Twin Engine Fighters

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

pbehn said:
I thought the critical engine was the one which could run alone on AC that had a set up with only one generator hydraulic pump etc?
Click to expand...

That's more of a maintenance definition when you have one engine loaded up with certain accessories.

From wiki, they could say it better than I

"The critical engine of a multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft is the one whose failure would result in the most adverse effects on the aircraft's handling and performance. On propeller aircraft, there is a difference in the remaining yawing moments after failure of the left or the right (outboard) engine when all propellers rotate in the same direction due to the P-factor. On turbojet/ turbofan aircraft, there usually is no difference between the yawing moments after failure of a left or right (outboard) engine. An engine can also be called critical when it is the only engine that drives a hydraulic pump for augmenting/ boosting flight controls."

Excluding some of the single engine driven accessories in the P-38, the P-38 had no critical engine, OR you could consider BOTH engines critical if you're a pessimist!
 
Lockheed tested servo tabs on the elevator in attempt to provide enough control to pull out of pitch-down high mach number dives, but it led to overstressing the booms and ripping off the tail (using trim tabs for recovery could have similar results with a fine line between recovery and shedding the tail). But I don't see that as any reason not to perform similar tests on the ailerons. Granted, Johnson also wanted the P-38 to use a stick rather than a yolk, but that didn't happen either.

Servo tabs and automatic slats (or fixed slots for that matter) are two things that really seem like they could at least have been tested experimentally more often. (slats or slots especially on aircraft with dangerous stall or spin characteristics -the F4U and P-39 both come to mind)


Shortround6 said:
Sticking 2000hp engines in a KI 45 is going to be a bit difficult.

The KI-96 may have been a more practical option.

Twin 1500hp engines and a speed of 600kph at 6000 meters.

Possibility of production in early 1944?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't converting the Ki 45 to use 1200-1300 hp Kinsei engines earlier on be a possibility too?

Some sort of high performance heavy fighter using Kasei or Homare engines should have been on the table sooner as well. (I said as much on the Ki 83 above, but orienting the Ki 96 for larger, 1800-2000 hp class engines from the start seems like it would be more effective in creating a competitive late-war heavy fighter too)
 
Last edited:
One of my favorites. We have the good luck to have one flying locally. There is a replica based at Flabob (short distance from Chino) and there is also a replica Caudron racer flying out of there, too ... but with a Czech LOM engine in place of the Renault. So we get to see these fly occasionally. I have sat in the Caudron and it is no place for anyone who is claustrophobic! There is barrely room for the head and I am only 5' 9" tall.

The Comet really is a beautiful aircraft.

Here is a pic of the local replica as it was being readied for first flight:



And here it is in flight:



Altogether a beautiful machine. They usually use the tailwheel, but fit the skid when they are operating from grass ... or DID. Today it's mostly the skid.

Here is the Caudron 460 replica in flight:



Maybe you can tell the canopy is JUST big enough for your head ...
 
Last edited:
Greg, is that the same Comet replica that was housed at the San Martin Air Museum until a few years back? (or ... maybe a decade at this point) That beauty was one of my favorite exhibits there as a kid.
 
It was made locally at Flabob and is flown occasionally by the owner. I believe Mark Lightsey ahd a hand in it, but I might be wrong there. He definitely built the Caudron and they attend airshows together a lot of the time.
 
Last edited:
That might get you banned

I LOVE the Hornet, but the Mossie will always be a fire I can't put out. It's lovely (except for the windshield), even if it's rotting away in the rain. Glad we have a few new ones to see flying about.

I suppose beauty is in the eyes of the alien Mosquito hater ...
 
I love the mosquito too but I must say compared to DH88 it is a plane jane. I wonder if the 88 was styled to be beautiful like a high end sports car or just turned out that way?
 
Good point, Edgar.

I like 'em both, but weapons DO have to go somewhere if they're carried. The strangest placement I can recall are the over-wing fuel tank on the EE Lightning. That didn't exactly help the looks, did it?
 
Sure was a sprightly performer until the fuel went away, though ...

I have spoken with a former Lightning pilot who allowed it's legs were so short it made a Dachshund look like a Greyhound. He said it was great fun for a very short time, among other things. Most of the crew chiefs hated it ... but is WAS a real performer when everything was operating correctly.

Perhaps it would still be accelerating when it ran out of fuel.

It probably wasn't the first aircraft to be designed without any thought being given to maintaining it in operation. Well, SOME thought was given because the critical fasteners were removable ... but access was always an issue. Again, not the first or last to have that issue. There are places on a Piper Cherokee that are almost impossible to reach. I wonder why they PUT things there?
 
Last edited:
The EE Lightning wasnt designed to have long range it was part of a 3 layer defence against Soviet bombers. The Gloster Javelin was the long range bomber killer that had the loiter time to hunt for the bombers over the Norwegian and North Seas. Then there was the Lightning designed to get off the ground and be at 50,000ft 2 mins later shoot a bomber down and then get back back to a runway. Basically it was a manned reusable (sometimes) missile If it ran out of fuel and the pilot had to pull the handle then that was fine stopping a Soviet bomber carrying a bucketfull of sunshine to drop on Britain was the main job. 3rd layer of defense were the Bloodhound and Thunderbird SAMs which defended high value targets.

Carrying enough fuel for 3 hours loiter over the sea is all very well but with 50s technology you arent going to get that fuel up to 50,000ft quickly and missing a Tu95 because you are 30,000ft below it and 30 miles away means a big chunk of Britain is now a pile of rubble.
 
GregP said:
Sure was a sprightly performer until the fuel went away, though ...?
Click to expand...
It was certainly that; for a time I worked with a man who'd been on the first Squadron to get them, and they were puzzled to see three aircraft set up for QRA, but only two actually going, until, one day all three went. In the evening the CO came in, with a large photo, and said, "Here you are, lads, this is what you've been waiting for."
Winding the clock back a few weeks, the then Javelin-equipped Squadron would take off, to intercept incoming U-2 aircraft, but fell away well short.
The photo was of a U-2, with a Lightning at each wingtip, photographed, from above, by the third Lightning; he always wanted a copy of the photo, but it disappeared, never to be seen again.
 

I used to work with a Swedish engineer who was an ex Swedish Air Force pilot. He told me the SAAB 35 Draken could intercept a U2 and the squadron he was on did it quite regulary until a very stern group of men came to the base and told the pilots the intercepts had to stop, they never happened anyway and if it happened again (even though it had never happened of course) the Americans would get very angry.
 
I was aware that EE Lightning and the Saab Draken could get to U-2 altitudes. DOn't think the Viggen could, though. Not at all sure it matters if your allies can intercept one, but the existence of one or two planes that CAN get up there brings to mind the question of when the enemy will field the same capability.

It probably helped fuel the development of the SR-71 / A-12/YF-12A, and neither of the two planes in question could intercept an SR-71 if it didn't want to be intercepted. I'd hazard an estimnate that the SR-71 could STILL show a clean pair of heels to any existing fighter aircraft, though I believe missiles are around that could probably get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
860
wuzak
W
A
Any good twin engined CAS aircraft?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Jabberwocky
J
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
5
Views
202
GregP
K
Japanese Twin-engine bombers shot down 24 October 1944
Replies
0
Views
646
Keith1967
K
Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register