Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why did twin engine fighters fail in the piston engine era?
Belisarius1234    1/18/2013 8:08:51 AM
Aside from the P-38 in the general role, and the Me-110 in the limited night fighter role, why did twin-engine fighters fail? B.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
oldbutnotwise       1/18/2013 8:46:11 AM
its never easy to define such a boad subject, some failed as they were too unmanuverable compaired to single engine types (110, 410 etc), some due to duff engines (Whirlwind) some due to bad design (P38 - no only joking) and some that were just too late (do335, hornet, f82) but mostly the early ones suffered more performance drop by having two engines than they gained
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/18/2013 9:19:12 AM


The synopsis is quite good, but as a class set I have some ideas that trend universally across the whole subject range. 
 
These ideas are best illustrated in a Kurt Tank design, the FW-187.
 
The benchmark comparator is the BF-109.
 
I choose these two aircraft because they were in the same tech base, both were designed at about the same time, both were clear aerodynamic successes, and both worked as designed. The FW 187 was every bit as good in the air as the Me 109 for the designed role as target defense interceptor. In fact it was superior in some characteristics (endurance, climb to altitude, wing loading, thrust to weight.)   
 
But the FW-187 failed to be built. Why?
 
(cont.)
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/18/2013 9:54:36 AM
The big bugbear of the luftwaffe - politics
 
messerschimtt build the fighters - this seems to have been the rule
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/18/2013 9:59:02 AM
the bits I have read are contradictory about performance, also it suffered from cooling and landing gear problems (but I would asssume that these could have been solved with revised versions)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Cont.   1/18/2013 9:59:34 AM
The main problem I see with twin engined piston-engined fighters was based on costs and the experience of the purchasing end-users of the time.
 
When it came to performance, there was not much to choose between the BF 109e series and the FW 187 A-o series. Both were comparable with the FW-187 being a slightly better climber and with much longer range.
 
BUT: 
 
The BF-109 could grow in engine power, and it was cheap to make, while the FW-187 was EXPENSIVE. So the BF-109 became the German fighter of choice-especially when the overriding need was for air defense.  
 
This is what killed most twin engined fighters. False vision, and EXPENSE.
 
The fighter pilots of the time, did not see the need for range, a stable gun platform, and vertical performance. What they saw, was that they wanted the most horsepower in the smallest possible plane for speed as paramount. That is a good description of the BF-109, which for all practical purposes was a piece of flying CRAP, other than that one saving grace. It was short-ranged, tended to torque heavy to the right, ground-looped if you took your mind off taxiing, was a terrible look-out the cockpit aircraft and was weak-tailed (a perennial defect of Pretty-boy Willie's incompetent designs.) 
 
Yet it outgrew the FW-187. The reason for that is simple. The FW-187 with its small engines, and small size  could not march up the horsepower curve to keep up in speed with the successive BF-109s. Nor could it be redesigned to take the DB-6XX engine family once it was stuck with the smaller Jumos. Plus there is a dirty little secret about twin-engined supercharged piston-engined fighters. All other things being equal, the single-piston engined fighters (unless it's a special Mosquito, or an average P-38) will ALWAYS have the altitude advantage.
 
 B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/18/2013 9:14:52 PM

Aside from the P-38 in the general role, and the Me-110 in the limited night fighter role, why did twin-engine fighters fail?

B.
I would dispute the basic premis! Twin engined fighters did succeed, it is only that the governments in question failed to choose to build most of them early in the war. It was not until later in the war that others saw the light of the HP Twin, when their performance under the most difficult conditions was far beyond that of single engined fighters.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    I wish to be kind...   1/19/2013 12:22:27 AM
But considering how wrong you are in most of the things you've posted about aircraft, that I've read... and where I have recently, said so... do you seriously think I have any interest in discussing the subject of aircraft with you, Shooter?
 
The answer is, "no."
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Schemer       1/19/2013 1:30:27 AM
Belisarius1234
 
I don't know if you meant it with expense but I'd like to mention:
 
1 drawback is pilot training for 2 engine fighters takes additional time especially for emergence procedures. In the beginning of the war several nations had a pilot shortage so fielding aircraft that are easier to fly would help.
 
Maintenance, the engine is the most maintenance heavy part requiring specialist maintenance, heaving 2 of them would mean either much more downtime or more maintenance personel. In another threat WEP power was discussed and someone mentioned a wire across the throttle that was broken to initiate it. This wire was there to inform the maintenance crew additional care might be needed. Add to that the fact that twice as much parts are needed to maintain the aircraft and the costs go up even more.
 
In all multi engine aircraft require more resources not just to built but to fly and maintain aswell.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    I did mean that...   1/19/2013 1:36:53 AM
but since I didn't say it, you deserve full original credit for noting it.
 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/21/2013 4:56:56 PM

Belisarius1234
I don't know if you meant it with expense but I'd like to mention:
1. drawback is pilot training for 2 engine fighters takes additional time especially for emergence procedures. In the beginning of the war several nations had a pilot shortage so fielding aircraft that are easier to fly would help. This is true and a good point why the various Governments chose not to buy twins. Maintenance, the engine is the most maintenance heavy part requiring specialist maintenance, heaving 2 of them would mean either much more downtime or more maintenance personel. If this was a truely IMPORTANT consideration, then they ALL would have bought fighters with air cooled radial engines as they are very much LESS mantanence intensive than LC Engines? In another threat(d) WEP power was discussed and someone mentioned a wire across the throttle that was broken to initiate it. This wire was there to inform the maintenance crew additional care might be needed. Add to that the fact that twice as much parts are needed to maintain the aircraft and the costs go up even more. If the twin was powered by low maint / long TBO Air Cooled Radials, then it is entirely possible to use much less maintenance than a LC Single engined fighter plane!
In all multi engine aircraft require more resources not just to built but to fly and maintain aswell.
But the one factor that you did not persue was that of initial cost of any twin being higher than an almost equal single.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics