Best Two Engine Fighter of WW2

[DB]

And not only that, everyone forgets the MkIX has a slipper tank that gave it adequate range to go most of the places it needed to go. I gather some of the later ones also had internal tanks fitted also. Besides who needed range when you could operate off forward bases on the continent?

202952[/snapback]

There were a large number of efforts made to add tankage to the Spitfire, but mainly these were used to give range increases to PR variants.

 

The basic fuel load was 84 gallons (Imperial, remember)

 

A 29 gallon tank was installed behind the pilot in the PR1B. When the camera weight was added in, this made the aircraft a bit nasty to fly. (113 gallons)

 

The PR1C had a 30 gallon blister tank under one wing as well as the 29 gallon aft tank. (total 143 gallons)

 

The PR1D had 57 gallon (later 66.5 gallon) tanks in each wing leading edge, plus 14 extra gallons of oil where the guns used to be. (227 gallons or 217 gallons, with the aft tank not fitted in the later models)

 

The PR1F had two 30 gallon blister tanks, and the 29 gallon aft tank. It also had an extra oil tank, under the nose. (173 gallons)

 

Slipper tanks with capacities of 30, 45 and 90 gallons were developed for the mk V. (and used for ferry flights to Malta from aircraft carriers).

 

Oh and a 170 gallon jettisonable tank was developed to allow stripped-down mk Vs to self-deploy directly from Gibraltar to Malta. (284 gallons)

 

The F.21 model had two additional wing tanks, each at 17 gallons. (118 gallons)

 

There is also a picture of a Wright-modified Spitfire IX with two Mustang-type drop tanks - this was able to self-deploy across the Atlantic via Iceland. It had a 43 gallon tank in the rear fuselage, two 16.5 gallon flexible tanks in the wing leading edge and two 62 gallon drop tanks. (285 gallons!)

 

All of this cribbed shamelessly from The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price, of course.

 

It's a bit difficult to get useful range figures, but the PR1F had a radius of action 100 miles more than the PR1C, on 30 extra gallons of fuel and the PR1C could photograph Kiel from a base in East Anglia and could, under ideal conditions just about reach Berlin.

 

The Wright modified aircraft could carry armaments, so might just have been usable as a long range escort, but you have to wonder about the combat endurance over a typical European theatre target. Assume that you burn the 43 gallon tank and the drop tanks first, you're left with 117 gallons for combat and a trip home, which doesn't look too promising.

 

David

[istvan47]

-Tony, altorough i agree this fighter is a bit strange, i tough that Westland Whirdwind was the real , mini prototype of the Gloster Gladiator. The baseline projetc is surprisingly almost equal.

 

-I think the Me 109 looks a bit like the Mig 15 ,also: Eager flown hte fagot and he was scared by its handlyng qualitites, in hte sense he said: this is a excellent warmachine, but also a flyng mine. Neverthless, hte Mig 15UTI was the jet trainer for many thousands of WP pilots.

 

Perhapas the Me 109 was good expecially because, by industrial view, it required a limited numbers of hours to be built and this was his better strength.

 

But it's really surprising how many german flyers keept the me 109 while the much better FW 190 , generally considered one of hte best handling fighters of WWII despite its weight, was already available. even a kid like Hartmann was a ME 109 boy for all the war, apparently the high altitude performances of the DB engine were quite liked.

 

So even the most produced aircraft of the history is for some aspects, an illustrious unknow for we.

 

Atleast on the F model, however, the me 109 was a real excellent aircraft, shame for the weaponry deleted by the wings ( why? i think, all the Me needed was an enlarged wing area with fuel, arms, perhaps landing gear, stuffs like D 520 and Zero already had in 1940-not the ultra-sophistied projects like the 209 -Bv 155 etc,etc.: i mean, germans must have simply cut off the wings of the D 520 and fitted on a ME 109 fuselage and then see what happened! D 520 had 380 lts of fuel plus 240 in te wings= 620, while Me 109 had only 400, and this with almost hte same wing surface: i though also the Bf 109 T had a very improved handling capabiliites, so an enlarged wing on hte Bf 109G should had been possible: Macchi C 205N was, after all ,a C 205V fitted with a enlarged wing to compensate the increasing of weight) ) and Marseille was the ultimate proof about this.

Edited August 4, 2005 by istvan47

[Tony Williams]

I agree that the early-model 109F seems to have been regarded as the best of the series in handling terms, but that was partly because of the very light armament (one nose cannon, two MGs). My personal 'what if' for the 109F is to add a couple of inner wing sections, about 0.5m wide, braced to take the undercarriage. You then get three advantages while keeping at least 90% of the plane the same:

 

- wider undercarriage track for greater stability

- greater wing area to keep the wing-loading down as weight increases

- space for wing-root mounted MG 151/20 cannon, like the Fw 190's (this means that the cowling MGs wouldn't be needed, as three 20mm cannon concentrated around the nose would be enough)

 

For my take on what might have been the best (and certainly the most useful) twin-engined fighter of the war, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2plane.htm

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[istvan47]

But so, Tony, why the BF 109F coudn't hold guns in the wings? Because the weights?

I am wondered, atleast a pair of light Mgs-later replaced by MG 131, should had been held. After all, if there was a reason to have light mgs in the nose, why not sustanztiate them with other two, so the Me had a a good Mgs firepower?

I think that, in absence of enlarged wings, a pair of HMGs in the wings could have done better in a multi role fighter, than nothing or two underwing guns.

 

Apart this, do you agree that Whirldwind was astonishing similar to the Meteor?

[Pachy]

i mean, germans must have simply cut off the wings of the D 520  and fitted on a ME 109 fuselage and  then see what happened!

A water-cooled plane without a radiator?

 

D 520 had 380 lts of fuel plus 240 in te wings= 620, while Me 109 had only 400, and this with almost hte same wing surface:

203013[/snapback]

Again, the D.520 wing fuel tanks could only be used for ferrying missions, as they had a disastrous impact on handling qualities due to their location in the outer wings panel.

[Yama]

But so, Tony, why the BF 109F coudn't hold guns in the wings? Because the weights?

I am wondered, atleast a pair of light Mgs-later  replaced by MG 131, should had been held. After all, if there was a reason to have light mgs in the nose, why not sustanztiate them with other two, so the Me had a a good Mgs firepower?

I think that, in absence of enlarged wings, a pair of HMGs in the wings could have done better in a multi role fighter, than nothing or two underwing guns.

203166[/snapback]

 

109 wing was designed as it was to make manufacturing and maintaining as simple as possible whilst keeping the structure light. Wings were relatively easy to detach, and as landing gear was in the fuselage, this made ground handling and transportation of the plane relatively easy.

 

Original Luftwaffe specification called only for two 7.9mm machineguns in the nose. Willy Messerschmitt did not envision that LW would want anything on wings, so he could design them very simple. That specification was changed to four machineguns was thus quite a shock for Messerschmitt and adding mg's to wings was very painful. Later Emil got cannons which were probably actually easier to put there as they were drum-fed. In 109F Germans had finally mastered engine-mounted cannon and wings guns were seen as superfluent especially as they caused drag. Underwing gondolas used in G-6/R-6 were not a practical solution as they caused major performance penalty.

 

With hindsight, wing/undercarriage design of 109 has been criticized a lot, but it made lot of sense at the time. Despite all the bad press, it was not a difficult plane to land or take off (for it's time), as long as pilots were sufficiently trained. Major problems began only later when training standards began to drop.

[Tony Williams]

But so, Tony, why the BF 109F coudn't hold guns in the wings? Because the weights?

I am wondered, atleast a pair of light Mgs-later  replaced by MG 131, should had been held. After all, if there was a reason to have light mgs in the nose, why not sustanztiate them with other two, so the Me had a a good Mgs firepower?

I think that, in absence of enlarged wings, a pair of HMGs in the wings could have done better in a multi role fighter, than nothing or two underwing guns.

 

I agree. The added weight from a pair of MG 131 would have been small, and the additional firepower welcome given that the F and G series were so lightly armed as standard.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[gewing]

I'm beginning to think I'm talking to the deaf here  so I'll take it one point at a time....

 

The Tigercat flew in 1944 but was too late to see operational service in WW2.

 

The DH Hornet flew in 1944 but was too late to see operational service in WW2.

 

So if you include the Tigercat, you have to include the Hornet.

 

And the Hornet was a better fighter....

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

201998[/snapback]

 

 

But even having read your article on an "ideal twin engine fighter" I know basically nothing about the Hornet.

 

And imo the Tigercat was a prototype for what the fighter developed into. A multi role aircraft with with significant ground attack capability too.

 

What was the armament of the hornet? WOuld that have made a significant difference? I just don't know.

 

 

Oh, and I'm playing catchup after 3 days away, so...

[Tony Williams]

What was the armament of the hornet? WOuld that have made a significant difference?  I just don't know.

Oh, and I'm playing catchup after 3 days away, so...

203453[/snapback]

 

The Hornet had the RAF's usual quartet of 20mm cannon under the nose, and could also carry rockets and bombs (I'm away from my sources and don't recall the bombload).

 

I think that the Tigercat would probably have made a better attack plane - Grummans tended to be very rugged and the radial engines were less prone to damage - but this thread was about fighters.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[KingSargent]

The Hornet had the RAF's usual quartet of 20mm cannon under the nose, and could also carry rockets and bombs (I'm away from my sources and don't recall the bombload).

 

I think that the Tigercat would probably have made a better attack plane - Grummans tended to be very rugged and the radial engines were less prone to damage - but this thread was about fighters.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

203528[/snapback]

Hornet could carry 2000# of armament.

 

Incidentally somewhere in the thread was a comment that Hornet never saw action. Untrue, they did plenty of CAS workin the Malayan Insurrection.

[istvan47]

This send one thing in my mind;

 

_when MG 131 went in service? What's the history of this HMG? And what is its rating ( i have read, very high ROF, light weight construction and bullets, something like the 12,7 japanise but overall better than Breda, but i dunno about soviet-US machinenguns).

[Tony Williams]

This send one thing in my mind;

 

_when MG 131 went in service? What's the history of this HMG? And what is its rating ( i have read, very high ROF, light weight construction and bullets, something like the 12,7 japanise but overall  better than Breda, but i dunno about soviet-US machinenguns).

203734[/snapback]

 

All you're ever likely to want to know about the performance of WW2 aircraft guns and their ammunition http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

The MG 131 had quite a long gestation period. It wsa being played with in 1938 IIRC but it didn't get into service until well into the war. The first installation that I'm aware of was in the Me 210 which entererd service in 1941. It didn't replace the 7.92mm cowling guns on the Bf 109 until the G-6, which entered service in February 1943.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[tankerwanabe]

I'll go out on a limb.

 

My vote goes to a ...

 

Dornier Do335 "Pfeil."

 

Better performance than either the Lightning or Mosquitto, equally well armed, and no high wing load problems.

[DKTanker]

I'll go out on a limb.

 

My vote goes to a ...

 

Dornier Do335  "Pfeil."

 

Better performance than either the Lightning or Mosquitto, equally well armed, and no high wing load problems.

204016[/snapback]

 

I remember that one. That's the aircraft that shot down more...no, that's not right. Oh yeah, that's the one that when...no, that was another. Okay, now I remember, that's the one....dang, wrong again. Say, what did it accomplish?

[Tony Williams]

My vote goes to a ...

 

Dornier Do335  "Pfeil."

 

Better performance than either the Lightning or Mosquitto, equally well armed, and no high wing load problems.

204016[/snapback]

 

Hmm. The wing loading of the Do 335 at max take-off was actually higher than that of the Hornet. Sources vary quite considerably over the maximum speed, but the fastest quoted was just 5 mph faster than the Hornet (i.e. within normal production variation). Rate of climb and altitude were similar. The handling of the Do 335 was, however, nowhere near as good as the Hornet. Stability varied according to the throttle setting of the front and rear engines, it tended to stall asymetrically and the aileron control forces were excessive (this is all from German sources). When Brown flew one, he reckoned that the speed and range would have made it a good bomber destroyer, but it was not suited to fighter v fighter combat. It was also mechanically very troublesome.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[tankerwanabe]

I remember that one.  That's the aircraft that shot down more...no, that's not right.  Oh yeah, that's the one that when...no, that was another.  Okay, now I remember, that's the one....dang, wrong again.  Say, what did it accomplish?

204024[/snapback]

 

The title sought for the "best" to which many here provided an argument based on performance and firepower and maneuverability.

 

There aren't too may arguments based solely on number of aircrafts shot down. in fact, none... except yours.

 

Will you be adding anything other than sarcasm and a theory that no one else wants?

[tankerwanabe]

Hmm. The wing loading of the Do 335 at max take-off was actually higher than that of the Hornet. Sources vary quite considerably over the maximum speed, but the fastest quoted was just 5 mph faster than the Hornet (i.e. within normal production variation). Rate of climb and altitude were similar. The handling of the Do 335 was, however, nowhere near as good as the Hornet. Stability varied according to the throttle setting of the front and rear engines, it tended to stall asymetrically and the aileron control forces were excessive (this is all from German sources). When Brown flew one, he reckoned that the speed and range would have made it a good bomber destroyer, but it was not suited to fighter v fighter combat. It was also mechanically very troublesome.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

204038[/snapback]

 

I saw the quoted numbers at 421mph without an injected boost. And 475mph w/ an injected boost. Climb was one of the Do's strenght. But I don't know the numbers for the Mosq.

 

How do you get a higher wing loading with no engines in the wings (Do) versus an aircraft with engines in the wings (Mosq)? This does not make sense.

 

If its speed was one of its main strenght, what is to keep it from using it against fighters?

 

If the measure is "against other fighters," then the Mosquito would also suffer, and they'd be equal. Isn't a better measure to compare the Mosq. and Do. against each other? Who'd win in a fight?

[zakk]

How do you get a higher wing loading with no engines in the wings (Do) versus an aircraft with engines in the wings (Mosq)? This does not make sense.

204074[/snapback]

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/wing-loading

[Tony Williams]

I saw the quoted numbers at 421mph without an injected boost.  And 475mph w/ an injected boost.  Climb was one of the Do's strenght. But I don't know the numbers for the Mosq.

 

The Mossie isn't the comparator, the Hornet is: that could do 472 mph in service trim (the prototype did 485 mph).

 

How do you get a higher wing loading with no engines in the wings (Do) versus an aircraft with engines in the wings (Mosq)? This does not make sense.

Wing loading is calculated by dividing the aircraft weight by the wing area. Where the engines are makes no difference.

 

If its speed was one of its main strenght, what is to keep it from using it against fighters? 

 

Speed was the most important asset of a fighter, but not the only one. It's the overall balance of characteristics which counts.

 

If the measure is "against other fighters," then the Mosquito would also suffer, and they'd be equal.  Isn't a better measure to compare the Mosq. and Do. against each other?  Who'd win in a fight?

 

As I said, it's the Hornet which is the comparable fighter. Performance was more or less equal, the Hornet seems to have had much better handling and its armament was more suited to fighter v fighter combat. Other things being equal, my money would be on the Hornet.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[FormerBlue]

The Mossie isn't the comparator, the Hornet is: that could do 472 mph in service trim (the prototype did 485 mph).

Wing loading is calculated by dividing the aircraft weight by the wing area. Where the engines are makes no difference.

Speed was the most important asset of a fighter, but not the only one. It's the overall balance of characteristics which counts.

As I said, it's the Hornet which is the comparable fighter. Performance was more or less equal, the Hornet seems to have had much better handling and its armament was more suited to fighter v fighter combat. Other things being equal, my money would be on the Hornet.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

204156[/snapback]

I think some of the problem here is Hornet specs are inconsistent. For all intents and purposes there were two Hornets. The later models had increased fuel which of course means increased weight. I think the earlier versions figures are being picked. Maybe I'm wrong. Here is what I am finding:

DO-335. Empty: 16,005lbs Area: 414sqft

Hornet: 14,231lbs Area: 360sqft

This would give the DO 38.6 lbs per sqft whereas the Hornet is 39.53. Maybe the figures I have are wrong. Just sucked them from the net. Suppose I could hit the books but that would mean I'd have to round them up.

 

The US was quite impressed with the German 30mm. Quite the wonder cannon. But you knew that right?

[gewing]

I think some of the problem here is Hornet specs are inconsistent.  For all intents and purposes there were two Hornets.  The later models had increased fuel which of course means increased weight.  I think the earlier versions figures are being picked.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Here is what I am finding:

DO-335.  Empty: 16,005lbs  Area: 414sqft

Hornet: 14,231lbs  Area: 360sqft

This would give the DO 38.6 lbs per sqft whereas the Hornet is 39.53.  Maybe the figures I have are wrong.  Just sucked them from the net.  Suppose I could hit the books but that would mean I'd have to round them up.

 

The US was quite impressed with the German 30mm.  Quite the wonder cannon.  But you knew that right?

204169[/snapback]

 

 

The stats I found were for the Hornet F Mk.3. It did have a longer range and a higher top speed apparently. It seems like a damned hot plane.

 

What was the performance of the original model?

 

I have only seen stats for one version of the Tigercat, were there any upgrades?

[istvan47]

well, Pachy, mon amie,

 

 

perhaps the D 520 is not so nimble with 620 lts aboard but you miss some other points here:

 

 

-The P-51 mustang was a very successful design of fighters doesnt't it? It's a fact thet it's range was perhaps it's main strength. However, it's a fact that also at maximum fuel, expecially with the fuselage main tank full, its handling was very difficult. The same was said even for the SU-27. Perhaps also F 14, F 15, P 47N, Zero were affected by this problem. So what's the point here? Their range= much fuel was a mistake? a weak point?

 

If you have a plane so fuel capable, well, you can use it with long cruises at high levels insthead to scramble: a D 520 at high level will catch the boogey before a F 16 that is waiting for scramble! For escort missions, too, there is no really problem. If you counts that in every case the combats will start perhpas rougly 1 hour after the take off, tell me, what's the problem? You only have a selector to start before with wing tanks. Just this.

 

 

So ,not you are wrong that this was true, but your reading the operative conseguences -over undervalue the importance of the ferring missions- are "wrong". Or if not, also all the long range fighters from P-51 to SU 27 are wrong designs.

 

 

About the D 520 wings, the problem of hte radiators is not unsolvable, the firsts ME 109 had it under the nose just as example. But you miss something: with hte rougly equivalent wing surface, the D 520 was able to sistem : weapons, fuel tanks, and carriage gear while Bf 109 had only weapons ( not fullow the E model), and the range was an real issue. Good for germans if their Me 109 were since the beginnings equipped with 50% more fuel. I can assure that they felt this how British felt the lack of range of the Spit over Germany. The fact that the E -7 modell finally become was good, but this went too late to save the BoB. And also hte droppabletanks have theeir disavantages. apart this, If the fighter has enough power, there is not problem to have both wing tanks and ext. fuel, so afterall, what's the sin of hte D 520 wing tanks?

[hojutsuka]

I think some of the problem here is Hornet specs are inconsistent.  For all intents and purposes there were two Hornets.  The later models had increased fuel which of course means increased weight.  I think the earlier versions figures are being picked.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Here is what I am finding:

DO-335.  Empty: 16,005lbs  Area: 414sqft

Hornet: 14,231lbs  Area: 360sqft

This would give the DO 38.6 lbs per sqft whereas the Hornet is 39.53.  Maybe the figures I have are wrong.  Just sucked them from the net.  Suppose I could hit the books but that would mean I'd have to round them up.

204169[/snapback]

The figures are not inconsistent. There really were two (or more correctly, three) major versions of Hornets. The first were the Hornet Mks 1-4 used by the RAF. This is the version that Tony and others are talking about. Hornet F Mk 3 was then modified to become the Sea Hornet F Mk 20, with folding wings, stronger landing gear, high drag flaps, arrester hooks, catapult pickup points, and other naval gear. Naturally, weight and drag went up, and performance went down. Then the Sea Hornet F Mk 20 was turned into a night fighter by adding radar and a second crew member to operate it, resulting in still more weight and correspondingly lower performance. This was the Sea Hornet NF Mk 21, and your 14,231lb empty weight applies to this version. For the RAF Hornet F Mk 3 (which had increased fuel capacity compared with earlier versions), the empty weight is 12,880lb which with a wing area of 360 sq ft (my reference, William Green's "Complete Book of Fighters", gives the wing area of all Hornets as 361 sq ft) gives a wing loading of just under 35.8 lb/sq ft.

 

Sometimes it is worth looking up in a book.

 

 

Hojutsuka

Edited August 7, 2005 by hojutsuka

[FormerBlue]

The figures are not inconsistent.  There really were two (or more correctly, three) major versions of Hornets.  The first were the Hornet Mks 1-4 used by the RAF.  This is the version that Tony and others are talking about.  Hornet F Mk 3 was then modified to become the Sea Hornet F Mk 20, with folding wings, stronger landing gear, high drag flaps, arrester hooks, catapult pickup points, and other naval gear.  Naturally, weight and drag went up, and performance went down.  Then the Sea Hornet F Mk 20 was turned into a night fighter by adding radar and a second crew member to operate it, resulting in still more weight and correspondingly lower performance.  This was the Sea Hornet NF Mk 21, and your 14,231lb empty weight applies to this version.  For the RAF Hornet F Mk 3 (which had increased fuel capacity compared with earlier versions), the empty weight is 12,880lb which with a wing area of 360 sq ft (my reference, William Green's "Complete Book of Fighters",  gives the wing area of all Hornets as 361 sq ft) gives a wing loading of just under 35.8 lb/sq ft.

 

Sometimes it is worth looking up in a book.

Hojutsuka

204223[/snapback]

Thanks for the data Hotjutsuka.

 

As I noted in my post, getting to my books is something of a problem. Unfortunately the most readily accessable book on WW2 fighters I have, "The Illustrated Dictionary of Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Bill Gunston, Salamander Books Ltd, 1988, ISBN 1 84065 092 3" does not list the Hornet. The Dornier is in there. The Tigercat too. He's even included the Westland Whirlwind. But it seems to go straight from the Mossie to the Firefly. He also seems to feel we don't need access to Wing Area in the specs. But hey, the book is nice none the less.

 

I do have a series around here from William Green. "War planese of the Second World War." It a series of little books published (looking at Vol 7) in 1967 by Double Day. Unfortunately being small books they are kind of hard to keep rounded up. The Green book has that funny quote about the (was it the Franks or Georges?) at Okinawa. I'll keep digging. They're kind of scattered.

 

I've outgrown my house. Either that or I have too much junk. Books are getting a little scattered. I built shelves in the basement but they are full. So now the books are kind of spilling all over the place. I suspect some of you know the feeling. I think I lost the "German fighters" book of that Green series to the shower. Bad habit of reading them in the bathroom.

[CaptLuke]

How do you get a higher wing loading with no engines in the wings (Do) versus an aircraft with engines in the wings (Mosq)? This does not make sense.

204074[/snapback]

 

Moving engines out on to the wings in fighters will affect the roll acceleration by adding to the roll inertia: in other words, all other things being equal, a plane with engines out on the wings will roll slower than a plane with engines along the center line. This can be significant in fighter combat but, as has been pointed out, is different from wing loading.