Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

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

I reckon this discussion is descending into silly degrees of pedantry...

Four-engined should specifically mean propulsion, so no APUs and auxiliary strap-on rockets shouldn't count. Including the He 177 is purely academic anyway as it would have come dead last given its tendency to throw itself apart in the air owing to overstressing of the airframe in vigorous manoeuvres.

Geez guys, be serious...
 
I'll try to keep all this mind while I try to heed the earlier words of a banned troll who tried to disguise his presence...

"Don't confuse relevant with significant or important - the issues were significant and/or important, but they not relevant."

 
Why is the He 177 considered a four engine aircraft? It's got two Daimler-Benz DB 610. Yes, each engine was based on two smaller engines running on a single shaft, but isn't that just a step down from the RR Vulture, itself comprising of multiple Peregrine engines?
 
The DB610 is two DB605s coupled, as we know.

However, they remained two seperate engines and one of the pair could be uncoupled, leaving the other engine to turn the shaft by itself.

Here's an image of the DB610:



Note the coupler gear housing and propellor shaft that connects both DB605s.

Think of the coupler as the clutch assembly in your auto - it can engage and disengage the engines as needed.
 

No Peregrine engines were harmed used in the making of the Rolls-Royce Vulture.

The Vulture is often described as two Peregrines joined together, but the Vulture predated the Peregrine and there were differences between them - the bore spacing in the Vulture is wider, for example, almost the same as the bore spacing of a Merlin.

The Vulture was designed as an X-24 from the start, not cobbled together as some 24 cylinder engines were - like the Lycoming H-2470 or the Allison V-3420.

As GrauGeist says, the DB 606 and DB 610 were coupled engines. That is, they were completely independent engines joined to a single gearbox.
 
The Ju288 project was largely a failure because they waited on the Jumo222 to materialize and in the end, they opted for the DB606/DB610 setup for the Ju288C, but that was a decision made far too late to save the project.
 
Perhaps irrelevant for the overall discussion, but the "best looking bomber" tangent came and went before I could post. I would argue the XB-36 was definitely a looker, but the bubble canopy of the production models is where the B-36 looses me. Just doesn't look as clean, and I like the original tiny nose better... Then again I also prefer the absolutely terrible single tires, they look ridiculous in the best way possible. Also part of why I find the XB-19 so charming to be honest.

For maneuverability, while it probably does not compare to the Lancaster, I seem to recall the B-32 being compared in both Sinko and Wolf's books to a Mitchell handling-wise by Liberator pilots, which is surely something for an aircraft with a 20,000 lb bombload and only slightly smaller than the B-29. The massive tailfin and rudder probably helped, I suppose. It certainly wins on ground maneuverability, what with its reversing props.
 
How about the agility of four engined aircraft that were not bombers, such as transports?

As one example, the de Havilland Albatross may have tiny engines, but per Wikipedia it had the making of an agile bird, with a high rate of climb (1,018 ft/min vs. the Lancaster's 720 ft/min), low wing loading (27.4 lb/ft² vs. the Condor's 39.4 lb/ft²) and a competitive high power/mass ratio (0.0719 hp/lb vs. the DC-4's 0.0787 hp/lb).
 

Good question...and, at face value, the Albatross would seem to have the attributes required for decent manoeverability. It has the added advantage of being really, REALLY pretty:

 
buffnut453 said:
Good question...and, at face value, the Albatross would seem to have the attributes required for decent manoeverability. It has the added advantage of being really, REALLY pretty:
Click to expand...
I agree. Some good footage here. I think the ducted cooling inlets feeding its aircooled inline engines are innovative.


It's made of wood so I wonder if that helped or hinders the ability to withstand the stresses of high G maneuvers. Of course the military spec Mosquito would have been made of sterner stuff.
 
Admiral Beez said:
How about the agility of four engined aircraft that were not bombers, such as transports?
Click to expand...
Post war, the USAF had a demonstration team called the "Four Horseman" (which sounded better than their original name: "Thunder Weasels") and they were flying C-130s.

I know this info falls out of the WWII timeline, but is a cool bit of history.
 
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
478
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