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

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

The test crews liked the Arado 440, but it was not proceeded with and only 4 were bulit. Since the PILOTS liked it, you are probably correct.

I dismissed it from my list as a prototype, and should have probably included it along with the Ar 240, which was also pretty fast, but only 15 were built.

I suppose we COULD include the Arsenal VB-10. It didn't fly until 1947 but was firmly a WWII design and only 6 were built. It went 435 mph. Cancelled due to the imminent arrival of jets.

Of course, if we allow this one, it opens the door for other post-war pistons, too. In that case, I like the Argentinian FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu. Altogether a beautiful, fast, single-seat piston. Alas, only 1 was built and it flew in 1950. It wasn't built, not becasue of jets, but because of lack of money by Argentina. But it certainly showed what they could do with aircraft design.
 
Last edited:
All these Heinkel graphs are projected/calculated speeds unless noted as "erflogen" (flown/tested). The mentioned DB 603G engine never reached series production.
 
There is a lot of material on the Dinahs, but very little concrete data. We do know that two Ki-46 IV prototypes were built with turbocharged engines and one flew from Peking to Yokota in 3 hours 15 minutes covering 1,4330 miles for an average speed of 435 mph ... but we don't know the winds aloft at the time. At least, I don't ... so it's hard to say. They didn't repeat the flight both ways for an average. The oft-publishedspeed is 391 mph @ 32,810 feet.

I've always liked the lines of the Ki-46, but finding much data on it that gives technical details is not easy. Suffice to say it was swift for a twin at the time in the Pacific. I really don't think it is the hunt for fastest against the German, British, or American twins in use in Europe, but it was near the top in the PTO, where people "babied" their engines as much as possible since the landing area was very wet and aircraft carriers and islands were far between.
 
Last edited:
Hi Readie,

Saw that one and dismissed it as fiction since most of the planes never flew. They included paper designs as flying aircraft. Pure fiction, but interesting from a fiction standpoint that never happened and was never going to happen.

They list all the fictional stuff and conveniently leave out the P-51H that DID see producrtion and was in WWII, though never saw action. Some other s are missing , too, but I still enjoyed the science fiction.
 
Last edited:
They do show that ... you are right. I like to think that many of the fictional planes might have flown had the war dragged on a bit, but I hate thinking of the war dragging on and the people who would have died had it done so. I love the planes, but wouldn't kill a single person to see another one fly.

Man's gretest achievements come in wartime. We went into WWII flying rag-wing biplanes and came out flying jets. Too bad we can't seem to make progress like that in peactime ... usually.
 
GregP said:
They do show that ... you are right. I like to think that many of the fictional planes might have flown had the war dragged on a bit, but I hate thinking of the war dragging on and the people who would have died had it done so. I love the planes, but wouldn't kill a single person to see another one fly.

Man's gretest achievements come in wartime. We went into WWII flying rag-wing biplanes and came out flying jets. Too bad we can't seem to make progress like that in peactime ... usually.
Click to expand...

Quite right Greg. Total agreement with you. War is the spur to many things, good and bad.
There were some designs that survived throughout WW2 flying from day 1 to VE day. Does that fact make the Spitfire ME109 ,for example, really advanced in 1939 or, just so good there wasn't any need to replace them in front line service?
I think it was a bit of that plus expediency.
Cheers
John
 
Well, both the Spitfire and the Me 109 were definitely "long in the tooth," and I doubt there was much more to get out of them without a major redesign. Both designs could have been revised and I believe the Germans made a virtual air force of Me 109 variants for one reason or another, including one with inward-retracting, conventional landing gear and another with tricycle gear.

The 109 needed elevator, aileron and rudder trim, inward-retracting landing gear, better aileron design, a bubble canoy, and more fuel. It COULD have had all. The Spitfire could have used wider gear, a less draggy radiator setup, a more swept windscreen, and more fuel. If could have had all that, too.

In the end, neither "improvement" would likely have changed the war's outcome, so how badly were they needed? Apparently not that badly. I know it is a simplistic view but, in the end, both were good enough to finish the war. Had the Germans won, the Me 109 would have been there at the end, too, as it was in defeat. Ditto the Spitifre the other way.

Back to the subject of the thread, I believe the real life fastest piston twin that was a production model wasn't likely faster than about 435 mph or so ... the rest being either paper designs or prototypes that weren't ever serially produced. The Hughes XF-11 and Twin Mustang were both post-war, though firmly rooted in WWII. They built fewer Do 335's than they did Ta 152's, so I discount both of those as non-events. Depending on who you believe, they only flew between 16 and 22 examples of the Do 335 before the war ended.

So, if we discount the fabulous prototypes, we are left with very few real production fast twins from which to choose. left to my own devices, I'd take a Tigercat since it actually made fleet service entry prior to the end of WWII, but obviously never made it to Europe an didn't contribute to the outcome. If I discount the Tigercat (I won't fight too hard since it was a non-factor in the war), then I'm pretty much left with the Mosquito and the P-38 as meaingful twins. For a fighter, I'd take the P-38 any day of the week. If range and bomb carrying capacity were important, I'd take a Mosquito except in the South Pacific due to the deleterious effect of tropical weather on wood airframes.

I think all the rest were not as fast as either the P-38 or the Mosquito and were not produced in large enough numbers to warrant consideration as a WWII service twin.

I'm sure there are those who believe paper airplanes that were deisgned but never flew are valid for consideration along with the one-offs. If you are one those, choose in peace ... no argument from me at all going forward. Went back and read some of my earlier posts in this thread and I must say they sounded a bit pompous. Didn't intend to come across that way at the time but apparently did. So, as I said above, no more arguments from me. I'll express my own opinion and not argue about anyone else's ...

Fantasy airplanes that made no real contribution to the outcome of the war aren't my cup of tea, but they are interesting nonetheless in themselves. Enough said.

As for fastest twin regarless of engine type, I could not choose other than the Me 262. Though not a big fan of the type, it was impressive and showed the way forward for better jet fighters to come only a short time later.
 
Last edited:
i think the only "fast" twins produced in number comparable (but less, around 3 thousand each) are the Bf 110G and the Ju 88G/S/T
 
Yes, triple, and the pulsejets vibrate a LOT. I know since we have restored and run one. Google "Chino Pulsejet" and see it run. We pushed my pickup down the runway in 2009 at the Planes of Fame airshow with it and it was NOT sonething you'd want to have on your P-51 wingtips.

The P-51 with the ramjets on the wing was lucky to get down in one piece. Nobody would want to fly it under power for very long.

At cruise, it burned 3.3 US gallons of gasoline per minute. Two would be 6.6 gpm or 396 gallons per hour typical fuel consumption ... that without the Merlin running! Add the Merlin at CRUISE and you are at about 460 gallon per hour. I'd think that the plane wouldn't really be able to go anywhere at still get back ... heck, that's close to an F-86 fuel burn! They use 600 gph when we fly them.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
Yes, triple, and the ramkets vibrate a LOT. I know since we have restored and run one. Google "Chino Pulsejet" and see it run. We pushed my pickup down the runway in 2009 at the Planes of Fame airshow with it and it was NOT sonething you'd want to have on your P-51 wingtips.

The P-51 with the ramjets on the wing was lucky to get down in one piece. Nobody would want to fly it under power for very long.

At cruise, it bruned 3.3 US gallons of gasoline per minute. Two would be 6.6 gpm or 396 gallons per hour typical fuel consumption ... that without the Merlin running! Add the Merlin at CRUISE and you are at about 460 gallon per hour. I'd think that the plane wouldn't really be able to go anywhere at still get back ... heck, that's close to an F-86 fuel burn! They use 600 gph when we fly them.
Click to expand...

Ram jet, not pulse jet Greg.

The ram jet needs forward momentum to work.

Here are a couple of German Ramjets being tested.
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfJets/img2/Do-17.jpg
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Do17/Do-217.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

herman1rg
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
16K
PAT303
P
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
965
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
438
fubar57
fubar57
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
7K
drgondog
drgondog
Back