The Role of the Twin Engined/Single Seat Fighter in WW II

[J.A.W.]

It seems pretty clear that the RAF, having flown evaluations of twins of the W.Whirlwind, Me 110 & P-38 ilk,
came the correct conclusion that they did not offer anything in advance of their single-engine fighters,
esp' the newer, more advanced types such as the Typhoon & Mustang entering service in the ~1942 time period..

& the Germans came to a similar conclusion with the FW 187 being deleted in favour of the FW 190..

The RAF even ran trials with the Mosquito as fighter - to find that against German 109/190-type opposition
- the twin was not up to them in A2A combat, something found out later by the USAAF with the P-38 too..

Not to say it didn't have a role against lesser performing foes, but a Typhoon/Mustang escort was advisable if 109/190s
were likely to be up too..

AFAIR, accident loss rate stats for twins were also somewhat higher, as was their vulnerability to flak, being larger targets..

 

[GTX]

How would you explain the Dh 103 Hornet than given its spec originated from 1943...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How would you explain the Dh 103 Hornet than given its spec originated from 1943...

Or the Gloster Meteor.

 

[J.A.W.]

How would you explain the Dh 103 Hornet than given its spec originated from 1943...

Or the Gloster Meteor.

These aircraft date from a period when the British Air Brass were either unconvinced or hostile about long range
fighters, & held that it was not feasible to have a competitive single-engine powered long range fighter, an idea
held even against the evidence of the Mustang..

The Hornet was not intended/used to combat the Luftwaffe as an A2A fighter either..

The Meteor certainly needed the power of two of the early low-thrust turbo-jet engines..
& was known (with a bit of "gallows humour") as the Meatbox - for its fairly appalling accident record.

 

[GTX]

The Hornet was not intended/used to combat the Luftwaffe as an A2A fighter either..

The Hornet was designed largely to counter Japanese fighters though...hardly slouches in A2A combat. :

 

[J.A.W.]

Air war against Nippon rates well below the ETO for combat/technological intensity..
.. which is why the P-38 could hack it pretty well there, & not so much against the Luftwaffe..

 

[J.A.W.]

Air war against Nippon rates well below the ETO for combat/technological intensity..
.. which is why the P-38 could hack it pretty well there, & not so much against the Luftwaffe..

I am sure the pilots in the theatre at the time would not agree with you.

On what - do you base this opinion?
The facts of the matter speak for themselves..

I can recommend 'The Blue Arena' by Kiwi pilot Bob Spurdle - who scored victories over both German & Nippon
aircraft, he was in no doubt about the relative technological performance issues..

 

[Hot Breath]

Air war against Nippon rates well below the ETO for combat/technological intensity..
.. which is why the P-38 could hack it pretty well there, & not so much against the Luftwaffe..

I am sure the pilots in the theatre at the time would not agree with you.

On what - do you base this opinion?
The facts of the matter speak for themselves..

I can recommend 'The Blue Arena' by Kiwi pilot Bob Spurdle - who scored victories over both German & Nippon
aircraft, he was in no doubt about the relative technological performance issues..

Luftwaffe aircraft without a doubt were technically better than Imperial Japanese ones, they flew higher and faster BUT they were considerably less manoeuvrable. The Japanese were heading down that same route by 1943 but their fighters were still much lighter and tighter turning. The Germans, like the Americans and to a slightly less extent the British had traded manoeuvrability for speed and altitude. Then there was the issue of training, which was even more important. Both Axis nation was on a losing wicket and so were throwing untrained kids into the fray whereas the Allies in both theatres were gaining experience.

The DH103 Hornet was perhaps the best fighter design from a drag perspective produced in WWII. It was the only one which could be looped successively with both engines shut down, a trick which was regularly performed in demonstration flights by service pilots at low altitude. You wouldn't want to attempt that in a P-38 or an F7F or a Me410 or a Ta153 (if it held together). It was considered extremely manoeuvrable as well, a match for most singles it came up against. I wouldn't want to sell it short. Against most late war Japanese fighters, with average pilots and if their engines were developing full power, it would have been a fairly even match, I believe. Against most German late war fighters, against with average pilots, it would have been an even match.

 

[J.A.W.]

Twin piston engined A2A fighters such as the Whirlwind & Lightning certainly required higher levels of pilot proficiency
to get the best out of them, & as shown by R. Bong, if well flown, could do well against nimble, if slower - opposition..

However, against the best of the single-engined types.. they were generally found wanting performance-wise & were costly..

The RAF did not replace their Whirlwinds with P-38 Lightnings, after all..
( & check out how the DH Hornet went against the Sea Fury in post war FAA trials)..

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Air war against Nippon rates well below the ETO for combat/technological intensity..
.. which is why the P-38 could hack it pretty well there, & not so much against the Luftwaffe..

I am sure the pilots in the theatre at the time would not agree with you.

On what - do you base this opinion?
The facts of the matter speak for themselves..

I can recommend 'The Blue Arena' by Kiwi pilot Bob Spurdle - who scored victories over both German & Nippon
aircraft, he was in no doubt about the relative technological performance issues..

With the greatest of respect to your relative Mr Spurdle, one pilot's opinion is hardly definitive.

 

[J.A.W.]

Quite right Paul, & my Great Uncle Bob - who shot down Zeros in a P-40 with "the flying characteristics of a brick"..
..might well've pointed you toward the USN report that ranked the Nippon airforces as "5th rate"..

But.. here's another Kiwi fighter pilot with experience against both Luftwaffe & IJA fighters..

Alan Peart flew Spit Mk VIIIs in Burma & reckoned..

"The Spitfire Mk VIII had a considerable advantage over the Oscars & Zekes, being armoured, more highly powered,
faster & better armed... ...we could mount continuous attacks with impunity... & with power to zoom away out of range...
This was similar to German fighter tactics. The Japanese defence was to fly in circles, each fighter covering the one in front
& taking snapshots at the Spitfires as the passed. They were not heavily armoured & our .303s could put a lot of destructive
metal into them...This was not the case with Me109s, where I have hit one with machine-guns from behind, only to see the bullets ricocheting off...The cannons caused obvious & serious damage."

Got an anecdote to provide a alternative view Paul?
Since a few hard pressed, but skilled Brewster Buffalo jocks racked up fairly respectable scores..
- even in doomed defence of Singapore, including another Kiwi, Geoff Fisken..

 

[J.A.W.]

Here is an example of the one-eyed wishful thinking sometimes applied to the P-38..

http://www.456fis.org/P-38K.htm

The putative 'K' model P-38 - with significant potential performance improvements - was not proceeded with,
due to the apparently short-sighted war-production bureaucracy..

This is of course nonsense, since the P-47 & P-51 did get the significant improvements..

The real reasons can be read in USAAF Air Materiel Command evaluation reports that are highly critical of serious &
inherent P-38 deficiencies, & essentially deemed the P-38 to be past its best-by date, certainly in regard to
taking on the Luftwaffe in the glamour 8th AF escort/air superiority role..

The fairly poor critical Mach ability of the P-38 was not such a serious issue in the PTO, given the relative performance
of the opposition there..

 

[J.A.W.]

Here is a USAAF report from ~the time of the initial service introduction of turbo-jets.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

Of obvious concern is the relatively poor high speed capabilities of the P-38, & it seems notable that Lockheed went for a small single-engine fighter in the P-80 - rather than another twin - like Me 262/Meteor..