Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

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

The Arado Ar 234C Blitz was what jumped to mind, despite my general disdain for "German Secret Weapons." That's based purely on its intended role (recce), crew of one, petite dimensions and weight rather than any specific commentary on the subject I have read. The story of the first Allied kill of an Ar 234

Arado Ar 234 - Fighting Hitler's Jets

Arado Ar 234 - Fighting Hitler's Jets - by Robert F. Dorr
erenow.net
leaves some questions, but since it was being used as a bomber and was loaded at the time, and was the pilot's first mission, I can't discount the possibility that even if it wasn't agile for its size, its size more than compensates because of physics. The roll rate of aircraft such as the B17, or Lancaster with twice the wingspan is unlikely to be anywhere near that of the Blitz.


The question is little like, "Which aircraft carrier would be the best fishing trawler?" There is little call for agility in aircraft requiring four engines. Four engined aircraft would mostly be bombers, cargo, or patrol aircraft for which stability rather than agility is a virtue, I think it unlikely that the answer would have been a successful bomber, cargo or patrol aircraft that was ever described as "a joy to fly." The Arado is a bit of an anomaly in that it had four engines rather than two solely because of the limitations of the jet engines of the time. I may be wrong, but lacking definitive data I'd put my money on a possibly stiff or ill-tempered pony rather than an amiable Clydesdale.

The B-29 is definitely not the answer with a 24 second barrel roll and 2 g turn:
"Roll rate: Approx. 15 deg/sec at 210 mph IAS @ 10,000 feet."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2 Gs at 210 mph"

FirePower Plane Profiles - IGN

The Boeing B-29A Superfortress was America's answer to the question of how to strike at the very heart of Japan. An enormous undertaking, the Superfort's early days were fraught with trouble. The Wright R-3350 engines were prone to overheating and often caught fire with disastrous consequences...
www.ign.com

Nor is the Lancaster with 20 seconds and 2 g's
"Roll rate: Approx. 18 deg/sec at 160 mph IAS."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2.0 Gs with full elevator deflection at 160 mph in a steep turn."

FirePower Plane Profiles - IGN

The famed Lancaster was Britain's mainstay in that country's bomber…
www.ign.com

B-17 is slightly better:
"Roll rate: Approx. 18 deg/sec at 180 mph IAS."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2.2 Gs with full elevator deflection at 180 mph in a level turn."

FirePower Feature - IGN

The B-17 Flying Fortress has become one of the most revered of all WWII allied warplanes. The long-range medium bomber, which went through many modifications leading to the B-17G model, had a maximum speed of 287 mph, a range of 2000 miles, a service ceiling of 35,800ft, 13 machine guns, and 4...
www.ign.com

The Ar 234 will pull more g's
"The Arado 234 is exceptionally maneuverable for a bomber. Rate of roll is high and the radius of turn is restricted due to structural load limitations; however, maximum forces tested were approximately 3 g's. "
 
Last edited:
Now see what you started?


Article from the Guardian.
 

Attachments

  • 5BC10ACE-3CCC-4019-BC86-568A4EC96463.jpeg
    2.3 MB · Views: 35
Last edited:
This is not a good comparison. Aside comparing an early jet bomber to 3 recip bombers of the day, the Arado Ar 234C had a take off weight at least half of a B-17, let alone comparing to a B-29 or Lancaster. Just because it had four engines, doesn't put it in the same class as the B-17, B-29 or Lancaster.

Considering the technology of the day, issues with early German turbine engines, I think it would be foolish to put your money on a "possibly stiff or ill-tempered pony" as that pony, although fun to ride will more than likely trot you to the graveyard quicker than the "amiable Clydesdale."
 
How is it not a good comparison? It is a perfectly valid comparison since having four engines was the class defined by the question itself, all of the aircraft I mentioned are in that same class regardless of any other characteristics such as engine type, weight or wingspan, that they might exhibit no matter how incongruous. Unless I missed something, the parameters stated don't specify anything other than one loosely defined performance characteristic (agility), one physical characteristic (four engines), and the era (WW2).

The "not good" comparisons are to aircraft that were mentioned by others as possible answers to the question posed. It wouldn't make sense for me to randomly select, or worse to cherry pick, aircraft for comparison unless I were the first to respond to the question. It was my intent to address those which had the most support and comments with some performance data and an alternative suggestion matching the question's stated parameters.

I'll preface this by saying this isn't actually relevant to the question asked. I haven't found anything to suggest that the Ar 234 had any vices or operational issues that in any way significantly compromised the safety of the aircraft despite the glaring shortcomings of its engines. It's service record seems damn good considering the Allies air dominance during the jet's operating time.
 
Putting it real simple - While the Ar234C had 4 engines, it was basically a twin engine aircraft with ONE variant having 2 more engines installed, About 14 were built and about 8 of them were operational, if that.
 
Look at the TBO of the Junkers Jumo 004 late in the war - would you want to fly any aircraft that had an engine TBO of about 25 - 50 hours if it didn't fail in flight first?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Putting it real simple - While the Ar234C had 4 engines, it was basically a twin engine aircraft with one variant having 2 more engines installed, 14 were built and about 8 of them were operational.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that its engine count was an anomaly in my original comment. I don't recall the question specifying numbers operational or deployed. Putting it simply, it had four engines and it was operational. "… Ar234C had 4 engines … ," "… 8 of them were operational ..." Those are your words. Those boxes are checked.
FLYBOYJ said:
Look at the TBO of the Junkers Jumo 004 late in the war - would you want to fly any aircraft that had an engine TBO of about 25 - 50 hours if it didn't fail in flight first?
Click to expand...
The Jumo 004 isn't the engine used in the aircraft. Reliability wasn't included in the question, but I would actually prefer to fly an Ar 234 with either engine in the operational period of the aircraft rather than other aircraft in the Germany arsenal. It would be my best chance of not becoming a kill for one of the P-51's or P-47's roaming about with impunity. It was the last German aircraft to fly over England during the war, and it had much better survival than anything else at that point because of its speed, and we can't find much evidence that their engines caused problems in the air. Keeping planes on the ground is a somewhat different issue than failing in flight.

I was not unaware of any of the few valid issues with the aircraft that you have mentioned, but they aren't relevant. Don't confuse relevant with significant or important - the issues were significant and/or important, but they not relevant. It seems that you are attempting to dispute my conclusion by citing irrelevant information, moving the goalposts, and gatekeeping. Your objections are entirely arbitrary; there were only three boxes to be checked to answer the question. Finally, you fail completely to suggest an aircraft that does answer the question, so no matter how bad you paint the Arado, it remains the answer by default.
 
The Ar234C was never used operationally.
The dozen or so "C"s were converted "A" types and prototypes with a few preproduction airframes built beforw war's end.

It was the "B" series that saw combat, both in recon and bombing missions.

So yeah, there was a four-engined bomber version, great and it was about as useful as the Junkers Ju287.

Pretty sure the OP was aiming toward heavy bomber types' agility and performance...
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Look at the TBO of the Junkers Jumo 004 late in the war - would you want to fly any aircraft that had an engine TBO of about 25 - 50 hours if it didn't fail in flight first?
Click to expand...
Twenty five hours TBO was the planned number but one book I have says actual field use averaged 17 hours TBO. Of course an average means if some lasted their 25, some may be only 10 hours before failure.
 
The French built a 4 engined medium bomber in 1939/40. Like the Bloch 135


But with four 700hp engines and a max gross weight of 25,353 lbs (max bomb load 2970lbs) and a wingspan of about 70ft it was in a totally different class than most other 4 engine bombers.
Granted it was a prototype and it's sister, the twin engine Bloch 134 (pair of 1140hp engines) didn't go anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
476
Dimlee
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
15K
PAT303
P
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register