Twin Engine Fighters

SAAB Viggen pilots claimed to have got a missile lock onto Blackbirds plenty of times. The Blackbirds were tracked by ground radar then using a datalink between the ground and up to 4 aircraft. 1 as a master control/spotter, 2 on the beam of the spotter painting the target and 1 missile carrier positioned ahead of the target receiving target data automatically sent to its SkyFlash missiles. The Swedes admitted the only reason they got lock was because the Blackbirds were following a regular track back from a mission. The Viggens would be aloft waiting for the Bird not something that could be done if you didnt know the rough course of a target. At least not unless you had several thousand fighters and Radars available.

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

What's performing the SR-71 role these days?

gjs238 said:

What's performing the SR-71 role these days?

Click to expand...

Satellites...

However, google SR-72

Edgar Brooks said:

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.

Click to expand...

Edgar,

I would think the U-2 was not at its normal cruise altitude and speed if they got that type of shot. It goes WAY slow WAY high, something fighters still don't do today. Just my opine, but I am familiar with the speed altitude the U-2 operates at.

Cheers,
Biff

The Lightning is said to be able to zoom climb to 70kft plus.

It sure can, but not at 99 KIAS!

Did the lightning have a maximum altitude or just a range in the vertical?

Milosh said:

The Lightning is said to be able to zoom climb to 70kft plus.

Click to expand...

Milosh,

There is a large difference between one Lightning on each wing photographed from above by a third and a zoom climb into the seventies. If the photo was presented as having occurred at the U-2s operational altitude I would be a little skeptical, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Biff

GrauGeist said:

Satellites...

However, google SR-72

Click to expand...

Or maybe this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

The Lockheed-Martin SR-72 is a follow-on to the SR-71, except that it will be unmanned.

It is a hyper-sonic aircraft that will continue the mission of high-speed recon with the proposal of being satellite killing capable at a later point. The target speed range for this aircraft is Mach 6.

As usual, there is bickering back and forth for funding which comes as no surprise. History has shown that politicians are usually the most generous with funding AFTER they've started a war...

GregP said:

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:

View attachment 298494

And here it is in flight:

View attachment 298495

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:

View attachment 298496

Maybe you can tell the canopy is JUST big enough for your head ...

Click to expand...

Hey Greg, what about taking that red airplane and hanging a pair of Pratt and Whitney's on it? Specifically, and of P&W PT6 turboprops at 1200 or 1800 hp. Wonder how it would perform then???

The Comet is so classic I'd hate to mess with it. As for performance, I'm sure they produce enough HP to get the Comet well past the flutter speed and destroy it. Not sure what speed that is, and would noy want to find out personally.

It's similar to the Harmon Rocket and F1 Rocket Evo. They are both basically an RV-4 which normally had a 4-cylinder 150 - 160 HP Lycomming in it, and are strectched and have 6-cylinder 250+ HP Lycomings in them. Along the way they lose one rib bay in the wing to cut down on spar loading, but have a lower flutter margin than the stock RV-4, that's for sure. I wouldn't want to go lowering the nose at cruise power to find out where that is exactly, either.

Stock RV-4:


F1 Rocket Evo:


The RV-4, with 160 HP, goes 205 mph max and climbs 2,050 feet per minute with a fixed-pitch prop and one occupant. The F1 Rocket Evo with 250 HP goes 265 mph and climbs 3,500 feet per minute with a single occupant and a constant-speed prop. I have seen examples with 285 HP that climb over 4,000 feet per minute and can cruise at 260 mph while sipping gas compared with a warbird.

I bet the Comet with two 1,500 HP turboprops would have a wider margin than that ... if the airframe survived.

A fresh new design with alternate powerplants is another story. Go for it.

I don't quite have the money for it at this time, or I would build a Rocket. I SAY that but would probably build a Van's RV-7 with side-by-side seating instead both to save a bit and to still have fun. I would opt for the constant-speed prop if able.

For a Comet hot-rod, the first item on the agenda would be the strength and airframe limitations. Not sure I want a 3,000+ HP turbine wood aircraft that was designed for two 230 HP de Havilland Gypsie sixes. I'm pretty sure the designer never intended for quite that much power increase ... since it didn't exist at the time except in the Rolls-Royce "R" engine that was not really available quite yet to the public.

I think a fresh-sheet aircraft design would have more potential than the hot-rodded Comet. One particular item of note on the Coment is fairly bad visibility on the ground and not nuch to the side in-flight unless you roll it well into a bank. That's from a guy who flies one regularly. See my post above.

Greg, I thought the Comet was basically a homebuilt Whirlwind. I didn't realize how much less power it had than a Whirlwind. Like you, I don't think a Comet would handle a pair of 1,500 hp turboprops very well!!!! Be like putting one in a Cessna 182!!

If it's a C-182, SOMEONE would try it!

Earlier in the thread, we discussed "twins" like the F-82, Bf109Z and Me609 and I had intended to mention a Soviet concept, the Belyayev OI-2.

This was based on the Russian P-39 clone, Gudkov's Gu-1 and the "Twin Airacobra" was never built, but it would have been very interesting if it had.

The cockpit was situated on the right, the left fuselage was faired over. It had a "car door" access (unlike the Gu-1) and it was to be armed with two Taubin 23mm cannon firing through each prop, four UBS 12.7mm MGs firing through the prop arc in the left fuselage, four ShKAS 7.62mm MGs in the wing center section and proposed hardpoints for external stores (1,100lbs/500kg max. load).

It was designed to have two V-18 Klimov M-120UV 1,800 HP (1,340kW) engines.

Thanks, Graugeist. It's another obscure plane I haven't hear of. In my defense as a lover of obscure planes, it would appear this was never actually built and flown, but is a very interesting find nonetheless.

Now I have to find some data on it ... of the proposed design.

Wonder if it went out of CG aft when they shot all the ammunition like the P-39 did?

GregP said:

...it would appear this was never actually built and flown, but is a very interesting find nonetheless.

Now I have to find some data on it ... of the proposed design.

Click to expand...

It was based on the Gu-1, which was a copy of the P-39, so I imagine the Gu-1 would have had similar traits as the P-39...sadly, the Gu-1 didn't make it to production because all the prototypes crashed, each incident claiming a test pilot.

The OI-2 "Twin Airacobra" never made it past the paper stage, so we'll never know what it was capable of.

Here is an artist's rendering based on the original 3-view and design details:


On the otherhand, the "Twin Warhawk" actually made it to a mockup stage...

This P-40C concept is certainly another "twin" that would have been interesting to see what it was capable of. By the way, barely visible in this photo, is the fact that the starboard engine cowling has a shark mouth.

I have looked at that with some interst before. Imagine trying to see another aircraft from the cockpit!

It would be like trying to remove a bra without fingers ... frustrating and never gonna' work.

You could only look UP ... unless you rolled over. Worse than the visbility from a B-17 cockpit, and that wasn't all that great ... I sat in one and looked out. Not much there unless you look forward and up. Just acres of wing and engine.

GregP said:

...It would be like trying to remove a bra without fingers ... frustrating and never gonna' work...

Click to expand...

It appears you've never tried using your teeth...

You have no idea how easy it is and it leaves your hands free for other things!

While we're on the subject of paper projects, there was also the Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro, which interestingly enough, had two versions. One was a twin fuselage plan, much like the P-38, the other proposal was an asymmetric layout sort of like the Bv141. It is an obscure plan and I don't have any further information as to the planned armament or engines. I would take a wild guess and say they "may" have been considering a DB601 by the looks of the cowling, since the M.C202 and 205 used the DB engines - this is just a guess, however.

Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro #1


Caproni Ca.380 Corsaro #2