it's still impressive don't get me wrong, it just falls outside of the requirements of 700 km/h and barely doesn't qualify for the 5% rule I have set up. If it was 20 km/h faster then it'd be a shoe-in.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Man, I wish I could just elaborate rules. *snaps fingers* Damn it, nothing happened. I wanted a 400 mph B-17.

 

[TM06]

Man, I wish I could just elaborate rules. *snaps fingers* Damn it, nothing happened. I wanted a 400 mph B-17.

Heh, I'll explain quickly.
Basically I have a sort of "safety net" rule in place for aircraft that check off multiple requirement boxes but fall short in one area. I call this the 5% rule, where an aircraft will be included in the list should that deficiency fall within 5% of the minimum requirements.
Best example would be the Kawasaki Ki-64 under the Japanese Twin Engine section, as it applies for almost all of the prerequisites but is 20 km/h short of the minimum top speed. However its top speed is high enough to fall within 5% of the minimum required top speed, therefore it is included in the list.

 

[spicmart]

I actually completely forgot about the 152C, my bad on that.
As for the three twin-engined fighters, they fall short of the performance requirements in various areas. The Ta 154 had a max speed of ~650 km/h, 50 km/h short of the required minimum for top speed and much too far away for honorary consideration. If it was closer in that respect, I'd include it.
The Whirlwind is more of the same - the top speed of 580 km/h is way too low for consideration despite it falling well within the parameters almost everywhere else.
I can't find anything concrete about the Fw 187 with DB 605's beyond a planned top speed of 680 km/h, and there isn't enough information to extrapolate any other performance figures. I'd need more data before I could consider it.

The Ta 154 with Jumo 213E was calculated to have 736 km/h.
Going to check for the Fw 187 but it was one of the cleanest airframes and left a Me 109 with the same engine in the dust.

Added: An Fw 187 with DB 605D (Me 109K-4) or L (Me 109K-14) would probably hit 750 km/h.

 

[Shortround6]

Going to check for the Fw 187 but it was one of the cleanest airframes and left a Me 109 with the same engine in the dust.

That was not hard until the 109F.
The early 109s were pretty bad, especially considering their small size.

 

[dedalos]

That was not hard until the 109F.
The early 109s were pretty bad, especially considering their small size.

The fw 187 was always faster than the bf109 on the same engines, even with a second crew member
Even the calculations for the c version with the db 605a , demonstrated clearly higher max speed than the bf109g6.
But these calculations were only made by the Fw engineers. I guess modern haters know better.

 

[tomo pauk]

The fw 187 was always faster than the bf109 on the same engines, even with a second crew member

Second crew member probably added zero actual drag to the Fw 187.

 

[Shortround6]

A some twins will beat single engine planes. The question is by how much.
That is one of the reasons for using a twin at times.
The 109 is a rather variable bench mark. The Jumo powered versions and the E were bordering on bricks. The F was pretty good. G's started to get variable again. G-2 vs G-6? Later than G-6?
G-6 not only had the machine gun bulges they also changed the tailwheel from semi-retractable to fixed. Maybe a few other differences, not even getting into the bigger bulges on the wing for main wheels that showed up sometime in the G series?

I rather like the Fw 187, I just don't believe some of the hype. I guess that makes me a modern hater.

 

[tomo pauk]

I rather like the Fw 187, I just don't believe some of the hype. I guess that makes me a modern hater.

IMO, so people can take it as they please:

Fw 187 have had a several things going for it, Size - it was not so small like the Wirlwind or Ro.58 were (even though the Ro.58 packed a lot in it's small self), nor it was as big as the MTT's twins. Small size + reasonable streamlining = performance can be very good even on the mass produced engines. Fuel tankage was just 5-10% less than what Bf 110 carried, that coupled with small size and good streamlining should've equal with a good/great range.
Being a 'classic' twin and a tail-dragger, usability of the internal volume was greater than eg. what could be had on a 2-boom aircraft of the similar size that has a tricycle U/C. Also since it was a classic twin, ease of installing a suitable firepower was greater than it was the case with 1-engined A/C. For the LW, that means the MK 103 can fit (probably at least two of them, with other weaponry from fuselage deleted) - can come in handy when 8th AF comes in knocking. For everyday use, 4 MK 151/20 will probably suffice once available. Surplus of engine power means that heavy battery will have a much smaller impact on performance than it will be the case when 1-engined fighter is burdened with a heavy battery.

Fw 187 should've also been well suited in the role where PR Spitfires and Mosquitoes excelled, unlike the other German aircraft.

Note that I don't care if the Fw 187 has 1 or 2 crew members, although having the backseater opens the possibilities of operating a bigger radio - can come in handy on really big distances, eg. over Russia, Atlantic or N. Africa.

 

[dedalos]

A some twins will beat single engine planes. The question is by how much.
That is one of the reasons for using a twin at times.
The 109 is a rather variable bench mark. The Jumo powered versions and the E were bordering on bricks. The F was pretty good. G's started to get variable again. G-2 vs G-6? Later than G-6?
G-6 not only had the machine gun bulges they also changed the tailwheel from semi-retractable to fixed. Maybe a few other differences, not even getting into the bigger bulges on the wing for main wheels that showed up sometime in the G series?

I rather like the Fw 187, I just don't believe some of the hype. I guess that makes me a modern hater.

A bf 109g6 has a top speed of 630-640 km/h(no mw50)
With the aerodynamics improvements of the k series , still on the db605a, a speed of 660-670 km/h could be expected.
The fw engineers calculated a top speed of 725 km/h for the single seat fw187 c on db605a . Even if we consider this number somewhat ambitious, still it's clear that the 187 was still faster than the 109.
Also because of it's greater range could use this performance for more time.

 

[dedalos]

IMO, so people can take it as they please:

Fw 187 have had a several things going for it, Size - it was not so small like the Wirlwind or Ro.58 were (even though the Ro.58 packed a lot in it's small self), nor it was as big as the MTT's twins. Small size + reasonable streamlining = performance can be very good even on the mass produced engines. Fuel tankage was just 5-10% less than what Bf 110 carried, that coupled with small size and good streamlining should've equal with a good/great range.
Being a 'classic' twin and a tail-dragger, usability of the internal volume was greater than eg. what could be had on a 2-boom aircraft of the similar size that has a tricycle U/C. Also since it was a classic twin, ease of installing a suitable firepower was greater than it was the case with 1-engined A/C. For the LW, that means the MK 103 can fit (probably at least two of them, with other weaponry from fuselage deleted) - can come in handy when 8th AF comes in knocking. For everyday use, 4 MK 151/20 will probably suffice once available. Surplus of engine power means that heavy battery will have a much smaller impact on performance than it will be the case when 1-engined fighter is burdened with a heavy battery.

Fw 187 should've also been well suited in the role where PR Spitfires and Mosquitoes excelled, unlike the other German aircraft.

Note that I don't care if the Fw 187 has 1 or 2 crew members, although having the backseater opens the possibilities of operating a bigger radio - can come in handy on really big distances, eg. over Russia, Atlantic or N. Africa.

I would care a lot,if I was German, for any german aircaft to be as light as possible since the German engines had inferior power
A second crew mans, adds almost no frontal area, but does increase the wet area. It also adds weight that mainly influences roc and agility but does have a small effect on speed too.
Did the p51s need a second crewman to operate the radio over long distances?

 

[tomo pauk]

I would care a lot,if I was German, for any german aircaft to be as light as possible since the German engines had inferior power
A second crew mans, adds almost no frontal area, but does increase the wet area. It also adds weight that mainly influences roc and agility but does have a small effect on speed too.

I don't think that the accommodation for the backseater added so much of the wetted area that it can influence the speed more than it is a tolerance between the series-produced 187s.
Yes, the 2nd crewman will influence the RoC as much as it can be expected of adding ~1.5% of weight on a 6000-6500 kg aircraft (assuming DB 601-605 engines; the Ro.58 was supposed to weight 6100 kg). German engines were not that great as the war was entering it's last 2 years, but there are two of these on the Fw 187, with propulsive power (BHP + exhaust thrust + ram effect) in the ballpark with the contemporary turboed V-1710.

Did the p51s need a second crewman to operate the radio over long distances?

How great was the distance that radios on the P-51s were capable operating? Viability of Morse code operation by a singe crew member vs. having a dedicated opeartor?

 

[spicmart]

I would care a lot,if I was German, for any german aircaft to be as light as possible since the German engines had inferior power
A second crew mans, adds almost no frontal area, but does increase the wet area. It also adds weight that mainly influences roc and agility but does have a small effect on speed too.
Did the p51s need a second crewman to operate the radio over long distances?

The only drag that came along with a two-seater was the additional struts of the canopy.
Shape-wise the kind of bubble canopy of the single seater protrudes more into the airflow than with the two-seater which connected flush with the rear-fuselage.
See the analogy to the P-51B/C compared with the D model.
The former was some 7 km/h faster than the latter with the same power.

 

[tomo pauk]

See the analogy to the P-51B/C compared with the D model.
The former was some 7 km/h faster than the latter with the same power.

With same engine, difference was smaller, talk 1-2 mph. See here, and compare the same engines.
P-51D have had more streamlined racks (penalty of 4 mph vs. 12 mph on A/B/C), while the guns-related drag was a bit higher on the -D.

At the end of the day, difference between the -B and -D with same engine was probably the same as the difference with a -D made in Wednesday and another -D made in Friday. Or a difference between a -D and -K.

 

[spicmart]

With same engine, difference was smaller, talk 1-2 mph. See here, and compare the same engines.
P-51D have had more streamlined racks (penalty of 4 mph vs. 12 mph on A/B/C), while the guns-related drag was a bit higher on the -D.

At the end of the day, difference between the -B and -D with same engine was probably the same as the difference with a -D made in Wednesday and another -D made in Friday. Or a difference between a -D and -K.

Thanks for the clarification and showing the sources.
Which publication does this chart come from?

 

[tomo pauk]

Which publication does this chart come from?

IIRC several the books pertaining to that subject are located here. Planning charts include fighters, bombers etc, if I'm not mistaken.

edit: this is it: link

 

[dedalos]

I don't think that the accommodation for the backseater added so much of the wetted area that it can influence the speed more than it is a tolerance between the series-produced 187s.
Yes, the 2nd crewman will influence the RoC as much as it can be expected of adding ~1.5% of weight on a 6000-6500 kg aircraft (assuming DB 601-605 engines; the Ro.58 was supposed to weight 6100 kg). German engines were not that great as the war was entering it's last 2 years, but there are two of these on the Fw 187, with propulsive power (BHP + exhaust thrust + ram effect) in the ballpark with the contemporary turboed V-1710.



How great was the distance that radios on the P-51s were capable operating? Viability of Morse code operation by a singe crew member vs. having a dedicated opeartor?

Let's take as example the Firefly. It had a griffon engine like the late spitfires.
The canopy of the navigators cockpit was enclosed in the lines of the airframe
However , the reality was that the firefly,on the same engine, was much slower and let's agile than the spitfire. Do the second crewman handicapped performance.
The falke should be a hot rod in order to
a) intercept the PR enemy planes
b) protect the u boats in the Biscay bay
c) carry PR missions
4)perform hit and run attacks on enemy escort fighters. Not in order to shoot them down but to force them to jetison the drop tanks early, and generally force them to loose their rendezvous with the bomber formations.
Absolutely no need for second crewman
It could even fight at night in Wild boar missions. No need for radar

 

[Shortround6]

However , the reality was that the firefly,on the same engine, was much slower and let's agile than the spitfire. Do the second crewman handicapped performance.

Lets leave out the difference in
guns and/or ammo.
Internal fuel. (191 imp gal on a MK I)
Radio/electronic gear.
Or even intended mission requirements.
Like getting a pair of 1000lb bombs off the carrier deck.