Which double-engined aircraft of WWII, with piston engines was the fastest one?

[jim]

What do you guys think about a potential Fw 187 with Jumo 213E/J/S? I guess it would be in the same class as the DH Hornet. In its original Form it had as slim a fuselage and engine nacelles as the Hornet.

Fw 187 even with Db 605Db/Dcwould be in that class . Jumo 213 A&E would add much weight without big hp advantagr ( E of course would offer 2 stage supercharger) 213J would create a 5000hp monster but this engine was expected at summer 45 the earlierst
Fw 187 seemed to offer great performance with ordinaru methods (like Ki 83)

 

[Timppa]

My database says the fastest piston twins were as follows:

1. Dornier Do.335 at 474 mph
2. de Havilland D.H. 103 Sea Hornet at 472 mph
3. Arado Ae.240 C at 454 mph
4. Mitsubishi Ki-83 at 438 mph
5. Grumman F7F Tigercat at 435 mph

The fastest piston twin was supposed to the Bugatti R-100 Speed Record plane at 500 mph, but its speed was never proven in actual flight ...

All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.

The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.

 

[Vincenzo]

All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.

The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.

i'm not sure that pr mk 34 did see action in WW2, EDIT i just found a detachment started recce mission from july '45
the engines were not 113 or 114?

 

[GregP]

The thread originator did not mention production or action in the title to the thread. He asked which double-engined airplane of WWII was the fastest.

I like my answer and yes, the list would be different if asked for a mass-produced WWII aircraft, but prototypes were made and flowm and documented, so thety count in my book. They added no combat effectiveness, but are interesting in their own right.

 

[Siegfried]

What do you guys think about a potential Fw 187 with Jumo 213E/J/S? I guess it would be in the same class as the DH Hornet. In its original Form it had as slim a fuselage and engine nacelles as the Hornet.

I think the FW 187 with DB605 or with Jumo 211J or P would have been good enough, especially as the DB605 soon reached 1700, 1850 and even 2000hp. It would have bypassed much of the effort dedicated too and ulimatly wasted on the Ta 154.
Up untill about October 1943 or so the Jumo 211J was more powerfull than the equally heavy DB605A at low altitude.

Ta 154, really just a slightly improved wooden version of the FW 187 could take the Jumo 213 and BMW 801 as well as Jumo 211.

 

[Siegfried]

All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.

The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.

Ar 240 did fly a few reconaisance missions over the UK, Siegfried Kneymeyer was the pilot of some.

 

[iron man]

I think the FW 187 with DB605 or with Jumo 211J or P would have been good enough, especially as the DB605 soon reached 1700, 1850 and even 2000hp. It would have bypassed much of the effort dedicated too and ulimatly wasted on the Ta 154.
Up untill about October 1943 or so the Jumo 211J was more powerfull than the equally heavy DB605A at low altitude.

Ta 154, really just a slightly improved wooden version of the FW 187 could take the Jumo 213 and BMW 801 as well as Jumo 211.

I would agree here. Power to spare and would have been fairly easy to put into production as a bomber-killer, even late in the game.

Question about the "Falke" though...How well did the proven (i.e. initial) design perform (aerodynamically) at altitude; i.e. 7-8km? This has always been something I wondered about and I've found little documentation on the matter (not that I've really searched that hard).

To carry a little further along the same train of thought...I can't understand why there was no effort put into a severely "stripped-down" Me 410 (i.e single seater, bombing and defensive gear/gunner removed, battery of nose cannon [4 x Mk108 a la Me 262] and an "armoured bathtub", proof to .50 HMG) as a high speed/armoured bomber destroyer? Were there aerodynamic/performance issues (at altitude) in this case? One would think that this would be an even more expedient route to achieving the same ends, as opposed to reviving the Fw 187 design...perhaps some weight and balance issues (from removing the barbettes at the rear)? The moment arm is still not that far relative to the C of G so I don't see it presenting a huge problem. A few kilos of ballast (at a greatly increased moment arm) should surely address a minor issue like this this.

Surely someone must have thought of/proposed this?

I realize that all bets are off once the P-51 is present in numbers, but performance (i.e. survivability) would certainly have been better than that of the modified 190A's, historically employed. I fully recognize the fact that such a platform (Me 410) imposes a much greater burden upon already strained resources.

Comments? Anyone?

Ron

 

[chris mcmillin]

My database says the fastest piston twins were as follows:

1. Dornier Do.335 at 474 mph
2. de Havilland D.H. 103 Sea Hornet at 472 mph
3. Arado Ae.240 C at 454 mph
4. Mitsubishi Ki-83 at 438 mph
5. Grumman F7F Tigercat at 435 mph

The fastest piston twin was supposed to the Bugatti R-100 Speed Record plane at 500 mph, but its speed was never proven in actual flight ...

I think that this is a fantasy of misquoted figures through the years. I think the airplane was supposed to go about 310 to 330 mph. That's about 500 kph.
Chris...

 

[wuzak]

All of these belong to prototype/did not see action -category.

The fastest twin engined plane that did see action in WW2 was probably the Mosquito PR Mk. 34.
With Merlin 77, 422 mph.
With Merlin 113, 432 mph.

To be fair, the Hornet prototype achieved 490mph+, the F1 472mph. But the Hornet did not see service in WW2. The Sea Hornet was definitely post war, and had lower performance than the land plan Hornet.

The fastest Mosquito was the prototype, W4050, when fitted with two stage Merlins (61s). It achieved 437mph in '42.

 

[wuzak]

i'm not sure that pr mk 34 did see action in WW2, EDIT i just found a detachment started recce mission from july '45
the engines were not 113 or 114?

It probably used both.

The B.XVI and PR.XVIs used both a Merlin 76 and a Merlin 77 - the difference being that one of them was equipped with a cabin presurisation blower. Can't recall which was what.

So I figure it would be the same deal with the 113/114 for the PR34.

 

[wuzak]

I think the FW 187 with DB605 or with Jumo 211J or P would have been good enough, especially as the DB605 soon reached 1700, 1850 and even 2000hp. It would have bypassed much of the effort dedicated too and ulimatly wasted on the Ta 154.
Up untill about October 1943 or so the Jumo 211J was more powerfull than the equally heavy DB605A at low altitude.

Ta 154, really just a slightly improved wooden version of the FW 187 could take the Jumo 213 and BMW 801 as well as Jumo 211.

The Ta 154 was a night fighter, something that would have been difficult with the tiny fuselage on the Fw 187.

 

[Siegfried]

Thanks Siegfried
But 335 definitely didn't "consistantly exceded expectations." E-Kdo 335 report clearly stated that their Do 335s were slower than what had been claimed by Dornier and predicted that fully service equipped production planes might well be up to 20km/h slower still.


Juha

From what I've read service versions of the DH Hornet were also only good for around 460mph.

 

[Siegfried]

The Ta 154 was a night fighter, something that would have been difficult with the tiny fuselage on the Fw 187.

The Germans did experiment with single engined FW 190 and Me 109 equiped with Neptune radars. They found that after staring into the osciliscope that the pilot lost his night vision. FW 187 was built as a two seater and thus could have provided for the all importan radar opperator and navigator. While it would have lost performance and perhaps and lacked the space for a full electronic fitout it was certainly better than a single engined aircraft. More important it might have been fast enought to catch a mosquito.

 

[wuzak]

The Germans did experiment with single engined FW 190 and Me 109 equiped with Neptune radars. They found that after staring into the osciliscope that the pilot lost his night vision. FW 187 was built as a two seater and thus could have provided for the all importan radar opperator and navigator. While it would have lost performance and perhaps and lacked the space for a full electronic fitout it was certainly better than a single engined aircraft. More important it might have been fast enought to catch a mosquito.

IIRC, there were two seat (trainer) versions of both the Fw 190 and the Bf 109.

The prototype V1 Fw 187 was a single seater, as was V2. V3-V6 were all 2 seaters, and formed the basis for the Fw 187A-0, the pre production prototype.

Yes, an Fw187A with DB605 engines may have been able to catch a Mosquito. The closing speed would be marginal for later two stage types, but better on the single stage Mossies. However, add the antenna array common with German nightfighters with their extra drag, weigh it down with extra equipment and the intercept becomes much more difficult.

Of course if Fw187 interceptions of Mossie bombers do become a problem the RAF can use PN150 fuel and up the boost pressure from +18psi to +25ps, for an additional 20 or 30mph.

 

[pinsog]

I'm a bit suprised that the P38 hasn't even been mentioned here. The official top speed I have always seen quoted is 414 mph, but many claim it was much faster than that. And of course, the P38K prototype which was stupidly never produced.

 

[wmaxt]

The P-38 was mentioned earlier. Lockheed reportedly had P-38L versions in the 440 range however that was with 150 fuel and more that 60in MAP conditions the AAF didn't test for. In combat pilots often pushed the throttles "Through the Gate"( one pilot of a P-38H noted he hit 86"MAP it must have been scooting along!), but were to busy to note speed. Also at 30,000ft 440 is getting near the speed the P-38 gets into compressibility, and drag really climbs as an aircraft nears compressability, so it couldn't go that fast in that flight regime
At 60" MAP the fastest P-38 was the P-38J-1 through J10 at 421mph.

Some of these other aircraft mentioned in this thread were faster than that - though they may not have been in as much combat or made as much of an impact.

Bill

 

[drgondog]

The P-38 was mentioned earlier. Lockheed reportedly had P-38L versions in the 440 range however that was with 150 fuel and more that 60in MAP conditions the AAF didn't test for. In combat pilots often pushed the throttles "Through the Gate"( one pilot of a P-38H noted he hit 86"MAP it must have been scooting along!), but were to busy to note speed. Also at 30,000ft 440 is getting near the speed the P-38 gets into compressibility, and drag really climbs as an aircraft nears compressability, so it couldn't go that fast in that flight regime
At 60" MAP the fastest P-38 was the P-38J-1 through J10 at 421mph.

Some of these other aircraft mentioned in this thread were faster than that - though they may not have been in as much combat or made as much of an impact.

Bill

IF the P-38L made 440mph at 30,000 feet it would at .648M and be deep into Drag Divergence issues just before transonic shock wave inititiation. This is one of the reasons the P38 never won during the Bendix races Post WWII...the last time I dabbled with the drag numbers it looked like the 38 needed nearly 4000 hp to muscle through 430mph at .65

 

[iron man]

I would agree here. Power to spare and would have been fairly easy to put into production as a bomber-killer, even late in the game.

Question about the "Falke" though...How well did the proven (i.e. initial) design perform (aerodynamically) at altitude; i.e. 7-8km? This has always been something I wondered about and I've found little documentation on the matter (not that I've really searched that hard).

To carry a little further along the same train of thought...I can't understand why there was no effort put into a severely "stripped-down" Me 410 (i.e single seater, bombing and defensive gear/gunner removed, battery of nose cannon [4 x Mk108 a la Me 262] and an "armoured bathtub", proof to .50 HMG) as a high speed/armoured bomber destroyer? Were there aerodynamic/performance issues (at altitude) in this case? One would think that this would be an even more expedient route to achieving the same ends, as opposed to reviving the Fw 187 design...perhaps some weight and balance issues (from removing the barbettes at the rear)? The moment arm is still not that far relative to the C of G so I don't see it presenting a huge problem. A few kilos of ballast (at a greatly increased moment arm) should surely address a minor issue like this this.

Surely someone must have thought of/proposed this?

I realize that all bets are off once the P-51 is present in numbers, but performance (i.e. survivability) would certainly have been better than that of the modified 190A's, historically employed. I fully recognize the fact that such a platform (Me 410) imposes a much greater burden upon already strained resources.

Comments? Anyone?

Ron

Quoted to bump.

Anyone?

 

[R Pope]

Clostermann in "The Big Show" recounts an encounter with a Do335 while flying his Tempest. Diving at "almost 500 MPH" he could only watch as the Jerrie flew away untouched. I read a story by a Dornier test pilot about what is likely the same encounter where the pilot claimed similar speed in his escape. He was in an unarmed prototype, so the top speed may have been more than an operational fighter could have achieved.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would agree here. Power to spare and would have been fairly easy to put into production as a bomber-killer, even late in the game.

Question about the "Falke" though...How well did the proven (i.e. initial) design perform (aerodynamically) at altitude; i.e. 7-8km? This has always been something I wondered about and I've found little documentation on the matter (not that I've really searched that hard).

To carry a little further along the same train of thought...I can't understand why there was no effort put into a severely "stripped-down" Me 410 (i.e single seater, bombing and defensive gear/gunner removed, battery of nose cannon [4 x Mk108 a la Me 262] and an "armoured bathtub", proof to .50 HMG) as a high speed/armoured bomber destroyer? Were there aerodynamic/performance issues (at altitude) in this case? One would think that this would be an even more expedient route to achieving the same ends, as opposed to reviving the Fw 187 design...perhaps some weight and balance issues (from removing the barbettes at the rear)? The moment arm is still not that far relative to the C of G so I don't see it presenting a huge problem. A few kilos of ballast (at a greatly increased moment arm) should surely address a minor issue like this this.

Surely someone must have thought of/proposed this?

I realize that all bets are off once the P-51 is present in numbers, but performance (i.e. survivability) would certainly have been better than that of the modified 190A's, historically employed. I fully recognize the fact that such a platform (Me 410) imposes a much greater burden upon already strained resources.

Comments? Anyone?

Ron

Quoted to bump.

Anyone?

I'll bite - your concept is sound, I can only guess production and operational costs (a twin vs. a single engine aircraft) and possible C/G issues based on the C/G vs. MAC would prohibit this. Without computing the actual weight and balance it's hard to determine how this aircraft will perform during all flight regimes.