Twin Engine Fighters

The tail wheels were retractable. Very doubtful the a/c landed on the tail wheels as the stab doesn't look strong enough to take the landing shock besides the almost nil suspension travel.

Milosh said:

The tail wheels were retractable. Very doubtful the a/c landed on the tail wheels as the stab doesn't look strong enough to take the landing shock besides the almost nil suspension travel.

View attachment 297438

Click to expand...

It would have to touch on the rear assembly first in order to land safely. I cannot see anyone in their right mind that would attempt to land an aircraft by touching the nose-gear first.

Once you have your flaps down and flare, your nose will be between the horizon and slightly up-attitude. Trying to keep the nose level or down-attitude during this process means you run the risk of spoiling your lift and you'll be touching down a hell of alot more than just the nose-gear.

GregP said:

though even as an Allison fan I am not fond of double V-12 engines in one gearcase ... too many oil leak and heat issues. That is ... leak a little oil in between the engine cases and the heat of the middle exhaust will almost certainly ignite it fairly quickly. Ask any early He 177 pilot or crewmember.

Click to expand...

The difference being that the Daimler-Benz coupled engines were upside down, so oil leaks went towards the exhaust, or pooled in the cowling near where the exhausts exited. The V-3420's exhausts were near the top of the engine, so most leaks would not go towards the exhausts.

B-47s and B-52s land nose high.

Milosh said:

B-47s and B-52s land nose high.

Click to expand...

Virtually all aircraft have a "nose high" attitude when landing.

An aircraft with conventional gear will be close to level as they flare, as their main gear touches down first, then the tail. An aircraft with tricycle gear will have a higher nose-up attitude to ensure the main-gear touches down before the nose gear.

In looking at the SE-100, it would be a tricycle gear style landing, contacting the tail wheels first and then the nose-gear. The tail assembly looks to be robust and also consider that as the plane is setting down, the wings are still generating enough lift to reduce the load on the tail structure (assuming it's a clean landing) until the nose-gear touches down.

The B-52 is the only aircraft I ever saw that lands on the front gear truck first some of the time, but not all of the time. When they do, it looks like driving a wheelbarrow, with the pilot all over the rudder.

I can't see the SE 100 landing front wheel first ... but then again, I have not see a flim clip of one landing. I can't imagine that landing on a rough field was not planned for in the design since most front-line airstrips in WWII were "rough fields" by definition. But, the plane WAS French and I can't say. It might have had a wine cellar, for all I know. I can say that since my last name IS French.

Remember that old saying about WWII airplanes: if it is wierd - it is British, if it is ugly - it is French, if it weird and ugly - it is Russian. At least that's the way U heard it said at several warbord meetings. Personally, I like the Lavochkins, Yaks, and MiGs. It is most of the other design bureaus that were a bit wierd and ugly simultaneously.

Never heard any jokes about German planes for some reason, and they had their share of the wierd and ugly, like everyone else did.

Yah, I saw a heavy touch down nose-first once. It was one of the ugliest landings I have seen.

As the nose touched, the tail started to swing wide to starboard (starboard wingtip dipping precariously) and then the main gear touched, causing the aircraft to shoot to the left towards the median. The pilot over-corrected causing the whole dog and pony show to careen to the right. He eventually straightened it out, using nearly every foot of runway.

I've seen that one, too, Graugeist. It's not pretty but is probably NOTHING like being the pilot and having to DO it to avoid the crash and suffering the embarrasment later.

Hi Wuzak, you have a point about which way the oil drips, but oil anywhere near an exhaust manifold is not a good thing to contemplate. Since both Vees lean outward, maybe the real danger point is the outside, the more heaviliy leaning-over side. And maybe the upright Vee layout made the double V-12 Allison 3420 a better animal. The regular V-1710 is VERY relaible and maybe the V-3420 could have been, too.

GregP said:

The XP-87 ws a neat-looking bird let down by underperforming engines, but as a neat bird nontheless. Rather unique looking and not aesthetically unappealing.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean XP-67 not the post-war Curtiss jet.








Neat ejector jet exhaust arrangement too.


Shame they considered switching to the V-1710 so late, going with that earlier and paralleling the P-38's power development up to that 2000 hp at 75" on 100/150 fuel if not beyond would have been far more realistic for a design that heavy and pretty close in size/weight to those 1430s. It might have avoided that self-destructive engine fire using V-1710s in testing too. It still might have been a bit underpowered given weight and size in the Mosquito and F7F class, but with the performance it managed in underpowered form, perhaps the low drag would have made up for the weight. Obviously the planned 37 mm cannons would have been better replaced by 20 mm or a combination of 20 mm and 50 cal guns.

The high tail, sleek design, and engine nacelle placement makes it LOOK like it should have been a jet aircraft, but I don't think the landing gear arrangement would have made that sort of conversion practical without a heavy redesign to the wing (and you'd want J33s or J35s in there given the size/weight). A mixed-power arrangement might have been easier to adapt using J30s embedded in the rear nacelles aft of the landing gear mechanism in line with the existing jet exhaust nozzle. (2x 2000 hp V-1710s + 2x 1600 lbs turbojets seems like an interesting arrangement, might have made for a better long range heavy fighter than Bell's XP-83 and more adaptable to the fighter-bomber and night fighter role) I know most mixed-power arrangements didn't work out all that well, but there's something about the Moonbat that seems like it might have made it work.

Hell, if it worked well enough in mixed-power form, it might have merited a heavier redesign into a pure jet as well. (I really don't see the J33 or J35 fitting in the proper position for weight/strength and CoG the basic XP-67 was designed for without the landing gear mechanism also getting in the way of the engines or exhaust)


That and those problematic near-stall characteristics seem like the sort of thing that could be solved (or greatly reduced) with slats or even fixed slots (like the Me 163) to generally avoid the tip-stall and spin regime of flight entirely. (or well enough to avoid it in typical maneuvers) Honestly, that seems like it would have been the simplest solution on the P-39 as well. (fixed slots add drag but that seems like a better option than adding nose ballast and should improve take-off performance -automatic slats add mechanical complexity, cost, weight, and a greater number of structural changes) I'm honestly not sure why slots weren't at least tested on more aircraft with dangerous tip-stall behavior, it might not have been the solution, but it seems like an obvious thing to at least try and if the Me 163 used them, there's obviously some room for compromise in high-speed aircraft. (the F4U also comes to mind)

kool kitty89 said:

Neat ejector jet exhaust arrangement too.

Click to expand...

Actually not ejector exhausts.

The XP-67 was fitted with a turbo for each of its IV-1430s. They were mounted so that their axis was horizontal, or nearly so, and the exhaust pointed rearwards. In the rear view you can probably make out that the "ejector exhausts" actually comprise two pipes - the exhaust proper and the wastegate pipe.

One of the design issues that the XP-67 ad was that there was no heat shield or firewall between the engine and the turbo.

The best comparison for the XP-67 was the XP-49, Lockheed's tidied up P-38 (same wings, refined crew nacelle), which also used the IV-1430s with turbo. The performance for the two was very much teh same, and less than a standard P-38 at that time.

I believe there was a proposal to fit Packard Merlins to the XP-67.

kool kitty89 said:

I assume you mean XP-67 not the post-war Curtiss jet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I had brought up the XP-58 and XP-67...so that was a typo...

Oops, yep, I meant 67 too. I may be noted for a few things, but great typing will never be near the top of the list. You have to admit, the bat is unique-looking aircraft. I happen to like the looks, but people who think the other way are out there, too.

One man's junk is another man's treasure, or something like that.

The Moonbat was certainly an interesting design.

One of the few odd designs that had potential.

Wish they had sorted out the engines, but McDonnell went on to do great things anyway, didn't they?

GregP said:

Wish they had sorted out the engines, but McDonnell went on to do great things anyway, didn't they?

Click to expand...

Remember that the XP-67 was McDonnell's second design, and the first they built.

The first design that they did was even more radical.

The Westland Welkin and its less successful competitor the Vickers Type 432 were specialists aimed at high altitude. The Welkin could certainly fly higher than most fighters but I seem to recall that it had problems with compressibility when diving at high altitude. Wikipedia supplies a picture showing the wingspan and there is a closer up image here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/unsorted/p8938-westland-welkin-fmki.html

The high-altitude propeller planes all experienced the "coffin corner" where the normal stall and shock stall were very close together. The early Lear 23 busniess jets did, too. When they got up to 49 - 51,000 feet, they were only a few knots from either stall or mach tuck.

Today a Grumman G650 business jet has something like 35 knots buffer between stall and Mach tuck, so life is easier.

In the case of the Welkin, when the Germans stopped flying the Ju 86P, the Welkin lost its mission and wasn't needed. I tend to never think much about the Welkin since it had so little production and was not needed in the end, but had the high-altitude threat been real, then it would have been an operational necessity.

Planes that were designed and built, but never needed might make a good thread, The Welkin would be in there with some very interesting aircraft.

I do like the look of alot of the twin-engine fighers

the Ki-82 Ki-96 are good looking planes,the P38 the F7F both looked cool ,the Bf110 looked cool in a sinister way.

but in top place for me is the Hornet,that's one good looking plane.

I like the look of the Whirlwind,but I don't like how it can take over threads.

wuzak said:

Remember that the XP-67 was McDonnell's second design, and the first they built.

The first design that they did was even more radical.

Click to expand...

McDonnell's model 1 wasn't that bad of a design, but the tandem pusher prop driven by a single engine would be very questionable in a combat environment.

thedab said:

I do like the look of alot of the twin-engine fighers

the Ki-82 Ki-96 are good looking planes,the P38 the F7F both looked cool ,the Bf110 looked cool in a sinister way.

but in top place for me is the Hornet,that's one good looking plane.

I like the look of the Whirlwind,but I don't like how it can take over threads.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the planes fault lol