1935-1945: twin-engined day fighters are in push-pull configuration

[tomo pauk]

... instead of in the historically preferred engines-on-the-wings configuration. So we have MTT and Fw going with Jumo 210 and/or DB 601/605 in the nose and rear fuselage for their twins, Petlyakov doing the same with VI-100 (so the Pe-2 will look very differently now), Lockheed with ditto for the XP-38 (wheter as a historical proposal, or without the booms lie the Do-355), Bell with Airacuda (sorry), Kawasaki with Ki-45, Italians with Ro.57 and Ro.58, Dutch with G.I, Westland with a Whirlwind and Welkin etc. Radials at the aft position will obviously have the cooling ducts to help out.
Toss something un-built here, too, per your preference.
By default, undercarriage is a tricycle.
Who might be doing better than it was historically the case? Who will be better to just toss the whole idea of a 2-engined fighter in a trash can?

 

[Post]

Fokker did it with the D-XXIII, although it never left the prototype stadium before the Germans invaded the Netherlnada.

Fokker D.XXIII - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Garrison]

... instead of in the historically preferred engines-on-the-wings configuration. So we have MTT and Fw going with Jumo 210 and/or DB 601/605 in the nose and rear fuselage for their twins, Petlyakov doing the same with VI-100 (so the Pe-2 will look very differently now), Lockheed with ditto for the XP-38 (wheter as a historical proposal, or without the booms lie the Do-355), Bell with Airacuda (sorry), Kawasaki with Ki-45, Italians with Ro.57 and Ro.58, Dutch with G.I, Westland with a Whirlwind and Welkin etc. Radials at the aft position will obviously have the cooling ducts to help out.
Toss something un-built here, too, per your preference.
By default, undercarriage is a tricycle.
Who might be doing better than it was historically the case? Who will be better to just toss the whole idea of a 2-engined fighter in a trash can?

The Do 335 had some promise, but suffered the problem of being seen as obsolete in comparison to the jet aircraft and being too big and resource intensive for Germany at the time. Fix either or both of those problems and it could be an effective fighter in service.

 

[tomo pauk]

A not-Whirlwind in the push-pull layout will still have about 1750 HP at 15000 ft (compare with ~1800 HP for the Napier Sabre, or with ~1350 HP for the BMW 801C at that altitude), while not being hampered with engines sticking in the slipstream as it was the case with the OTL Whirly. Might get close to 400 mph? Obviously the cannons go in the wings.

A push-pull Fw 187: 2 x 670 PS = 1340 PS (at 3700m). Goes 350+ mph? Plus another 20 mph if the Avia HS 12Y are installed? Again, weaponry get in the wings, and rear-firing MG is not a good fit here.

 

[mudhead]

Can't resist this.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Can't resist this.

View attachment 751959​

Maybe it's better to read the instructions before assembling the kit.
Did that actually a) get built and b) fly?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Can't resist this.

View attachment 751959​

That thing looks like it belongs on some backwater planet in Star Wars.

 

[mudhead]

Did that actually a) get built and b) fly?

It's one of Major Howdy Bixby's "Forgotten Warbirds".

Page of them

 

[Draconis]

A push pull configuration naturally leads to another big consideration. How to extract the pilot without turning the pilot into ground chuck? Some kind of boosted or assisted ejection mechanism must be developed so the pilot can clear the rear propeller. At least for the Allies.

The other, never quite solved problem for the push pull layout was adequate cooling of the rear engine through all flight regimes. Extended climbs usually making the biggest demands on the cooling systems.

 

[Draconis]

Who might be doing better than it was historically the case? Who will be better to just toss the whole idea of a 2-engined fighter in a trash can?

These two examples show that the two-engined fighter can be exemplary if well designed and in the first example when the bugs are worked out.

 

[Draconis]

For any who have never heard of it this was a Russian prototype that never reached production status. The ultimate "emergency fighter". I suspect it would have been a death trap. But a interesting approach.

Moskalyev SAM-13 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Driftless]

Can't resist this.

View attachment 751959​

The first time I saw this doodle (and similar bits of aviation whimsy) was in 1970? Playboy mag - believe it or not.....

 

[Draconis]

The first time I saw this doodle (and similar bits of aviation whimsy) was in 1970? Playboy mag - believe it or not.....

Makes sense. That weird plane would suit somebody who doesn't know if they're coming or going.

 

[Mike D]

A push pull configuration naturally leads to another big consideration. How to extract the pilot without turning the pilot into ground chuck? Some kind of boosted or assisted ejection mechanism must be developed so the pilot can clear the rear propeller. At least for the Allies.

The Germans developed an ejector seat for the Do-335.

 

[AlanL]

A push pull configuration naturally leads to another big consideration. How to extract the pilot without turning the pilot into ground chuck? Some kind of boosted or assisted ejection mechanism must be developed so the pilot can clear the rear propeller. At least for the Allies.

The Pfeil had an ejection mechanism that removed obstructions such as the rear propellor, the canopy and the pilot's arms.

 

[Dan]

The Pfeil had an ejection mechanism that removed obstructions such as the rear propellor, the canopy and the pilot's arms.

That sounds very... erm... well, yes, quite.

 

[mudhead]

The first time I saw this doodle (and similar bits of aviation whimsy) was in 1970? Playboy mag - believe it or not.....

I have them in Bruce McCall's Zany Afternoons, a book I recommend unreservedly. I got mine from a remaindered bookshop in Covent Garden about 1988 - it's still got the 95p price sticker on it.

 

[Driftless]

I have them in Bruce McCall's Zany Afternoons, a book I recommend unreservedly. I got mine from a remaindered bookshop in Covent Garden about 1988 - it's still got the 95p price sticker on it.

Thanks for the heads up on the original source! I just ordered a used copy through Abebooks.

 

[Paul_Sussex]

A push pull configuration naturally leads to another big consideration. How to extract the pilot without turning the pilot into ground chuck? Some kind of boosted or assisted ejection mechanism must be developed so the pilot can clear the rear propeller. At least for the Allies.

The other, never quite solved problem for the push pull layout was adequate cooling of the rear engine through all flight regimes. Extended climbs usually making the biggest demands on the cooling systems.

I can't remember where (possibly something to do with a Shuttle escape system?) but I've seen a set-up with a rail extending past the "danger area" to aid in baling out. So possibly something similar and perhaps simpler than a full on ejector seat?

Would cooling be such an issue with a liquid cooled engine?

Make it really "interesting"...liquid cooled in line rear and air cooled radial front engines. Just to give the ground crew extra headaches!

 

[Draconis]

I can't remember where (possibly something to do with a Shuttle escape system?) but I've seen a set-up with a rail extending past the "danger area" to aid in baling out. So possibly something similar and perhaps simpler than a full on ejector seat?

Would cooling be such an issue with a liquid cooled engine?

Make it really "interesting"...liquid cooled in line rear and air cooled radial front engines. Just to give the ground crew extra headaches!

Liquid cooled engines gives you the option of locating the radiators more forward where they can be cooled by the front propellor. That may mean long coolant lines. Liquid or air cooled engines both would need their oil coolers located where there is an adequate cooling air flow and that's likely from the front propellor wash.