Historical References

For twin prop-engine aircraft used in the air-air combat role. Any era, any kit, any scale.
Runs 1st February to 2nd March.
GB Leader is Chris.
Locked
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Historical References

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

Here ask questions and post historical information and references about 'Twin-engine Fighters', etc.
User avatar
Chris
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 2917
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 7:18 pm
Location: In your head
Contact:

Re: Historical References

Post by Chris »

The concept of a fighter aircraft with two engines began to take shape in the late 1930s based on the limitations at that time of engine power and aircraft range. The old school firmly believed that a fighter was made to 'dogfight' thus maneuver was the highest priority. Into the 30s fighters still looked much like their WWI counterparts, two wings, radial engines and 2 rifle caliber machine guys as armament.

As events such as the Spanish civil war and the continuous war in China showed, bombers could penetrate deep into enemy territory and now could fly higher then the biplane fighters as well as much faster aircraft makers tried to find solutions to the intercept and escort problems that the new fast bombers presented.

One of the ideas Germany, a pioneer in 1930s aviation came up with was a destroyer aircraft that was so fast and well arrmed it could brush off fighters and with the range to fly wherever the bombers went. This aircraft became the BF-110, a formidable gun armament and having the same engines as the single engine BF 109 while having far greater range. The Germans thought of these aircraft as elite units that would spearhead an assault from the air with deep penetration raids while also escorting bombers. The RAF showed the folly of this concept but not until 1940.

Other air forces besides Germany also liked the twin engine concept and worked on similar planes using the same concept as the Germans. The British tried it with the Westland Whirlwind as the main first effort but this was a failure, the next attempt was to press Blenheim bombers into the role as night fighters but this was also not satisfactory, and by this time the RAF realized the flaws in the daylight twin engine fighter, but night was another story.

The Bristol company had another twin engine designed as a bomber in the works and this replaced the Blenheim as a night fighter, the famous beaufighter. Showing some success this versatile aircraft would soon be replaced by the fastest and most versatile twin engine fighter of all, the DeHaviland Mosquito, the wooden wonder. This plane could do it all, it was enough in daylight to avoid most enemy aircraft, it could carry raider and serve as a night fighter, a path finder for heavy bombers, a ground attack plane of amazing precision.

Germany found a similar use for the BF 110 as a light bomber and ground attacker but the type came into its own as a night fighter and in this role its heavy armament made it quite deadly to night intruders over German territory. The Germans tried to replace the flawed BF 110 with a much worse plane for flaws, the ME 210. This failure never did much and was itself replaced by the ME 410 but neither had the combat record and successes of the BF 110 family. Heinkal came up with a dedicated two seat night fighter, the HE 219 Owl. This was the best night fighter Germany produced but only a small number saw combat for silly political reasons inside Nazi Germany.

Across the Ocean there was another nation building twin engine fighters of different breed, the United States. The US navy has experimented with twin engine fighters but did not accept any into service. The Army air corps however was looking for an aircraft that could perform high altitude interception and climb in a reasonable amount of time to catch bombers and have the gun power to bring them down. This lead o the deadliest twin engine fighter of all, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

The Lightning offered up many all new features not seen on single engine persuit planes in US service, it had turbo superchargers for high altitude performance, long range and as a first for US aircraft, a cannon in addition to 4 heavy .50 caliber machine guns. The plane had flaws, and oddly the RAF ordered a test version and removed the super charges which so degraded its performance that the RAF rejected it as a fighter. They did like it as a photo recon plane and in this role it would perform brilliantly over Europe. The other two flaws were it lacked heating for the pilot and made it extremely difficult for pilots over 20,000 feet when the temperature drops to below freezing and the far worse problem, the plane often could not pull out of steep dives. This was caused by an issue known as compressability, airpressure would become so severe of the lone tailpane during a dive the pilot was not strong enough to move the flaps thus dooming him and the plane. In time these flaws would be corrected and the lightning would become the highest scoring fighter in the PTO and the mount of the US's top ace, Richard Bong. The aircraft was also radical in having a try cycle landing gear which was at first difficult for pilots to get used to. As a fighter over Europe it never did acchive the success the P-47 and P-51 had over the Luftwaffe, but it tore the Japanese to pieces.

The Japanese, Soviets, French and Italians also experimented with the concept producing lackluster aircraft that saw no real success in any role. France had some interesting concepts but the rapid over running of France in 1940 precluded development. The Italian aircraft industry was a story of confusion and lack of direction the entire war, they were nearly beaten before they even produced a decent single engine fighter (The MC 202) let alone a twin engine type. Japan tried to modify twin engine recon planes like the Dinah and light bombers to produce night fighters and bomber inceptors but no type received any real success. The Soviets concentrated on single engine low altitude aircraft and gave up the destroyer concept in favor of the flying tank type (Sturmovik) and deadly fighters like the Lavochkin and Yak families.

Hope this helps you guys in the GB!
Honcho of ASMMF
User avatar
fredk
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 6194
Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Location: Donaghadee, N'rn Ir'n

Re: Historical References

Post by fredk »

Some points I noticed in the above, vis
1) the Westland Whirlwind was not a failure. It was let down by unreliable engines. A choice was made and the development of a two-seat twin-engined fighter was preferred. [The Beaufighter]
2) the RAF received at least 3 P38s for evaluation; it was the US Government which decided that the examples sent did not have superchargers fitted. I have seen no evidence that the recon P38 [F5] was ever used by the RAF, just by the USAAF, and it wasn't liked by them they preferred the Spitfire and Mosquito.
4) the USAAC had several twin-engined fighters before the P38
3) France had a twin-engined fighter in service before Germany; it was so similar to the BF110 that the designer stood trial on industrial espionage, but because his design was in the air first he was not convicted. France had a number of twin-engined fighters which all out-performed others, but were built in too few numbers.
4) the CSSR used the Pe-2 as a fighter [Pe-3], as well as some of their other light bombers which had dual roles built into them from the drawing board, not adaptations.
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
User avatar
Chris
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 2917
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 7:18 pm
Location: In your head
Contact:

Re: Historical References

Post by Chris »

Thanks for the added suff Fred, that was off the top of my head and my memory isn't what it used to be!
Honcho of ASMMF
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Historical References

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

The US navy has experimented with twin engine fighters but did not accept any into service.
F7F Tigercat ? Contract let in 1941, ready near the end of WW2 but didn't serve in combat until Korea.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
fredk
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 6194
Joined: May 1st, 2012, 6:25 am
Location: Donaghadee, N'rn Ir'n

Re: Historical References

Post by fredk »

Initially the Messerschmitt 110 was designated a 'bomber destroyer' and not a heavy fighter. The early ones used Jumo engines leaving the M/B 601 for the 109s.
The Germans also used the Ju88 and Dornier 217 series as night fighters, or 'bomber destroyers'.
The d.H. Mosquito was initially designed as a fast unarmed bomber and didn't become a a fighter [night] only till later.
The Italians produced a couple of very good twin engined fighters but could never produce them in any quantity.
Al speling misteaks aer all mi own werk..
Its not just how good your painting is, its how good the touch-ups are too.
User avatar
Chris
Modelling Gent and Scholar
Posts: 2917
Joined: March 15th, 2013, 7:18 pm
Location: In your head
Contact:

Re: Historical References

Post by Chris »

jRatz wrote:
The US navy has experimented with twin engine fighters but did not accept any into service.
F7F Tigercat ? Contract let in 1941, ready near the end of WW2 but didn't serve in combat until Korea.
The naritive is clearly pre war into WWII.

BTW, a Tigercat may appear in this GB...
Honcho of ASMMF
Locked

Return to “Twin prop-engine Fighters GB”