Who did it better, Arsenal VB 10 or Kawasaki Ki-64?

[Admiral Beez]

Both had engines in tandem, one in the aircraft nose and the other behind the cockpit, both connected by a drive shaft. As I understand it in the Arsenal VB 10 the rear engine drove a separate contra-rotating propeller, while on the Kawasaki Ki-64 both engines were connected and together drove both propellers.

 

[Frog]

Both had engines in tandem, one in the aircraft nose and the other behind the cockpit, both connected by a drive shaft. As I understand it in the Arsenal VB 10 the rear engine drove a separate contra-rotating propeller, while on the Kawasaki Ki-64 both engines were connected and together drove both propellers.

The VG_10 engine(s) were plagued with overheating problem resulting with the loss of prototype n°2 (pilot severely burned) and series example n°3 (pilot killed), the last nail in the program's cpoffin.

 

[GregP]

Great question.

I like the Ki-64, but the cooling system on the only prototype eventually failed and the aircraft caught fire. Not the best recommendation, is it?

They actually made 6 VB-10s, and that alone says the VB-10 was more successful. But, then again, it didn't fly until after VE day, so it wasn't a wartime combat aircraft, although the design certainly was. Both had about the same speed, but the Ki-46 cilmbed at least 50% better, likely due to much lower weight (13,000 pounds versus 20,000 pounds with about the same horsepower in the engines).

I'd say both would have required some teething trouble solutions had jets not come along when they did, but I prefer more power in a fighter and have to go with the Ki-64. Likely, both would have been about as good or bad, as the case may be, as the other one had they made it into service. After the war was over, rate of climb was a non-factor anyway.

Both likely would have caused their respective crew chiefs no end of stress as burried and coupled engines are NOT easy to work on. Heck, the Allisons in a P-38 are not easy to work on, either and likely have about the same access as the coupled engine, so maybe it wasn't going to be a real factor. Changing a rear engine would have been a real bear! So, I'd bet the pilots would have feathered the rear engine prop and cruised on the front one ... maybe. Pilots back then were many times notoriously inconsiderate of the woes of a mechanic, unless the mechanic had liquor on hand most of the time.

Go watch Baa Baa Black Sheep and tell me it ain't so!

 

[Frog]

Great question.

I like the Ki-64, but the cooling system on the only prototype eventually failed and the aircraft caught fire. Not the best recommendation, is it?

They actually made 6 VB-10s, and that alone says the VB-10 was more successful. But, then again, it didn't fly until after VE day, so it wasn't a wartime combat aircraft, although the design certainly was. Both had about the same speed, but the Ki-46 cilmbed at least 50% better, likely due to much lower weight (13,000 pounds versus 20,000 pounds with about the same horsepower in the engines).

I'd say both would have required some teething trouble solutions had jets not come along when they did, but I prefer more power in a fighter and have to go with the Ki-64. Likely, both would have been about as good or bad, as the case may be, as the other one had they made it into service. After the war was over, rate of climb was a non-factor anyway.

Both likely would have caused their respective crew chiefs no end of stress as burried and coupled engines are NOT easy to work on. Heck, the Allisons in a P-38 are not easy to work on, either and likely have about the same access as the coupled engine, so maybe it wasn't going to be a real factor. Changing a rear engine would have been a real bear! So, I'd bet the pilots would have feathered the rear engine prop and cruised on the front one ... maybe. Pilots back then were many times notoriously inconsiderate of the woes of a mechanic, unless the mechanic had liquor on hand most of the time.

Go watch Baa Baa Black Sheep and tell me it ain't so!

They actually made 6 VB-10s, but initially 50 were scheduled. Apparently, coupling in line engines was a complicated affair for fighters.
On the other end, this could have been more promising on bombers : the Douglas XB42 seem to have had all the ingredient to be a winner, with much initial less troubles as the above mentionned fighters projects, that were anyway doomed by thefirst jet engine fighters.

 

[GregP]

They actually made 6 VB-10s, but initially 50 were scheduled. Apparently, coupling in line engines was a complicated affair for fighters.
On the other end, this could have been more promising on bombers : the Douglas XB42 seem to have had all the ingredient to be a winner, with much initial less troubles as the above mentionned fighters projects, that were anyway doomed by thefirst jet engine fighters.

Agree.

Most of the last generation of piston fighters were standouts in performance, looks, layout, or some factor.

These two are no exception.

I would love to have heard what the Republic XP-72 could do in combat as a fighter, but would not ever wish the war could have bee extended to find out ...

 

[MiTasol]

Great question.

Agree

So, I'd bet the pilots would have feathered the rear engine prop and cruised on the front one ... maybe.

If the Cessna 337 is any indication they would have single engine cruised faster on the rear engine.

 

[SaparotRob]

Whilst waiting for the barber, I was reading an aviation magazine. ( Imagine that, a barber with actually cool magazines.). An article in it was on the 337. It was a very long time ago so I don't remember much about it. There was a line about the rear engine quietly going to sleep without the pilot realizing it. That struck my early teen mind as improbable.
Upon further reflection, it might have been an Air Force reserve magazine. It had a cartoon about an AF major in front of a promotion board saying "frankly, I need the money."

 

[GrauGeist]

The KI-64 reallys shows it's Heinkel influence.

 

[GregP]

Agree


If the Cessna 337 is any indication they would have single engine cruised faster on the rear engine.

true. I was thinking of engine changes.