Which WWII aircraft would you choose?

[jetcal1]

Well, 'cuz I like going off the reservation?
Not a WWII airplane, but WWII lite........
Tricycle gear, fast cruise, easy to fly, lots of parts, relatively easy to maintain and pay for. (Four people could buy a top of the line airplane for about $1200.00 a month each for 72 months. Plus hangar, gas, insurance, maintenance.)

I'd buy a T-28

Just sayin'!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Tricycle gear, fast cruise, easy to fly, lots of parts, relatively easy to maintain and pay for. (Four people....

Hmmm.... what's the fastest WW2 twin-engined aircraft that could comfortably carry four people and some luggage over a useful city to city distance? Per Wikipedia >300 mph contenders include:

Northrop F-15 Reporter, 440 mph
Junkers Ju 388, 383 mph
Northrop P-61, 366 mph
Yokosuka P1Y, 340 mph
Mitsubishi Ki-67, 334 mph
Tupolev Tu-2, 328 mph
Douglas A-20 Havoc, 325 mph
Lioré et Olivier LeO 45, 308 mph
Nakajima Ki-49, 306 mph

Interestingly, the British did not make anything twin-engined capable of high speed and four crew. However, replace the DeHavilland Albatross' four 415 hp DH Gipsy engines and their two blade fixed pitch propellers with a pair of RR Peregrines or Merlins and three or four vp propellers and I bet the Albatross would exceed 350 mph. If so, that's my pick for a four person WW2 twin to take me and three mates around.

 

[GrauGeist]

The NA T-28 carries two, but he was saying four guys could go in on one for a reasonable cost.
I have a few friends that are co-owners of birds and they'll work out an agreed schedule - sort of like a time share.

 

[Greyman]

Interestingly, the British did not make anything twin-engined capable of high speed and four crew.

There was a transport version of the Buckingham built (64 examples, per wiki).

360 mph at 14,000 ft
342 mph at 3,750 ft
210 mph at 15,000 ft (most econ)
310 mph at 15,000 ft (max weak mix)

3,280 miles with 4 passengers and baggage (960 lb total).

 

[Warbirdnutball]

Ok. Wow. Here it goes;

A Me 110D in the Wespen markings from the Russian front. It's a great looking plane.

A Fw-187. It was a sleek bird that didn't really get a chance


A C200 Saetta. I like the looks of the father to the bb MC 202.

A CR 42. A nimble little fighter

A Hs 123. It's a smart plane that fought thru the beginning of the war

A Do 17Z. That was an undervalued bomber in my opinion.

My baby, the P-47D razorback. I love the ruggedness and looks of this plane. It was Gabby Gabreski's first fighter in the USAAF. I got to meet him. A great guy.

And lastly, an A5M4 Claude fighter. The father of the Zero. Need I say more.

 

[wuzak]

Hmmm.... what's the fastest WW2 twin-engined aircraft that could comfortably carry four people and some luggage over a useful city to city distance? Per Wikipedia >300 mph contenders include:

Northrop F-15 Reporter, 440 mph

The Northrop F-15 Reporter had 2 seats.

 

[wuzak]

Interestingly, the British did not make anything twin-engined capable of high speed and four crew. However, replace the DeHavilland Albatross' four 415 hp DH Gipsy engines and their two blade fixed pitch propellers with a pair of RR Peregrines or Merlins and three or four vp propellers and I bet the Albatross would exceed 350 mph. If so, that's my pick for a four person WW2 twin to take me and three mates around.

View attachment 592467

Get 4 small gas turbines (~1,000hp) and you would have a fast, reliable aircraft.

And you could take more than 4 passengers. As many as 30, in fact.

EDIT: You could get a 1,000hp+ gas turbine that weighs half of the Gipsy 12, and much less than half the weight of an installed Kestrel or Peregrine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Northrop F-15 Reporter had 2 seats.

And looks very tight, so scratch the Reporter off the list.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Get 4 small gas turbines (~1,000hp) and you would have a fast, reliable aircraft.

And you could take more than 4 passengers. As many as 30, in fact.

EDIT: You could get a 1,000hp+ gas turbine that weighs half of the Gipsy 12, and much less than half the weight of an installed Kestrel or Peregrine.

I was thinking of an engine swap back in the late 1930s. But yes, great idea on the turbo prop. What engine did you have in mind? Here in Canada we made one of the best....it's not 1,000 hp+ but it's much lighter and has higher sustained power.

de Havilland Gipsy Twelve - Wikipedia

• Length: 82.6 in (2,098 mm)
• Width: 31.5 in (800 mm)
• Height: 37.4 in (950 mm)
• Dry weight: 1,058 lb (480 kg)
• Power output: 425 hp at 2,450 rpm (max 5 min boost)
• Power-to-weight ratio: 0.4 hp/lb

Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 - Wikipedia

• Length: 62 in (1,575 mm)
• Diameter: 19 in (483 mm)
• Dry weight: 270 lb (122.47 kg)
• Maximum power output: 578 hp (431 kW) equivalent power at 2,200 output rpm for take-off
• Power-to-weight ratio: 2.14 hp/lb (3.52 kW/kg)

Shown here on the DeHavilland Dash-7.

 

[wuzak]

I was thinking of an engine swap back in the late 1930s. But yes, great idea on the turbo prop. What engine did you have in mind? Here in Canada we made one of the best....it's not 1,000 hp+ but it's much lighter and has higher sustained power.

Something along the lines of the PT6, which can be had in variants up to nearly 2,000hp.

 

[Shortround6]

How about the Lockheed Ventura?

Hudson on steroids

With a pair of engines from a DC-6 performance might be rather startling.

 

[warbird51]

Oh, wow. Where to start
Whirlwind, XA-38 Grizzly, XP-67 all polished out!! Fokker D-23. 4 engine, XB-38, so sexy!!! Ryan Fireball. Single engine, XP-75, XP-54 Swoose , P-40Q, XP-72 Super Bolt.

 

[EDFN]

P-40Q! Yepp. Very high on my list of most beautiful aircraft ever built.

 

[jetcal1]

Hmmm.... what's the fastest WW2 twin-engined aircraft that could comfortably carry four people and some luggage over a useful city to city distance? Per Wikipedia >300 mph contenders include:

Northrop F-15 Reporter, 440 mph
Junkers Ju 388, 383 mph
Northrop P-61, 366 mph
Yokosuka P1Y, 340 mph
Mitsubishi Ki-67, 334 mph
Tupolev Tu-2, 328 mph
Douglas A-20 Havoc, 325 mph
Lioré et Olivier LeO 45, 308 mph
Nakajima Ki-49, 306 mph

Interestingly, the British did not make anything twin-engined capable of high speed and four crew. However, replace the DeHavilland Albatross' four 415 hp DH Gipsy engines and their two blade fixed pitch propellers with a pair of RR Peregrines or Merlins and three or four vp propellers and I bet the Albatross would exceed 350 mph. If so, that's my pick for a four person WW2 twin to take me and three mates around.

View attachment 592467

Slight misquote. Please also keep in mind that every airplane I've mentioned has tricycle gear.

 

[Conslaw]

Since we are firmly grounded in the domain of fantasy here, I would pick either the Republic XF-12 Rainbow or the XB-42 Mixmaster. Both really fast for their time, and room inside for my politically incorrect harem

.

 

[Currell]

A P-26. I would paint it up in late 30s yellow and blue, realizing that this is not how they looked on 10 Dec 41, when a few engaged Japanese aircraft in the Phillipines.

Supposedly, they shot down no less than three Zeroes. How they managed that is a mystery...

A P-26 would show well at any airshow. At least you wouldn't see yourself coming and going.


Currell

 

[Shortround6]

Stick a fake turret on top and call it a war bird

 

[swampyankee]

A P-26. I would paint it up in late 30s yellow and blue, realizing that this is not how they looked on 10 Dec 41, when a few engaged Japanese aircraft in the Phillipines.

Supposedly, they shot down no less than three Zeroes. How they managed that is a mystery...

A P-26 would show well at any airshow. At least you wouldn't see yourself coming and going.


Currell

A P-26 would be a great choice!

 

[BiffF15]

This has to be the best looking B-17 / B-38 ever made.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[SaparotRob]

This has to be the best looking B-17 / B-38 ever made.

Cheers,
Biff

Close indeed but the B model B-17 is the correct answer.