Best Twin-engined fighter

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

What was considered "too fast?"

What was the landing speed of single engines fighters at the time?
Would say 'too fast' is relative to the other fighters of the time.

The 190 is said to be a fast lander compared to the 109, for example.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

What was considered "too fast?"

This, according to 'officialdom'..

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

So that would never have been a problem with the production version.

It wasn't, but the myth that it's landing speed restricted it to certain airfields (runway length) has persisted.

[FLYBOYJ]

That is a bit fast but not unreasonable - the P-38 in it's heaviest configuration landed at 102 mph - the Whirwind was a taildragger so that could present problems for a "green" pilot, especially a low time multi-engine guy. (Joe's soap box again )


BTW depending on the weight, I show the Bf 109 with a gear down, flaps down stall speed of 85 - multiply that by 1.3 and you should be carrying 110 mph over the numbers. I also think you'll find the P-51 close to the same speeds as well. Bill has flown in P-51s he might know the exact numbers.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

It was one of the top US fighters and one of the best escort fighters of the war. Too bad many were diverted to the pacific theater early on, since by the time the time they began escort duties in Europe, the P-47 with extended range (external tanks) was nearly entering escort duty as well. It would have saved many unescorted B-17s in the early months of the war. Even after this the P-38 required less fuel to obtain the same range as the P-47 even though the Lightning was heavier. The lightning also had advantages over the P-51.

The 1st and 14th FG were in 8th AF late summer 1942 and diverted to Africa in Dec 1942 - could have made a difference in early 1943 and certainly in the early Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids in Aug 43... but the 51 took over the bulk of deep excort beginning in Dec 1943 until the last of the P-38 groups converted in July 1944. The P-47 didn't have the legs to go beyond western Germany until after D-Day.

The P-38 was always slower than the 51B/C/D and H at altitude, but could climb faster and climb higher than the 51

Too bad the high performance aspects of the P-38K weren't combined with the advances in the P-38L for production. The L varient already had uprated engines but needed the larger propellers to take full advantage of this added power. This would have doubtlessly extended its service life, possibly even for use in Korea. (The P-51 was great, but it lacked the toughness and durrabillity of the P-38 and P-47, and though it had good altitude performance, its supercharger was still not as efficeint as the turbos of the other two.)

If the 51 was faster and accelerated faster at altitudes from sea level to 27-30,000 feet, how would that make a difference?

The Germans could really have used the FW-187, it had awesome performance, and excellent range, but as I mentioned previously, politics killed it.

The P-38 was one helluva a fighter

Joe - the book said 105mph over the threshold but I was brutally beaten into 110-115 under the theory that you can't 'buy' airspeed there w/o throttle and that was dangerous with flaps at that speed.

The 51 was also a little coltish on a three point - particularly in a cross wind. I kept the butt up for awhile befor dropping tail.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The P-38 was one helluva a fighter

Joe - the book said 105mph over the threshold but I was brutally beaten into 110-115 under the theory that you can't 'buy' airspeed there w/o throttle and that was dangerous with flaps at that speed.

The 51 was also a little coltish on a three point - particularly in a cross wind. I kept the butt up for awhile befor dropping tail.

Thanks for the info Bill - I bet the scars are still there from those beatings!

For more info I show the Fw 190D with a gear down full flap stall speed of 100 mph which equates to 130 mph over the numbers, the 190A I show a 95 mph full flaps gear down for a 123 mph over the numbers....

With all that said I don't think the Whirwind's landing speed was that unreasonable. I could see engine out landings in a crosswind as a problem however...

[AL Schlageter]

Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast.

95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph

That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Compared to the Spit (and the Hurricane) it was fast.

95mph to 73mph and 85mph and 64mph

That is a speed 30% and 33% faster.

Agree - especially if the aircraft of the day were slower on landing but compared to the P-51, Fw 190 or Bf 109? And then to add once again, it was a twin....

[DBII]

Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war.

There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno.

DBII

[renrich]

The empty weight originally of the P51B was 550 lbs above the P51A most of which was caused by the engine and prop change. The fuselage fuel tank added another 150 lbs to it's empty weight.

[kool kitty89]

According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome."

But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?

Other than the lack of engines, the Whirlwind had too short of a range to be a good escort (though better than the Spitfire or Hurricane), and though it had a good climb rate and strong armament, its role as an interceptor would be hampered by its altitude performance. (if bombers were attacking above 20,000 ft it was in trouble, a similar problem in planes like the P-39 and P-40) Though the altidude issue would likely have been solved if development of the Peregrine had continued, as it would have likely seen similar modifications and upratings as the Merlin did)

Perhaps the Rolls-Royce Kestrel could have been used in place of the Peregrine (designed as a "rationalized" Kestrel) as it had been developed extensively and would have been more readily available, and by the time the Peregrine was cancelled the Kestrel eventually topped out at 1,050 hp (780 kW) in the XXX model. And it was dementionally nearly identical to the Peregrine. Or maby switch to a small radial engine like the Bristol Mercury (like the Miles Master did) or Taurus, if it was close-coweled and fan cooled it wouldn't alter the nacelles, weight, or drag much and would add the toughness of an air-cooled engine.

As things were, the Whirlwind performed exceptionally in the fighter-bomber role (Whirlybomber) and could outfight intercepting fighters (mainly Bf 109s) at low level (around 15,000 ft)

[pbfoot]

heres a quote out from pilot flying the Whirlwind for the first time I'll take this guys word as gospel when he arrived at 263 Sqn there were 93 Whirlwinds left in service his logbook said he flew 33 of them
" okay now its . time to land Join the circuit downwind throttle back to 150mph , prime the exactors , lower the undercarriage ,set the cooling flaps , turn in, props fully fine , slow down a little , flaps down a little more , set at 125mph, come in over the fence at no more then 110mph and drop onto the rwy. Whoops i didn't get the final speed down enough, So i float for a bit ,geez those big fowler flaps really slow you down"
his biggest complaint was that you could not feather the props nor could you cross feed the wing tanks. He prefered it to the Mossie in which he flew his last 2 tours. Said it would outclimb anything under 20000

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

According to Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It had some teething problems related to the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and the fact that it's landing speed was 80 mph, which meant that it could not use the standard grass field of a British aerodrome."

I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

But, 80mph seems a bit low to cause a problem and doesn't match other sourses. What was the Mossie's landing speed?

Depends on the aircraft - Take the stall speed and multiply it by 1.3 - that should be the speed at final approach over the numbers just before the flare.

The Mossie stalled at 110 flaps and gear down - that meant her approach speed should of been 143 mph!!!!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DBII

Do we want to included the tigercat in this poll? I thought that it assigned to units after the war.

There use to be an F7 and P38 both at the Lone Start Flight Museum. The pilot would land the P38 and then climb into the F7. Some people have a rough life. The museum sold the F7 and it is now flying at Reno.

DBII

The first flight was Nov 1943, first delivery to USMC April 1944, first deployment was as night fighter to Okinawa before end of war in June/July timeframe.

Every USMC and USN pilot I have talked to about this airplane preferred it to F6F and F4U

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I don't know where that comes from - there are PLENTY of aircraft that land on grass at those speeds and higher with no problems (see below)!

I didn't think that was right. That site also got some other things wrong, like saying the Whirlwind had poor maneuverabillity comparable to the Bf 110!
from Westland Whirlwind Fighter "It showed some promise in combat, however, like its German counterpart it was not agile enough to successfully combat enemy fighters."

The Whirlwind could have made a good escort if its bomb racks were fitted ta accept drop tanks. Even if it could only carry 2x 50 gal. tanks they would still nearly double the fuel capacity. (75% increase) So range would be well over 1000 miles. If 100 gal. tanks could be carried it could reach about 2000 miles.

The F7F was a great fighter, but did it really see service in WWII, or maby it just didn't see any combat? (ie. never met any enemy fighters on missions)

Here's another apraisal of it:
Performance met expectations too; the F7F Tigercat was one of the highest-performance piston-engined fighters, with a top speed well in excess of the US Navy's single-engined aircraft—71 mph faster than a F6F Hellcat at sea level.[2] The opinion of Capt. Fred M. Trapnell, one of the Navy's premier test pilots, was that "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."

[AL Schlageter]

From the manual for the Mossie FBVI, the final approach speed, flaps down, is 100-105kts (115-120mph) at 17-18000lb.

At max landing weight, flaps up, the final approach should be made at 115kts (132mph). At lighter weights this speed could be reduced by 5kts.

Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
u/c and flaps up: 105kts
u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts